Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

[matthewkantar]

ULA, SpaceX and Blue aren't the only launch companies. RL Neutron is also likely runner for these missions. There are also few 1000kg class LVs coming on line soon which could also play role in this constellation deployment.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

You think Neutron will be in regular service before New Glenn? That is either a very rosy take on Rocket Lab, or an abysmal outlook for B.O.

[trimeta]

ULA, SpaceX and Blue aren't the only launch companies. RL Neutron is also likely runner for these missions. There are also few 1000kg class LVs coming on line soon which could also play role in this constellation deployment.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

You think Neutron will be in regular service before New Glenn? That is either a very rosy take on Rocket Lab, or an abysmal outlook for B.O.

First launch, very unlikely, but "regular service," I think it's pretty reasonable. Which will be the first to have their fifth launch? Their tenth? To launch six times in a year?

[meekGee]

I vehemently disagree with the viewpoint that SpaceX should be willing to launch these sats. By the very definition of what you described above, SpaceX not launching the Kuiper sats either kills the Kuiper constellation through schedule slippage, or makes it so expensive that it cannot compete with Starlink, and dies eventually through lack of a cost competitive service offering.

SpaceX cannot be forced to launch a direct competitor’s products. 30 F9 launches earns them maybe $1.5B in once off revenue, while eating Kuiper’s market probably earns them that much and more every year.

It’s a no brainer decision from a business point of view - don’t help Kuiper launch its sats.

I kindly disagree. What you are describing there is textbook anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, which in addition to guaranteeing many of their customers will switch to NG as soon as it is available, also happens to be iillegal.

Don't you have to be a monopoly for that to apply?

As long as Bezos has alternatives (ULA, Arianne, Russia, China, Japan....) I don't think Musk has to agree to launch Kuiper sats.

[M.E.T.]

I vehemently disagree with the viewpoint that SpaceX should be willing to launch these sats. By the very definition of what you described above, SpaceX not launching the Kuiper sats either kills the Kuiper constellation through schedule slippage, or makes it so expensive that it cannot compete with Starlink, and dies eventually through lack of a cost competitive service offering.

SpaceX cannot be forced to launch a direct competitor’s products. 30 F9 launches earns them maybe $1.5B in once off revenue, while eating Kuiper’s market probably earns them that much and more every year.

It’s a no brainer decision from a business point of view - don’t help Kuiper launch its sats.

I kindly disagree. What you are describing there is textbook anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, which in addition to guaranteeing many of their customers will switch to NG as soon as it is available, also happens to be iillegal.

Don't you have to be a monopoly for that to apply?

As long as Bezos has alternatives (ULA, Arianne, Russia, China, Japan....) I don't think Musk has to agree to launch Kuiper sats.

I absolutely doubt that he can legally be forced to, given the facts. I had a look at the list of most common anti-competitive practices, and none of those apply here. No dumping, collusion between companies, market fixing, predatory pricing, coercion, regulatory capture, etc, etc.

All we have here is a company who innovated one critical part of the satellite supply chain - the launch - and deservedly doesn’t want to share that hard earned competitive advantage with its competitors.

Nothing stops said competitors from spending R&D dollars to do their own innovation in that space.

As for Elon saying he is happy to launch competitors satellites - sure he “says” so. And probably will be if its Orbcom or some other insignificant, indirect competitor. But let’s see what happens if Oneweb or Kuiper ever tries to buy a Starship launch to put 400 of their sats up for a tenth the price of any other launcher. I would bet a fair amount of money that it won’t happen.

[bstrong]

Don't you have to be a monopoly for that to apply?

As long as Bezos has alternatives (ULA, Arianne, Russia, China, Japan....) I don't think Musk has to agree to launch Kuiper sats.

I think there's a case to be made that they are actually a "monopolist" according to the FTC. If they really do have the ability to kill Kuiper by denying them launch, then they are basically by definition a monopoly even if there are other competing launchers.

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

source: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Also, since they'll be doing business around the world, they have to worry about anti-trust rules in lots of jurisdictions, including the EU, which tends to be pretty strict about this stuff and also has an axe to grind with SpaceX.

So, IMO, they really do need do need to start taking anti-trust rules seriously at this point.

[meekGee]

Don't you have to be a monopoly for that to apply?

As long as Bezos has alternatives (ULA, Arianne, Russia, China, Japan....) I don't think Musk has to agree to launch Kuiper sats.

I think there's a case to be made that they are actually a "monopolist" according to the FTC. If they really do have the ability to kill Kuiper by denying them launch, then they are basically by definition a monopoly even if there are other competing launchers.

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

source: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Also, since they'll be doing business around the world, they have to worry about anti-trust rules in lots of jurisdictions, including the EU, which tends to be pretty strict about this stuff and also has an axe to grind with SpaceX.

So, IMO, they really do need do need to start taking anti-trust rules seriously at this point.

I am (clearly) not a lawyer but this doesn't read to harshly.

Either way, I agree with those who think Musk will be happy to take BO money. It's not like he's operating at low margins.

[baldusi]

It's more about "market power". The minimum threshold is usually 35% of a market for the FTC "to have a look". Over 50%, and you will be watched carefully. Now, you have to be very careful in how you define your market. So it's not a clear cut case. Since you also have big government contract that might be purported as "subsidy" (allegedly), I think SpaceX would not decline to provide a bid. But, and this is the big issue, there's the question of launch slots availability. In no way you could force SpaceX to give priority to Kuiper above their own competing satellite.
So, while Kuiper might buy a few slots, SpaceX might quite reasonably argue that they can provide a relatively "small" amount of launches per year (say 5).
Kuiper needs about 1650 satellites up by July 2026, and I would assume you have at least 1 year from contract to launch, so this means 4 years of effective time launches. If we assume 50 satellites per launch (Atlas V/Falcon 9 capability), that's 10 launches per year. So SpaceX might say yes to a few, but definitively might not have enough slots for the whole fleet.

[ZachF]

...
What’s that, $100m per launch? Lifting what - maybe 30-40 Kuiper satellites each?

So 40/launch still leaves ~1200 more that need to be launched by 2026. The only to do that with a high degree of confidence they'll meet the deadline is to also buy about 30 Falcon launches.

I'm expecting that contract to be announced with less fanfare in the not too distant future. Probably on a Friday afternoon.

That is possible. I would support it. But if New Glenn isn't doing at least 3 launches per year by 2024 I'll be surprised. And that might only take like 10-15 New Glenn launches.

As I posted above, most launch vehicles take ±4 years to get to their 10th launch, so if NG follows a typical ramp the launch numbers could look like this:

2023: 1
2024: 2
2025: 3
2026: 4
2027: 6

There is also a good chance that at least one of these launches fails. First booster reuse probably wont occur until 2025-26

[JohnM]

snip

There is also a good chance that at least one of these launches fails. First booster reuse probably wont occur until 2025-26

If you're correct and booster reused doesn't occur until 2025-26 that will be very expensive for BO and their customers. I think it was Eric Berger that reported that the New Glenn boosters cost $200M each so they are probably going to be very careful not to expend boosters if they don't need to.

[trimeta]

But, and this is the big issue, there's the question of launch slots availability. In no way you could force SpaceX to give priority to Kuiper above their own competing satellite.
So, while Kuiper might buy a few slots, SpaceX might quite reasonably argue that they can provide a relatively "small" amount of launches per year (say 5).

As I see it, the big distinction is whether SpaceX is limiting the number of slots they make available for Kuiper launcher per year, vs. SpaceX limiting the number of slots they make available for commercial customers in general per year. SpaceX can reasonably say "we want 20 Starlink launches per year, any extra launches will go to commercial customers on a first-come, first-served basis," with perhaps some internal bidding process for priority or even a cap on the number of launches per year which any one customer can buy from them (to ensure availability for other customers). But if they start targeting Kuiper specifically to limit their rate of launch, I could see them getting into trouble.

That said, as alluded to there are ways of structuring blanket rules which would still prevent Kuiper from easily deploying their entire constellation on Falcon 9, and which would keep Starlink well ahead of any competitors in terms of deployment. So I don't think SpaceX would need to go so far as to skirt the line of unfairly targeting Kuiper.

Oh, and I think it would be reasonable for SpaceX to treat government customers (both civil and military) differently from commercial, putting them in a different pool and applying different rules to them. So none of the above would need to constrain how often SpaceX sends up NASA or NRO or DoD or whatever payloads.

[baldusi]

It’s perfectly reasonable for SpaceX to limit the amount of lau ches per year to new clients to no more than X (X probably <5). Still, Kuiper will need about 8 EELV class launches per year to LEO for the next 5 years, on top of Atlas V. Some Falcon 9 would be reasonable. They have had the bad luck that the rest of the western industry (Ariane, Jaxa, ULA) is going through a generational change, and the pandemic delayed them all those two critical initial years.
Plus, the Chinese are forbidden and the Russians are either at capacity (Soyuz) or through another botched generational change (Angara, Soyuz-5).
I firmly believe they will take a few Falcon 9 and make contracts with options for Vulcan, H-3 and/or Ariane 6.

[pb2000]

Any word on where the launches will take place from? This could be just a simple as needing more polar launch capacity, seeing as Telesat needs polar launches too. Do we have any word on if Blue has even started building a pad at Vandenburg?

[russianhalo117]

Any word on where the launches will take place from? This could be just a simple as needing more polar launch capacity, seeing as Telesat needs polar launches too. Do we have any word on if Blue has even started building a pad at Vandenburg?

Skyrocket and others list the launches from SLC-41.

USSF has to assign them a location. I do not recall that happening yet though they were eyeing the SLC-576 trio pad complexes previously.

[trimeta]

Any word on where the launches will take place from? This could be just a simple as needing more polar launch capacity, seeing as Telesat needs polar launches too. Do we have any word on if Blue has even started building a pad at Vandenburg?

Skyrocket and others list the launches from SLC-41.

USSF has to assign them a location. I do not recall that happening yet though they were eyeing the SLC-576 trio pad complexes previously.

VAFB SLC-576E seems to be moving towards a clean-pad multi-tenant design, if ABL planning to launch from there says anything. Probably not available for Blue Origin to take over the way they have CCSFS LC-36.

My records show no one at VAFB SLC-1, and also SLC-2E and SLC-3W seem unoccupied (the other halves of SLC-2 and SLC-3 being used by Firefly Alpha and Atlas V, respectively). Maybe after Delta IV Heavy finishes its last flights from SLC-6, Blue Origin could take it.

[TrevorMonty]

ULA, SpaceX and Blue aren't the only launch companies. RL Neutron is also likely runner for these missions. There are also few 1000kg class LVs coming on line soon which could also play role in this constellation deployment.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

You think Neutron will be in regular service before New Glenn? That is either a very rosy take on Rocket Lab, or an abysmal outlook for B.O.

I can't see Neutron flying before NG but it should be flying before 2026. If Amazon wants this constellation up in time they are going to need to use what ever LVs are avaliable. Some of smaller 1000kg LVs should start flying this year.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Vultur]

ULA, SpaceX and Blue aren't the only launch companies. RL Neutron is also likely runner for these missions. There are also few 1000kg class LVs coming on line soon which could also play role in this constellation deployment.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

You think Neutron will be in regular service before New Glenn? That is either a very rosy take on Rocket Lab, or an abysmal outlook for B.O.

First launch, very unlikely, but "regular service," I think it's pretty reasonable. Which will be the first to have their fifth launch? Their tenth? To launch six times in a year?

Yeah, I kind of agree. Electron launch rate "spooled up" pretty fast. New Glenn is likely to be more expensive and finicky technology (Neutron is going to be kerolox...)

I think it was Eric Berger that reported that the New Glenn boosters cost $200M each so they are probably going to be very careful not to expend boosters if they don't need to.

Wow, yeah, if they're that expensive I don't expect high launch rate for quite a while.

[ZachF]

What was the last prior commercial customer on Atlas V ?

Ariane would perhaps be cheaper?

If you mean Ariane 5, there is no LEO version currently in service. They'd have to wait for Ariane 62. Or wait for OneWeb to be done with Soyuz. Or wait for the Mitsubishi H3. Or settle for smaller launches on PSLV. Or, more likely, some combination of those options.

Ariane 62 is completely uncompetitive for the target orbits, and Ariane 64 wont launch until 2023 (Same timeline as NG), and the first few launches are already spoken for.

They may buy a few 64s out of need, but it'll depend on NG.

[TrevorMonty]

Amazon could've used Vulcan but didn't, my guess is they are only going public on deals with operational LVs. Vulcan may yet be used for some of these 9 launches.

Amazon are likely to have contracts for LVs in development but won't announce anything till they are flying.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Bean Kenobi]

Any word on where the launches will take place from? This could be just a simple as needing more polar launch capacity, seeing as Telesat needs polar launches too. Do we have any word on if Blue has even started building a pad at Vandenburg?

Florida, it's said in the press release : https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2021/04/19/amazon-secures-united-launch-alliance-s-proven-atlas-v-rocket-for-nine-project-kuiper-launches

The Atlas V missions will launch from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.

[russianhalo117]

Any word on where the launches will take place from? This could be just a simple as needing more polar launch capacity, seeing as Telesat needs polar launches too. Do we have any word on if Blue has even started building a pad at Vandenburg?

Skyrocket and others list the launches from SLC-41.

USSF has to assign them a location. I do not recall that happening yet though they were eyeing the SLC-576 trio pad complexes previously.

VAFB SLC-576E seems to be moving towards a clean-pad multi-tenant design, if ABL planning to launch from there says anything. Probably not available for Blue Origin to take over the way they have CCSFS LC-36.

My records show no one at VAFB SLC-1, and also SLC-2E and SLC-3W seem unoccupied (the other halves of SLC-2 and SLC-3 being used by Firefly Alpha and Atlas V, respectively). Maybe after Delta IV Heavy finishes its last flights from SLC-6, Blue Origin could take it.

Actually I  was referring to their visits to the SLC-576A and SLC-576B trio pads (A-1, A-2, A-3) and SLC-576B trio pads (B-1, B-2, B-3). C, D, E complexes each only had one of their three proposed build out pads built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Launch_Complex_576

SLC-1 had some negative reasons previously stated on this forum. SLC-2E and SLC-3W are unlikely as they are to close to their sister pads. SLC-2E which was again revisited by FAI for their Beta launcher which if VAFB gives them their preferred assignment would result in their entire fleet within the property of SLC-2. Besides VAFB and their state commercial equivalent agency provide launch providers a list of build sites and available complexes that would best suit their thrust class and then the launch providers once they have decided from that list begin the consultation and application process with their preferred list and then VAFB and the commercial spaceport assign them a site and they begin the NEPA et al and conversion process and after all of that they receive their official launch site activation and authorization license.