<snip>The only way I can see for Kuiper to meet the deadline is to use Falcon 9 or a Chinese LV. Apparently, Chinese LVs cannot be used for legal reasons (ITAR ?). <snip>
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 08/02/2023 03:19 pm<snip>The only way I can see for Kuiper to meet the deadline is to use Falcon 9 or a Chinese LV. Apparently, Chinese LVs cannot be used for legal reasons (ITAR ?). <snip>Maybe the Wolf Amendment.
T+256: The Kuiper LogjamAUGUST 25, 2023Amazon moved their Project Kuiper prototypes from Vulcan to Atlas V. Between that and some recent conversations I’ve had, I thought it would be a good time to check in on Kuiper and to see how they’re progressing towards deployment. I do some math, and it’s not good.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1697372418447200284?s=46&t=eQrUtTJk6IAt4GyTzH7J2wBeautiful. Seems a slam dunk case to me.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 08/31/2023 11:36 pm*yeet tweet*Beautiful. Seems a slam dunk case to me.Dunno about that. From an advertised price perspective perhaps one could make a fiduciary duty argument, but the reality is even with SpaceX's improved launch cadence, their current launchpad number puts an upper limit on their available launch capacity in light of prioritizing Starlink launches. Utterly maxing out at all 3 pads will only allow limited launch opportunities for kuiper, perhaps making a dent in early constellation deployment cadence, but SpaceX couldn't carry all the early deployment workload. SpaceX only recently obtained SLC-6 and hasn't even begun conversion work yet, and they weren't guaranteed to have acquired it. Thus it falls into a question of whether the decision regarding directly funding a competitor versus risk hedging early deployment cadence was correct. They might get dinged for not acquiring at least one or two launch contracts with SpaceX, but not necessarily for not committing the majority of early deployment to SpaceX. One could even make the claim that ULA/Boeing is a historically reliable partner (same argument for Starliner), so Vulcan development was expected to be on schedule, and Blue Origin was on the hook for the engines for Vulcan and New Glenn anyways so that was the primary project chokepoint (and it wasn't expected to be delayed this much). One could claim it was industry common sense to trust those partners for those timelines...
*yeet tweet*Beautiful. Seems a slam dunk case to me.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 08/31/2023 11:36 pmhttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1697372418447200284?s=46&t=eQrUtTJk6IAt4GyTzH7J2wBeautiful. Seems a slam dunk case to me.Dunno about that. From an advertised price perspective perhaps one could make a fiduciary duty argument, but the reality is even with SpaceX's improved launch cadence, their current launchpad number puts an upper limit on their available launch capacity in light of prioritizing Starlink launches. Utterly maxing out at all 3 pads will only allow limited launch opportunities for kuiper, perhaps making a dent in early constellation deployment cadence, but SpaceX couldn't carry all the early deployment workload. SpaceX only recently obtained SLC-6 and hasn't even begun conversion work yet, and they weren't guaranteed to have acquired it. Thus it falls into a question of whether the decision regarding directly funding a competitor versus risk hedging early deployment cadence was correct. They might get dinged for not acquiring at least one or two launch contracts with SpaceX, but not necessarily for not committing the majority of early deployment to SpaceX. One could even make the claim that ULA/Boeing is a historically reliable partner (same argument for Starliner), so Vulcan development was expected to be on schedule, and Blue Origin was on the hook for the engines for Vulcan and New Glenn anyways so that was the primary project chokepoint (and it wasn't expected to be delayed this much). One could claim it was industry common sense to trust those partners for those timelines...
<snip>Launch capacity is a weird argument to justify excluding SpaceX, seeing as the alternative rockets have launched - checks notes - zero times so far, and some might well be launching zero times before 2025. Furthermore, I find it a double standard to rely on hypothetical rockets like Ariane 6, Vulcan and New Glenn, while ignoring Starship which might well (probably will) reach orbit before any of them.All that being said, the capacity question could only be answered by SpaceX themselves, the opportunity for which was lost by not inviting them to bid.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09/01/2023 01:36 am<snip>Launch capacity is a weird argument to justify excluding SpaceX, seeing as the alternative rockets have launched - checks notes - zero times so far, and some might well be launching zero times before 2025. Furthermore, I find it a double standard to rely on hypothetical rockets like Ariane 6, Vulcan and New Glenn, while ignoring Starship which might well (probably will) reach orbit before any of them.All that being said, the capacity question could only be answered by SpaceX themselves, the opportunity for which was lost by not inviting them to bid.Thinking about it. Launching Kuiper satcoms with SpaceX would have slow the deployment of Starlink. Since SpaceX could not refuse to launch a competitor's satellites and there is only a finite number of launch slots. If Amazon use mostly SpaceX for their Kuiper launches to begin with, then there might be 24+ less Starlink flights annually for a few years. Also it would have cost Amazon about half the price of their current launch contracts with mostly unflown launchers.
<snip>SpaceX is entitled to dedicate their entire launch capacity to Starlink should they so choose. But they do not need to do that as they have spare capacity for high revenue launches.
<snip>Tom Ochinero stated earlier this year that they have the hardware to scale to 200 launches per year if customer demand is there.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 09/01/2023 12:47 pm<snip>Tom Ochinero stated earlier this year that they have the hardware to scale to 200 launches per year if customer demand is there.Would need additional pad capacity and infrastructure with more maritime assets along with good weather to match potential hardware availability.
JB doesn't even have to be tied to BO for this to be a case.Merely guiding Amazon away from business with people he doesn't like, against Amazon's best interest, is reason for a shareholders lawsuit.Having him on the other side just makes the lawsuit more severe. He's not only hurting Amazon, he's profiting from it.
Quote from: meekGee on 09/01/2023 01:47 pmJB doesn't even have to be tied to BO for this to be a case.Merely guiding Amazon away from business with people he doesn't like, against Amazon's best interest, is reason for a shareholders lawsuit.Having him on the other side just makes the lawsuit more severe. He's not only hurting Amazon, he's profiting from it.Agreed. Though it wouldn’t be difficult to counter that, even if benefitting Blue, the only profits Bezos will see still come from Amazon.
Quote from: dglow on 09/01/2023 05:01 pmQuote from: meekGee on 09/01/2023 01:47 pmJB doesn't even have to be tied to BO for this to be a case.Merely guiding Amazon away from business with people he doesn't like, against Amazon's best interest, is reason for a shareholders lawsuit.Having him on the other side just makes the lawsuit more severe. He's not only hurting Amazon, he's profiting from it.Agreed. Though it wouldn’t be difficult to counter that, even if benefitting Blue, the only profits Bezos will see still come from Amazon.Yup, should have said "benefitting" instead of "profiting".
