Amazon Kuiper places largest commercial launch order with ULA, Arianespace, Blue

[edzieba]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

[hplan]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

It's odd that Amazon reports having contracted for 38 Vulcan launches when Tory Bruno reports that Vulcan has 35 contracted launches in total so far.

[jdon759]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

It's odd that Amazon reports having contracted for 38 Vulcan launches when Tory Bruno reports that Vulcan has 35 contracted launches in total so far.

It's logical - and chronologically consistent - to assume that the latest 38 launch contract was finalised after Tory reported the 35 launch number.

[edzieba]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

It's odd that Amazon reports having contracted for 38 Vulcan launches when Tory Bruno reports that Vulcan has 35 contracted launches in total so far.

Not really. Vulcan had 35 launches contracted before this contract was signed, and 73 (35 + 38) after it was signed.

[DanClemmensen]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

The article discusses competing against F9 but fails to mention Starship, which is scheduled to fly before any of the three Amazon picked. Starship might not work, but this is also true of the other three.
Comparing payload masses is subject to lots of uncertaincy so this is probably bad, but better than nothing. Using the payload masses from Wikipedia and picking the most capable launcher in each family, we get:
      38 Vulcan         *   27.2  t =   1033.6
      18 Ariane 6       *  21.7  t  =     390.6
      12 New Glenn   *  45     t  =     540
    total:                                         1964.6

If Starship gets to 150 t, this would take 13 Starship launches to replace these 68 launches (with options for another 4 or 5 to replace the optional 15 New Glenn launches).



 

[DreamyPickle]

This is a major industry-shifting event.

For a very long time lack of demand was cited as the reason for not investing in reuse but after this contract and sanctions against Russia we are actually seeing a shortage of launch capability.

Worth noting there were no wins for neutron despite the fact that it should become available in this timeframe.

Many people say that all the small-launch providers are just a bubble but with historic demand in the medium-lift sector we're likely to see even more investment. There is an opportunity for additional providers who can jump from small to medium rockets.

[matthewkantar]

Booking 68 launches on three untested rockets with never before flown booster engines is…exciting.

[Cheapchips]

Spending $5-8bn (at a guess) on launches is also quite exciting.

[abaddon]

Booking 68 launches on three untested rockets with never before flown booster engines is…exciting.

Seems much safer than booking them on one or two untested rockets.  Amazon has billions to burn and a hard deadline to get their constellation up.  The launch order sizes are also weighted in terms of both timeline and riskiness, with ULA being the soonest/most conservative choice, Ariane 6 being further out but also conservative, and New Glenn being furthest out and riskier.

I don't really consider Neutron not winning anything meaningful, as they are at least as far out/risky as New Glenn and of course Amazon isn't going to pick them over Blue's launcher.

It's good news, SpaceX is in great shape and now these new launchers won't need to suck completely off the government tap to be successful.  Nice to see Bezos's Billions doing something worthwhile for a change.

[Athelstane]

I don't really consider Neutron not winning anything meaningful, as they are at least as far out/risky as New Glenn and of course Amazon isn't going to pick them over Blue's launcher.

Amazon will have more shells to build out after this one, after all...

[Welsh Dragon]

Booking 68 launches on three untested rockets with never before flown booster engines is…exciting.

Ariane 6 uses the Vulcain 2.1, which is as I understand it is pretty much a Vulcain 2 (as flying on Ariane 5) tweaked for easier/cheaper production. It's already been qualified on the stand (source). Never before flown is technically correct, but I wouldn't but it in anywhere the same category as the BE4.

EDIT: Ah I suppose you might mean the P120C, but that's also been qualified already. But yes, also not flown before

[RedLineTrain]

Using the Ariane 64 for a LEO launch seems very expensive and inefficient.

[VaBlue]

Spending $5-8bn (at a guess) on launches is also quite exciting.

LOL!!  Amazon has ~$90B in cash to spend.  And that doesn't include Bezos' personal wealth.  He/they (Amazon) don't give a rats ass about spending ~$10B on some rockets.  No more than Musk cares about spending ~$3B on a twitter conniption (he's already made ~$1.5B on that transaction - in three days!).

The amount of cash these two men hold (not mention what Amazon, Apple, FB, etc, has) is obscene...

[libra]

Spending $5-8bn (at a guess) on launches is also quite exciting.

LOL!!  Amazon has ~$90B in cash to spend.  And that doesn't include Bezos' personal wealth.  He/they (Amazon) don't give a rats ass about spending ~$10B on some rockets.  No more than Musk cares about spending ~$3B on a twitter conniption (he's already made ~$1.5B on that transaction - in three days!).

The amount of cash these two men hold (not mention what Amazon, Apple, FB, etc, has) is obscene...

At $300 billion each, these two men have a wealth matching the GNP of many countries on this planet - and not all of them the poorest.

I readily agree this is kind of obscene - reminds me of that memorable scene of Breaking Bad where a baffled Skyler drags Walter White into a storage area where she piled up all those meth dollars she was unable to launder through their car wash - later estimated to $80 million.
Walt has to pile the dollars into seven barrels and bury them in the desert, and we all know how bad the whole thing ends.
When his original plans, remember, was to make "only" 737000 dollars to pay for his cancer health bills and secure his family future after his death.

[Star One]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

The article discusses competing against F9 but fails to mention Starship, which is scheduled to fly before any of the three Amazon picked. Starship might not work, but this is also true of the other three.
Comparing payload masses is subject to lots of uncertaincy so this is probably bad, but better than nothing. Using the payload masses from Wikipedia and picking the most capable launcher in each family, we get:
      38 Vulcan         *   27.2  t =   1033.6
      18 Ariane 6       *  21.7  t  =     390.6
      12 New Glenn   *  45     t  =     540
    total:                                         1964.6

If Starship gets to 150 t, this would take 13 Starship launches to replace these 68 launches (with options for another 4 or 5 to replace the optional 15 New Glenn launches).

I think the forum should bring in a sweepstakes to pick how quickly someone will mention Starship in a thread as a solution to a particular launch contract or in fact anything else.

[RedLineTrain]

Musk and Bezos didn't get to where they are now through overpaying for services.

[Star One]

Spending $5-8bn (at a guess) on launches is also quite exciting.

LOL!!  Amazon has ~$90B in cash to spend.  And that doesn't include Bezos' personal wealth.  He/they (Amazon) don't give a rats ass about spending ~$10B on some rockets.  No more than Musk cares about spending ~$3B on a twitter conniption (he's already made ~$1.5B on that transaction - in three days!).

The amount of cash these two men hold (not mention what Amazon, Apple, FB, etc, has) is obscene...

This is why Starship and its alleged launch costs aren’t even a factor here, as it just doesn’t matter. Timeline is more important driving factor than any extra launch cost they might occur by not using Space X.

[DanClemmensen]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

The article discusses competing against F9 but fails to mention Starship, which is scheduled to fly before any of the three Amazon picked. Starship might not work, but this is also true of the other three.
Comparing payload masses is subject to lots of uncertaincy so this is probably bad, but better than nothing. Using the payload masses from Wikipedia and picking the most capable launcher in each family, we get:
      38 Vulcan         *   27.2  t =   1033.6
      18 Ariane 6       *  21.7  t  =     390.6
      12 New Glenn   *  45     t  =     540
    total:                                         1964.6

If Starship gets to 150 t, this would take 13 Starship launches to replace these 68 launches (with options for another 4 or 5 to replace the optional 15 New Glenn launches).

I think the forum should bring in a sweepstakes to pick how quickly someone will mention Starship in a thread as a solution to a particular launch contract or in fact anything else.

In this specifc case, do you think New Glenn will fly before Starship? If Starship flies first, it is highly relevant to this particular thread, as opposed to being a universal panacea.

[russianhalo117]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

It's odd that Amazon reports having contracted for 38 Vulcan launches when Tory Bruno reports that Vulcan has 35 contracted launches in total so far.

35 (other customers) +38 (AWS: Kuiper) =73 (total)

[Star One]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

The article discusses competing against F9 but fails to mention Starship, which is scheduled to fly before any of the three Amazon picked. Starship might not work, but this is also true of the other three.
Comparing payload masses is subject to lots of uncertaincy so this is probably bad, but better than nothing. Using the payload masses from Wikipedia and picking the most capable launcher in each family, we get:
      38 Vulcan         *   27.2  t =   1033.6
      18 Ariane 6       *  21.7  t  =     390.6
      12 New Glenn   *  45     t  =     540
    total:                                         1964.6

If Starship gets to 150 t, this would take 13 Starship launches to replace these 68 launches (with options for another 4 or 5 to replace the optional 15 New Glenn launches).

I think the forum should bring in a sweepstakes to pick how quickly someone will mention Starship in a thread as a solution to a particular launch contract or in fact anything else.

In this specifc case, do you think New Glenn will fly before Starship? If Starship flies first, it is highly relevant to this particular thread, as opposed to being a universal panacea.

I think in this case as I’ve already said cost is utterly irrelevant so Starship is a non-factor. Plus Bezos was never going to put any work the way of a direct competitor in mega constellations.

[Star One]

As it says the big loser in all of this seems to be the small launchers. I wonder if that’s why RL have decided to already go bigger with Neutron.

[GWH]

Interesting how the most capable and most reusable vehicle is launching the least.

    18 contracted launches for Ariane 6

    12 contracted launches for New Glenn (up to 15 more)

    38 contracted launches for Vulcan

    Ariane 6 can put up 30-40 satellites per launch

    Vulcan can put up 45 satellites per launch

    New Glenn is capable of 61

Source: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1511340865834430464?s=20&t=hDNqe9fQDU_qHaJUvg6zuA and: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/amazon-signs-blockbuster-launch-deal-for-its-satellite-megaconstellation/

68 launches total (not including the additional NG flights), 3072 satellites if you assume the median of 35 for Ariane 6.

If the numbers were re-arranged to be an 18+18 split for Ariane 6 & Vulcan that would mean New Glenn would need to launch 1632 of them - roughly half - requiring 27 launches to do so for a total of 63 launches.

If New Glenn were ready and capable to do those 27 launches it would save 5 launches in total, and at least $0.5B in savings without even assuming that reusable booster New Glenn costs less than Vulcan.

...

[Lars-J]

So since neither of these launch vehicles are operational (yet) - even assuming if they are operational without delays, how close is Kuiper going to come to the deadline for the # of satellites to launch by a certain date?

[JayWee]

So since neither of these launch vehicles are operational (yet) - even assuming if they are operational without delays, how close is Kuiper going to come to the deadline for the # of satellites to launch by a certain date?

Look at the other thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47811
I suggest merge.

[GreenShrike]

I think the forum should bring in a sweepstakes to pick how quickly someone will mention Starship in a thread as a solution to a particular launch contract or in fact anything else.

Why shouldn't Starship get mentioned? It will be one of many LVs offering commercial services in the relevant timeframe. Seems to me that discussing the competition and alternatives would be highly relevant in a thread about the "largest commercial launch order"...

For example, will there also be an award for mentioning Japan's H3 or ISRO's GSLV Mk3? Because Amazon's apparent strategy of "all of the above" for making certain they have sufficient and timely launches available from *somebody* seemingly only lacks contracts with those two. (China and Russia being out for obvious reasons, of course.)

Of the two, H3 is more of a surprise to me, as JAXA/Mitsubishi are really trying to design it with an eye towards commercialization. ISRO doesn't seem to have much excess capacity for their GSLVs to be of much interest.

And what about an award for mentioning OneWeb? Their Gen2 constellation of ~6300 sats is supposed to start launching mid-decade in the same timeframe as Kuiper's launches, but Amazon calling dibs on 68 flights worldwide has to suck a lot of the oxygen out of the available launch capacity.

ULA, in particular, with their 35 pre-existing launches and now 38 more, is looking at launching an average of ~12 Vulcans a year if those are all launched between 2023 and mid-2029 (i.e. when Kuiper needs to be complete by), and I don't think ULA is going to hit a 12 per year pace for Vulcan right out of the gate. Add in the remaining Atlas 5 launches and you're looking at something approaching SpaceX's (them, again!) launch rates. It should really keep Canaveral's range operators busy for the foreseeable future -- between SpaceX, ULA and Blue, will there be time for anything else?

Ariane 6's 18 launches is 4.5 per year if ending in 2026, or 2.5 if by 2029. Add in their GTO and European government launches, and I'm not certain how many more they could sell. And A64 really is kinda small for LEO -- at 21t it's only about the same capacity as an expendable Falcon 9 -- so even if OneWeb managed to get a half dozen A64 launches a year, that's not going put much of dent in their requirements.

Amazon didn't tap any of the upcoming medium launchers -- Neutron, Terran R, Beta -- so maybe they'll have capacity mid-decade. They'll certainly want to sell OneWeb a bunch of flights, at any rate.

I think SpaceX is out for Kuiper launches, though.  Blue, ULA and ArianeGroup would need to all seriously mess up their respective launchers' debuts and/or fail to quickly ramp their launch cadence -- and even then, H3 should have capacity, and ISRO might actually get their SCE-200 powered launcher ready. On the other hand, if things do go pear shaped (highly unlikely, given ULA's and ArianeGroup's reputations), then Amazon might need to pull a OneWeb and buy from SpaceX to meet their 2026 deadline. In the end, all the money in the world won't help if there's nothing else to buy.

And then there's New Glenn, but will competitors consider Blue to be as unfavourable as SpaceX? Blue is one step removed from Amazon/Kuiper, after all, and Telesat is (hopefully) launching on NG, so maybe not.

On the other hand, OneWeb has already held their nose and bought SpaceX launches -- and OneWeb doesn't have Amazon's mountain of cash to throw at all the high-cost vehicles. I'm thinking that OneWeb might have to seriously start getting their own launchers under contract for their Gen2 constellation, or be caught short when they want to start launching.

I wonder how much OneWeb's Soyuz situation situation spurred Amazon to spread the love, or just added emphasis as to why not going sole-source is a good idea. And I wonder if OneWeb will necessarily be following suit for Gen2.


All-in-all, this launch contract is certainly momentous, for both the launch market, as well as other megaconstellation operators.

[TrevorMonty]

I don't really consider Neutron not winning anything meaningful, as they are at least as far out/risky as New Glenn and of course Amazon isn't going to pick them over Blue's launcher.

Amazon will have more shells to build out after this one, after all...

There is likely to be a few of RL's components on each of these satellites.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[XRZ.YZ]

Roaring Twenties for Rockets.

[Robotbeat]

Spending $5-8bn (at a guess) on launches is also quite exciting.

LOL!!  Amazon has ~$90B in cash to spend.  And that doesn't include Bezos' personal wealth.  He/they (Amazon) don't give a rats ass about spending ~$10B on some rockets.  No more than Musk cares about spending ~$3B on a twitter conniption (he's already made ~$1.5B on that transaction - in three days!).

The amount of cash these two men hold (not mention what Amazon, Apple, FB, etc, has) is obscene...

They don’t hold that much actual cash. Once all the fees are due, about half that.

This isn’t a personal Bezos project, it comes out of Amazon’s cash reserves. $10B (just for launch!) out of $80B in cash for a side project not directly related to their core businesses is non-trivial. Add another $10B for the satellites.

$10B is more than SpaceX has spent or will spend on Starship before its first crewed launch. If they operated like SpaceX, Amazon could develop and test their own reusable launch vehicle and launch the whole constellation for less than what they’re paying these 3 largely expendable launch providers.

It’s a really impressive bonfire of cash! Lots of expendable stages in the ocean.

[Robert_the_Doll]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

It's odd that Amazon reports having contracted for 38 Vulcan launches when Tory Bruno reports that Vulcan has 35 contracted launches in total so far.

If you are referring to the Off-Nominal podcast interview, Tory Bruno stated he had sold "over 35" Vulcan launches.

[ZachF]

Interesting how the most capable and most reusable vehicle is launching the least.

    18 contracted launches for Ariane 6

    12 contracted launches for New Glenn (up to 15 more)

    38 contracted launches for Vulcan

    Ariane 6 can put up 30-40 satellites per launch

    Vulcan can put up 45 satellites per launch

    New Glenn is capable of 61

Source: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1511340865834430464?s=20&t=hDNqe9fQDU_qHaJUvg6zuA and: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/amazon-signs-blockbuster-launch-deal-for-its-satellite-megaconstellation/

68 launches total (not including the additional NG flights), 3072 satellites if you assume the median of 35 for Ariane 6.

If the numbers were re-arranged to be an 18+18 split for Ariane 6 & Vulcan that would mean New Glenn would need to launch 1632 of them - roughly half - requiring 27 launches to do so for a total of 63 launches.

If New Glenn were ready and capable to do those 27 launches it would save 5 launches in total, and at least $0.5B in savings without even assuming that reusable booster New Glenn costs less than Vulcan.

...

Looking at those numbers then it appears that Kuiper sats will likely be ~500-600kg each.

Don’t forget the 9 Atlas V launches too. That’s probably ~300 satellites total.

[Robotbeat]

From what I can tell, Ariane 64 is about $6000/kg IMLEO. Vulcan is probably similar, although who knows what New Glenn is. If Kuiper were to compete with the 40,000 satellite Starlink constellation at 600kg apiece, that'd cost them $144B to launch them. Almost double the total cash reserves of Amazon. (and that doesn't count the satellites.(

Starship, at ~$100/kg (100-150 tonnes at $10-15 million a launch, which seems pretty reasonable to me), that's just $2.4B, maybe a quarter of what Amazon just committed to. Starship + Starlink will start launching before any of the new batch does. And probably even before the Atlas V launches the first Kuiper satellites.

To go toe to toe with SpaceX without an operational fully reusable launch vehicle will mean Amazon runs out of money. They're going to need the Jarvis-ified New Glenn, even if they're prepared to bonfire cash to stay in the game.

...ooo, this is getting good!

[M.E.T.]

From what I can tell, Ariane 64 is about $6000/kg IMLEO. Vulcan is probably similar, although who knows what New Glenn is. If Kuiper were to compete with the 40,000 satellite Starlink constellation at 600kg apiece, that'd cost them $144B to launch them. Almost double the total cash reserves of Amazon. (and that doesn't count the satellites.(

Starship, at ~$100/kg (100-150 tonnes at $10-15 million a launch, which seems pretty reasonable to me), that's just $2.4B, maybe a quarter of what Amazon just committed to. Starship + Starlink will start launching before any of the new batch does. And probably even before the Atlas V launches the first Kuiper satellites.

To go toe to toe with SpaceX without an operational fully reusable launch vehicle will mean Amazon runs out of money. They're going to need the Jarvis-ified New Glenn, even if they're prepared to bonfire cash to stay in the game.

...ooo, this is getting good!

Indeed. And those were just the financial implications of increased launch cost - and mostly focused on the initial constellation (which will have to be continuously replenished). We haven’t even touched on the impact of slower launch cadence and resultant schedule lengthening.

Historically, BO, ULA and Ariane don’t move particularly fast. Can they ramp up their cadence to match SpaceX’s already ludicrous F9 launch pace - not to mention the hockey stick curve Starship’s introduction will bring to the SpaceX capability graph?

Highly unlikely.

[Robotbeat]

I actually would be surprised if 5 years from now, Ariane 6, Vulcan, and New Glenn COMBINED have reached the one-a-week rate Falcon 9 is doing right now.

The most Atlas V ever launched was 9 times to orbit a year. The most Ariane 5 ever launched was 6 times per year (even Ariane 4 only ever flew up to 12 times per year and the Ariane family altogether only ever reached 12 per year maximum). The most Blue Origin launched was 0 times to orbit per year (and New Shepard, a much tinier vehicle with far fewer constraints than an orbital launcher, only flew at most 6 times per year suborbitally.) The most optimistic numbers here for history would point to 27 launches per year altogether.

It'll be a huge challenge to even do 12 launches per year altogether on average through 2026, considering they're all starting at zero launches so far this year.

[M.E.T.]

I actually would be surprised if 5 years from now, Ariane 6, Vulcan, and New Glenn COMBINED have reached the one-a-week rate Falcon 9 is doing right now.

Now, I am the first to emphasise that launch revenue is fairly insignificant in the context of the huge potential of the LEO internet market. But as a cost element to the provision of your competitive internet service, an extra few billion in annual launch costs, coupled with a slower roll out cycle will make you bleed cash every year while trying to compete with a rival who does not face those disadvantages. Especially if that rival is 5 years ahead of you schedule wise, and already in the net positive earnings phase while you are still trying to get a service up and running and attract customers.

Not to mention that the rival will not be standing still, but instead will be constantly innovating to try and increase its already substantial lead.

Frankly, this has the potential to be a huge cash drain for Amazon over many years if they don’t play it smart.

Edit

Also, I admit my confusion as to which of the two threads to post in. Just trying to engage with Robotbeat’s valid points raised.

[TrevorMonty]

I wouldn't underestimate ULA's ability to launch at high cadence. They've not had reason to in past as most launches are one off special missions. Kuiper launches will all be same which helps speed things up especially with payload preparation.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Robotbeat]

I wouldn't underestimate ULA's ability to launch at high cadence. They've not had reason to in past as most launches are one off special missions. Kuiper launches will all be same which helps speed things up especially with payload preparation.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

That's true, and if SMART reuse works, that should help with launch rate. HOWEVER... this is going to take a while to ramp up launch rate. I doubt SMART reuse will enter into the equation until maybe the very end.

But this is a huge overall global launch rate, between Starlink, OneWeb, and Kuiper. Last year, we got 144 orbital launches globally, eclipsing finally the Cold War peak of 139 in 1967.

We are, in the very least, in the midst of a new golden age of spaceflight.

[Asteroza]

I wonder how close this will put eastern range ops to their limits? We know there was refurbishment and other other work done to increase launch cadence, but I suspect that was assuming the driver would be SpaceX and not so much from any others. With Atlas5/NG/Vulcan all pushing up their cadence, can the eastern range accommodate that with the equipment and people they have now, or are they going to need another upgrade and added personnel?

For that matter, how much pressure will this put on Vandenberg as well, as they haven't had the same level of upgrades, just as SpaceX was increasing their cadence to speed up Starlink, while now also taking on the OneWeb buildout?

[Robotbeat]

I suspect SpaceX will still dominate the launch rate in terms of range resources.

[su27k]

Remember the previous "largest commercial launch order in history", and how "well" that worked out for the company buying the launches? (OneWeb Just Placed What It’s Calling the Largest Commercial Launch Order in History)

Yeah, I'm seeing a high probability history will repeat itself: If you make decisions that doesn't make sense economically, sooner or later it'll come home to roost and bite you in the behind. And this time don't count on Musk being magnanimous and lend a helping hand, he may be willing to help a non-competitive competitor who has already fired Greg Wyler, but it's doubtful there's the willingness to pull Bezos out of the mess of his own making.

[Robotbeat]

However, Amazon actually has money and is spreading the risk among multiple providers. But I agree. Not picking SpaceX for ANY of the launches is probably not helping their credibility. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I'd be asking why they're burning billions more of their cash pile than is necessary to launch Project Kuiper. And doing so on completely unproven rockets, even while multiple potentially cheaper launch vehicles in the same class are under development and planned to be completed soon (Neutron, Terran-R, etc).

(Realize that at the end of 2020, ULA was only worth about $1.5 Billion. Amazon could've BOUGHT ULA.)

[Robotbeat]

This is all good for medium RLVs like New Glenn, Neutron, and Terran-R. (Vulcan SMART kinda half counts.)

Reusable rockets need lots and lots of launch demand.

[LouScheffer]

This will bring up some interesting supply chain issues.  RUAG, for example, will need to make an additional 54 fairing sets, since they make the fairings both for Ariane and Vulcan.   Are there enough trained workers to build that many rockets and satellites?  It may be necessary to import workers or build at other sites.  Can the folks who build space-qualified components keep up?

A RUAG failure could cause a stand-down for both Vulcan and Ariane launches, a BE-4 failure for both New Glenn and Vulcan, and hurricane damage could halt SpaceX, Vulcan, and New Glenn.  Lots of potential choke points here.  Interesting times ahead!

[ZachF]

This will bring up some interesting supply chain issues.  RUAG, for example, will need to make an additional 54 fairing sets, since they make the fairings both for Ariane and Vulcan.   Are there enough trained workers to build that many rockets and satellites?  It may be necessary to import workers or build at other sites.  Can the folks who build space-qualified components keep up?

A RUAG failure could cause a stand-down for both Vulcan and Ariane launches, a BE-4 failure for both New Glenn and Vulcan, and hurricane damage could halt SpaceX, Vulcan, and New Glenn.  Lots of potential choke points here.  Interesting times ahead!

RUAG is building a new facility in the USA for Vulcan, so they will at least have double the amount of fairing factories.

[matthewkantar]

Is it really "Smart reuse" if you throw away all of the tankage, the interstage and SIX, count em, six solid boosters every time you launch? Does anybody have a guess as to how much six 5' X 72' carbon fiber boosters will cost?

[GWH]

Is it really "Smart reuse" if you throw away all of the tankage, the interstage and SIX, count em, six solid boosters every time you launch? Does anybody have a guess as to how much six 5' X 72' carbon fiber boosters will cost?

Information a few years old says $3M cost each,  $5M price to customer.  So $30M. Probably less with volume but then again inflation is whacky right now.  Much cheaper than the AJR boosters Atlas V flew with.

Still a pretty large amount of exendable hardware compared to New Glenn.

[Welsh Dragon]

Is it really "Smart reuse" if you throw away all of the tankage, the interstage and SIX, count em, six solid boosters every time you launch? Does anybody have a guess as to how much six 5' X 72' carbon fiber boosters will cost?

Have I missed something? How do we know it's the 6 booster version that will be flying these contracts? Based on presumed launch weight?

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Remember the previous "largest commercial launch order in history", and how "well" that worked out for the company buying the launches? (OneWeb Just Placed What It’s Calling the Largest Commercial Launch Order in History)

Yeah, I'm seeing a high probability history will repeat itself: If you make decisions that doesn't make sense economically, sooner or later it'll come home to roost and bite you in the behind. And this time don't count on Musk being magnanimous and lend a helping hand, he may be willing to help a non-competitive competitor who has already fired Greg Wyler, but it's doubtful there's the willingness to pull Bezos out of the mess of his own making.

I don’t see this as an economics issue. Amazon has money to burn and has decided it wants to occupy some prime LEO real estate for itself. Tighter regulations on LEO constellations would seem to be a realistic possibility. Having a large extant  constellation could be a huge advantage if that happens.

[woods170]

This will bring up some interesting supply chain issues.  RUAG, for example, will need to make an additional 54 fairing sets, since they make the fairings both for Ariane and Vulcan.   Are there enough trained workers to build that many rockets and satellites?  It may be necessary to import workers or build at other sites.  Can the folks who build space-qualified components keep up?

A RUAG failure could cause a stand-down for both Vulcan and Ariane launches, a BE-4 failure for both New Glenn and Vulcan, and hurricane damage could halt SpaceX, Vulcan, and New Glenn.  Lots of potential choke points here.  Interesting times ahead!

RUAG is building a new facility in the USA for Vulcan, so they will at least have double the amount of fairing factories.

Minor nit: that "new facility in the USA for Vulcan" already exists.

RUAG Space moved production of fairings for Atlas V (and Vulcan!) to the USA in 2017. They are operating out a former ULA Delta facility in Decatur, located right next to ULA's rocket factory. This factory is already in the process of switching from producing Atlas V fairings to Vulcan fairings. Its production capacity is scaled such that it can keep up with the production capacity of ULA's rocket factory.

The other fairing factory of RUAG is situated in Switzerland. Where it continues to produce fairings for Ariane 5 and Ariane 6.

Production capacity is no issue for RUAG Space.

[Asteroza]

Is it really "Smart reuse" if you throw away all of the tankage, the interstage and SIX, count em, six solid boosters every time you launch? Does anybody have a guess as to how much six 5' X 72' carbon fiber boosters will cost?

Have I missed something? How do we know it's the 6 booster version that will be flying these contracts? Based on presumed launch weight?

'cuz Tory sez so

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1511509009307561984

[Star One]

I think the forum should bring in a sweepstakes to pick how quickly someone will mention Starship in a thread as a solution to a particular launch contract or in fact anything else.

Why shouldn't Starship get mentioned? It will be one of many LVs offering commercial services in the relevant timeframe. Seems to me that discussing the competition and alternatives would be highly relevant in a thread about the "largest commercial launch order"...

For example, will there also be an award for mentioning Japan's H3 or ISRO's GSLV Mk3? Because Amazon's apparent strategy of "all of the above" for making certain they have sufficient and timely launches available from *somebody* seemingly only lacks contracts with those two. (China and Russia being out for obvious reasons, of course.)

Of the two, H3 is more of a surprise to me, as JAXA/Mitsubishi are really trying to design it with an eye towards commercialization. ISRO doesn't seem to have much excess capacity for their GSLVs to be of much interest.

And what about an award for mentioning OneWeb? Their Gen2 constellation of ~6300 sats is supposed to start launching mid-decade in the same timeframe as Kuiper's launches, but Amazon calling dibs on 68 flights worldwide has to suck a lot of the oxygen out of the available launch capacity.

ULA, in particular, with their 35 pre-existing launches and now 38 more, is looking at launching an average of ~12 Vulcans a year if those are all launched between 2023 and mid-2029 (i.e. when Kuiper needs to be complete by), and I don't think ULA is going to hit a 12 per year pace for Vulcan right out of the gate. Add in the remaining Atlas 5 launches and you're looking at something approaching SpaceX's (them, again!) launch rates. It should really keep Canaveral's range operators busy for the foreseeable future -- between SpaceX, ULA and Blue, will there be time for anything else?

Ariane 6's 18 launches is 4.5 per year if ending in 2026, or 2.5 if by 2029. Add in their GTO and European government launches, and I'm not certain how many more they could sell. And A64 really is kinda small for LEO -- at 21t it's only about the same capacity as an expendable Falcon 9 -- so even if OneWeb managed to get a half dozen A64 launches a year, that's not going put much of dent in their requirements.

Amazon didn't tap any of the upcoming medium launchers -- Neutron, Terran R, Beta -- so maybe they'll have capacity mid-decade. They'll certainly want to sell OneWeb a bunch of flights, at any rate.

I think SpaceX is out for Kuiper launches, though.  Blue, ULA and ArianeGroup would need to all seriously mess up their respective launchers' debuts and/or fail to quickly ramp their launch cadence -- and even then, H3 should have capacity, and ISRO might actually get their SCE-200 powered launcher ready. On the other hand, if things do go pear shaped (highly unlikely, given ULA's and ArianeGroup's reputations), then Amazon might need to pull a OneWeb and buy from SpaceX to meet their 2026 deadline. In the end, all the money in the world won't help if there's nothing else to buy.

And then there's New Glenn, but will competitors consider Blue to be as unfavourable as SpaceX? Blue is one step removed from Amazon/Kuiper, after all, and Telesat is (hopefully) launching on NG, so maybe not.

On the other hand, OneWeb has already held their nose and bought SpaceX launches -- and OneWeb doesn't have Amazon's mountain of cash to throw at all the high-cost vehicles. I'm thinking that OneWeb might have to seriously start getting their own launchers under contract for their Gen2 constellation, or be caught short when they want to start launching.

I wonder how much OneWeb's Soyuz situation situation spurred Amazon to spread the love, or just added emphasis as to why not going sole-source is a good idea. And I wonder if OneWeb will necessarily be following suit for Gen2.


All-in-all, this launch contract is certainly momentous, for both the launch market, as well as other megaconstellation operators.

As I said above for financial, time and probably personal reasons Starship would never come under consideration for these launches.

[Star One]

Remember the previous "largest commercial launch order in history", and how "well" that worked out for the company buying the launches? (OneWeb Just Placed What It’s Calling the Largest Commercial Launch Order in History)

Yeah, I'm seeing a high probability history will repeat itself: If you make decisions that doesn't make sense economically, sooner or later it'll come home to roost and bite you in the behind. And this time don't count on Musk being magnanimous and lend a helping hand, he may be willing to help a non-competitive competitor who has already fired Greg Wyler, but it's doubtful there's the willingness to pull Bezos out of the mess of his own making.

I don’t think One Web as they were then and Amazon as they are now are at all comparable.

[DJPledger]

Why didn't Amazon just do the sensible thing and go with SpaceX for launching Kuiper? Going with SpaceX for the whole Kuiper project would save Amazon many billions of $ and very likely get the whole Kuiper constellation launched considerably sonner. F9 is fully proven and launching about once per week on average while Vulcan, NG, and A6 have not even launched yet with the earliest possible launch of any of these 3 being Vulcan at the back end of this year. Also not to mention SS which may launch before any of those 3 mentioned above.

[kevinof]

My guess?  It’s the Jeff vs Elon show and all that “where’s my engines” stuff on twitter might have made Spacex verboten. Plus why give your competitor a look at your sats and how you have optimised them.

The next Amazon shareholder meeting will be interesting.

Why didn't Amazon just do the sensible thing and go with SpaceX for launching Kuiper? Going with SpaceX for the whole Kuiper project would save Amazon many billions of $ and very likely get the whole Kuiper constellation launched considerably sonner. F9 is fully proven and launching about once per week on average while Vulcan, NG, and A6 have not even launched yet with the earliest possible launch of any of these 3 being Vulcan at the back end of this year. Also not to mention SS which may launch before any of those 3 mentioned above.

[Robotbeat]

If I were an Amazon shareholder, though, I’d be asking hard questions. That’s a LOT of money to shovel into the ocean over a billionaire’s grudge.

Edit: moved from an L2 thread (because there’s nothing L2 about it):

Diversification is good, but a little sad that RLVs other than New Glenn (such as Neutron, Terran-R, and possibly a reusable Firefly rocket, plus whatever Stoke is doing) weren’t further along and selected. It’s sad to see such massive amount of money used to prop up dead end expendable rockets instead of supporting the reusable rockets that could truly compete with SpaceX. …although quite a few satellites will be launched with New Glenn.

[Borgias]

As it says the big loser in all of this seems to be the small launchers. I wonder if that’s why RL have decided to already go bigger with Neutron.

Not really because there will be a saturation of the medium lifters capacity who won’t be able to accept new contracts without important delays.

[spacenut]

We have Amazon Echo's in our home.  They have the worst search engine, either don't know or give you a wrong answer.  I would hope Kuiper is better.   Google and Sirus are better search engines.  Also, they have never really improved over time.  Seems like Bezos sells a product that is not ready, and is he going to be able to manufacture all these satellites in just a few years? 

What if there are problems with Vulcan that could delay even further?  What if there are problem with Ariane 6?  I trust ULA to make a good rocket, but not enough information on BE-4 yet. 

[su27k]

Remember the previous "largest commercial launch order in history", and how "well" that worked out for the company buying the launches? (OneWeb Just Placed What It’s Calling the Largest Commercial Launch Order in History)

Yeah, I'm seeing a high probability history will repeat itself: If you make decisions that doesn't make sense economically, sooner or later it'll come home to roost and bite you in the behind. And this time don't count on Musk being magnanimous and lend a helping hand, he may be willing to help a non-competitive competitor who has already fired Greg Wyler, but it's doubtful there's the willingness to pull Bezos out of the mess of his own making.

I don’t see this as an economics issue. Amazon has money to burn and has decided it wants to occupy some prime LEO real estate for itself. Tighter regulations on LEO constellations would seem to be a realistic possibility. Having a large extant  constellation could be a huge advantage if that happens.

They can occupy LEO real estate equally well - if not faster - by launching on SpaceX. And "having money to burn" is a very bad investment strategy, remember OneWeb was once backed by SoftBank, which had a $100B investment fund, they also "had money to burn", but a few bad investment and an economic downturn forced them to abandon OneWeb, which led to the latter's bankruptcy. Nobody is immune from the consequences of bad economical decisions, Amazon is no exception.

[arachnitect]

Why didn't Amazon just do the sensible thing and go with SpaceX for launching Kuiper? Going with SpaceX for the whole Kuiper project would save Amazon many billions of $ and very likely get the whole Kuiper constellation launched considerably sonner. F9 is fully proven and launching about once per week on average while Vulcan, NG, and A6 have not even launched yet with the earliest possible launch of any of these 3 being Vulcan at the back end of this year. Also not to mention SS which may launch before any of those 3 mentioned above.

Is there a source for SpaceX offering better price/schedule/terms than Amazon got through the other 3?

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule. However, they may not have done so.

[abaddon]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule. However, they may not have done so.

I'm wondering if SpaceX just offered Starship.  In that case I could see Amazon being conservative and going with a couple of "new launchers built by reliable old space companies" with some New Glenn being thrown in because Bezos.  Ariane 6 is a conservative design and Vulcan is as well.  Throw in Vulcan supporting Blue Origin as a secondary bonus, and Starship might not look that appealing, given some skepticism about SpaceX hitting their (massively ambitious) targets.

Worth remembering there are no satellites yet and we don't have any hints (well, I don't, please correct if I am wrong) when there will be.  Falcon 9 is a no-brainer right now, but if Amazon isn't going to have satellites ready for a while, it makes less sense.

[Jim]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

[abaddon]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

That's cute Jim, but why don't you tell us something useful?

[Tuts36]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

I'm actually reading this as more of a bias towards reuseable launch, and the economic benefits thereof to the competition. 

[brussell]

Is ABL mentioned anywhere? Didn't Amazon Kuiper contracted (or at least committed) to a bunch of launches with them?

[Jim]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

That's cute Jim, but why don't you tell us something useful?

That is my point, it is useless to such because of the engrained bias.

Comments like "no brainer" reveals it.  You don't have the knowledge or insight to make such a claim.

[abaddon]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

That's cute Jim, but why don't you tell us something useful?

That is my point, it is useless to such because of the engrained bias.

I find your insights valuable, and I know many others do.  Throwing another bone onto the well-worn "SpaceX fan/anti-fan" pile doesn't contribute anything positive.

Comments like "no brainer" reveals it.  You don't have the knowledge or insight to make such a claim.

My comment was that if Amazon wanted to launch right now SpaceX would be a no-brainer.  I'd be happy to listen to your insight into why that comment is inaccurate, if you care to contribute it.

[EDIT] Forgot about those Atlas V launches that are already contracted, clearly that was the contract that F9 would have been competing for, and already lost.

[DanClemmensen]

Why didn't Amazon just do the sensible thing and go with SpaceX for launching Kuiper? Going with SpaceX for the whole Kuiper project would save Amazon many billions of $ and very likely get the whole Kuiper constellation launched considerably sonner. F9 is fully proven and launching about once per week on average while Vulcan, NG, and A6 have not even launched yet with the earliest possible launch of any of these 3 being Vulcan at the back end of this year. Also not to mention SS which may launch before any of those 3 mentioned above.

Is there a source for SpaceX offering better price/schedule/terms than Amazon got through the other 3?

I do not know how we can evaluate the likely launch price offers for Vulcan, Ariane 6, and New Glenn.

SpaceX alleges that F9 will launch at least 65% of the entire world's payload mass to orbit this year. That makes them the de facto market leader and puts them at risk of violating anti-trust law if they fail to provide non-discriminatory pricing. From this, we can conclude that SpaceX would offer the same pricing to Amazon/Kuiper that they did to OneWeb. They might be able to legitimately drop the price a bit by offering a bulk discount, but a higher price might lead to a lawsuit. So, we have a starting point for our guess as to an offering price for F9 launches to Amazon/Kuiper.

For the same anti-trust reason, SpaceX would find it awkward to claim a lack of launch opportunities. If they were willing to bump Starlinks in favor of OneWeb launches, they cannot claim that there are no slots for Kuiper.

I suppose SpaceX could claim that F9 will reach end-of-life before the end of the Kuiper launch schedule, but I think a good anti-trust lawyer would tear this argument to shreds, since it implies that SpaceX would have an alternative in place and the contract could be written to include the use of the alternative.

[JayWee]

Worth remembering there are no satellites yet and we don't have any hints (well, I don't, please correct if I am wrong) when there will be.  Falcon 9 is a no-brainer right now, but if Amazon isn't going to have satellites ready for a while, it makes less sense.

Is ABL mentioned anywhere? Didn't Amazon Kuiper contracted (or at least committed) to a bunch of launches with them?

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/1/22752469/amazon-project-kuiper-prototype-satellite-fcc-2022-abl-space-systems

Amazon’s ambitious satellite-internet project, Project Kuiper, aims to launch its first two prototype satellites in the fourth quarter of 2022, according to an experimental launch license the company filed with the Federal Communications Commission today. Called KuiperSat-1 and KuiperSat-2, the two prototypes are supposed to launch on an experimental new rocket called the RS1, currently being developed by startup ABL Space Systems based in El Segundo, California.

[abaddon]

Worth remembering there are no satellites yet and we don't have any hints (well, I don't, please correct if I am wrong) when there will be.  Falcon 9 is a no-brainer right now, but if Amazon isn't going to have satellites ready for a while, it makes less sense.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/1/22752469/amazon-project-kuiper-prototype-satellite-fcc-2022-abl-space-systems

Amazon’s ambitious satellite-internet project, Project Kuiper, aims to launch its first two prototype satellites in the fourth quarter of 2022, according to an experimental launch license the company filed with the Federal Communications Commission today. Called KuiperSat-1 and KuiperSat-2, the two prototypes are supposed to launch on an experimental new rocket called the RS1, currently being developed by startup ABL Space Systems based in El Segundo, California.

Thanks @JayWee.  Based on the fact that their first orbital prototypes are slated NET Q422, it seems likely the new launcher timeline isn't likely to be a limiting factor, between at least one of Ariane/Vulcan.

[EDIT] I just realized I'm forgetting the Atlas V launches already contracted, which will easily be enough to absorb any launcher delays and covers them for the short term.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule. However, they may not have done so.

I'm wondering if SpaceX just offered Starship.  In that case I could see Amazon being conservative and going with a couple of "new launchers built by reliable old space companies" with some New Glenn being thrown in because Bezos.  Ariane 6 is a conservative design and Vulcan is as well.  Throw in Vulcan supporting Blue Origin as a secondary bonus, and Starship might not look that appealing, given some skepticism about SpaceX hitting their (massively ambitious) targets.

Worth remembering there are no satellites yet and we don't have any hints (well, I don't, please correct if I am wrong) when there will be.  Falcon 9 is a no-brainer right now, but if Amazon isn't going to have satellites ready for a while, it makes less sense.

Ive seen estimates of Atlas V Kuiper launches in the first quarter of 2023, but stuff usually slips.

[Jim]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

[Redclaws]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

Well, matters of personal taste are *usually* considered more important in smartphones than launch vehicles, but what would I know.

Jim,

Do you have any evidence why it’s likely the decision not to use SpaceX *at all* was motivated by something other than commercial animus? “Commercial animus” being defined here as “commercial reasons not related to cost or convenience of service”, in this case, a desire to avoid funding Starlink regardless of the cost.

We have ample evidence of these launchers struggling to win commercial contracts against F9.  It seems truly remarkable that F9 is excluded *entirely*, given it’s by far the most prolific commercial launcher on the market right now.  OneWeb just booked a similar service and chose SpaceX.  Do you really believe SpaceX was unable to offer competitive pricing or schedule options vs *any* of these providers?

[DanClemmensen]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

[abaddon]

Honestly, as per my edits, I forgot Amazon already secured multiple Atlas V launches for the early deployment phase.  It's hardly a stretch to imagine ULA offering F9-competitive pricing for a block buy of nine or whatever Atlas Vs given they need to fly out the remainder of their already purchased RD-180s and the US Govt has to phase them out.

(Before anyone goes "SpaceX amazing people" on me for suggesting ULA had to offer a discount to compete with SpaceX, ULA is on record for wanting to retire Atlas V due to its lack of competitiveness in the commercial market in addition to the Russian engine problem).

Starship vs Vulcan+Ariane+New Glenn is a different proposition.  As I mentioned earlier, going with more conservative launcher designs from proven launch companies isn't really a surprising decision.

[butters]

ULA, Arianespace, and Blue Origin need these bulk orders on their manifests more than SpaceX does, and Amazon needs to cultivate launch service relationships more than they need to launch ASAP for the lowest possible cost. I'm sure Kuiper got an excellent deal relative to what these launch providers would typically charge for a one-off, and whatever the difference might be relative to SpaceX is probably not so large that it would outweigh the long-term strategic considerations.

As much as we can read into Bezos' grand vision for the orbital economy, it seems clear that he envisions many companies engaged in the means of production, not just Blue Origin and certainly not just SpaceX. I think there's some paternalism in play here where Bezos sees himself as responsible for whipping the global (or I guess "free world") aerospace industry into shape to facilitate his objectives and, to an extent, counter the growing dominance of SpaceX.

Elon might weight every decision on the basis of whether it moves his ultimate goal sooner or later in time, but part of the Bezos "gradatim" philosophy is a willingness to trade schedule for an end state closer to his ideals. Sooner and quite possibly cheaper doesn't necessarily carry the day if the result is not "better" in his view. He'll slow down to accommodate the development of more diverse and heterogeneous industrial base because that's a big part of how he wants the future to look.

[matthewkantar]

I am curious to see if any attempt is made to recover fairings on any of the three new rockets. In the case of Vulcan/Atlas, I guess if you are tossing out a billion dollars worth of solids, chasing them in to the drink with a quarter of a billion dollars worth of fairings is no big deal.

[matthewkantar]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

[Jim]

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

Buying never flown rockets from experienced providers is not something new.

[Blackjax]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule.

Do we really know this though?  They are already up to 60 launches planned this year and that is huge.  As came up with the oneweb launches, there is a real question of how many launches they can push through their existing manufacturing & launch infrastructure (which they might be unwilling to substantially upgrade due to a desire to move over to starship as soon as practical).  It's possible they can't handle this amount of additional volume without changes they are not interested in making. 

Additionally, given that all three other options have unproven vehicles and have a strong motivation to price competitively to get this business for their unproven vehicles, the prices might not be as bad as everyone is imagining.

I don't know that any of this is true but the potential for it makes me think we should be cautious about assuming with certaintly that SpaceX would be the clear choice.

[TrevorMonty]

While Bezos is chairman of board he isn't CEO anymore and isn't solely responsible for deciding which launch providers Amazon uses. Management may have excluded him from decision making process given he owns Blue and conflict of interests.

Amazon is on a tight schedule and can't risk relying on new RLVs like Neutron and Terran R. A6 and Vulcan maybe new LVs but they are flying lot of flight proven systems and expected to fly in next few months. The other big plus is both companies have excellent launch records.
New Glenn on other hand is riskier option but likely to be cheaper than A6 and Vulcan.

 The initial constellation of 3500 satellites won't be last expect 1000s more over the coming years. There will be other launch contracts in future, by which time the new generation of RLVs will be flying.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[matthewkantar]

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

Buying never flown rockets from experienced providers is not something new.

No one said it was new. What is the appeal?

[webdan]

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

Buying never flown rockets from experienced providers is not something new.

But flying "flown" rockets from experienced providers "was" something new. Seems it's no longer the case. And an ever larger section of the launch industry seems to agree because it can/does save them money which makes them more money.

Don't get me wrong on this however. I'm in the camp that if it can get me to orbit, I'm all over that baby 

[Comga]

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

Buying never flown rockets from experienced providers is not something new.

Which commercial enterprise have purchased never flown rockets (with never flown engines) in the past?

[sdsds]

I am curious to see if any attempt is made to recover fairings [...] a quarter of a billion dollars worth of fairings is no a big deal.

If I were betting, I would bet on the Vulcan team making the attempt. The competition sure makes it look easy and worthwhile.

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule.

Do we really know this though?  They are already up to 60 launches planned this year and that is huge.  As came up with the oneweb launches, there is a real question of how many launches they can push through their existing manufacturing & launch infrastructure (which they might be unwilling to substantially upgrade due to a desire to move over to starship as soon as practical).  It's possible they can't handle this amount of additional volume without changes they are not interested in making. 

A crude estimate based on total payload mass yields about 120 F9 non-expended launches to replace the 68 initial launches, and we can estimate that this will be over the years 2023-2026 to meet the FCC requirement to launch half the constellation by 2026. That would be with a ramp-up from a few launches in 2023, but it averages 30 per year: assume it reaches 60/yr in 2026, effectively doubling the current F9 launch tempo. By contrast with the OneWeb situation, there is plenty of time to plan for this increase in launch tempo.

But four years is a long time, and Amazon must surely think that New Glenn will eventually ramp up and the other two launchers will have completed their launches before 2026. New Glenn, with its reusable first stage,  is intended to be cost-competitive with F9, So F9 would not replace all the launches, maybe only some of the non-NG launches.

Separate from all that, Amazon would need to consider Starship, which an objective observer would probably evaluate as being likely to be in service before New Glenn. Starship will reduce the pressure on the F9 cadence even if Kuiper stayed on F9.

[Robert_the_Doll]

It is clear to me where the bias is. Iphone has many appealing qualities. What appealing qualities do 3 never-before-flown rockets costing at least twice as much have?

Buying never flown rockets from experienced providers is not something new.

Which commercial enterprise have purchased never flown rockets (with never flown engines) in the past?

Off the cuff, Eutelsat likes doing that:

- first flight of the Atlas III occurred on 24 May 2000, launching the Eutelsat W4 communications satellite into a geosynchronous orbit was the first flight of the RD-180.

- The first payload launched with a Delta IV was the Eutelsat W5 communications satellite. A Medium+ (4,2) from Cape Canaveral carried the communications satellite into geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) on 20 November 2002. This was the first flight of the RS-68.

[LouScheffer]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

I agree there is a SpaceX bias, but think it's a natural result of doing a difficult task well.  It's happened with other companies before, as memorialized with:

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", or

"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"

At the moment, SpaceX gets the bias in its favor by having successfully performed the task already, plus (unlike the examples above) likely having the lowest prices.  In the eyes of many, that makes it a "no brainer" - in what other field would you go with an unproven provider with higher prices? But also shown by these examples is that the bias is fickle - once someone else is competitive, the bias (slowly) dissipates.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX would have definitely been able to offer a better price and schedule.

Do we really know this though?  They are already up to 60 launches planned this year and that is huge.  As came up with the oneweb launches, there is a real question of how many launches they can push through their existing manufacturing & launch infrastructure (which they might be unwilling to substantially upgrade due to a desire to move over to starship as soon as practical).  It's possible they can't handle this amount of additional volume without changes they are not interested in making. 

A crude estimate based on total payload mass yields about 120 F9 non-expended launches to replace the 68 initial launches, and we can estimate that this will be over the years 2023-2026 to meet the FCC requirement to launch half the constellation by 2026. That would be with a ramp-up from a few launches in 2023, but it averages 30 per year: assume it reaches 60/yr in 2026, effectively doubling the current F9 launch tempo. By contrast with the OneWeb situation, there is plenty of time to plan for this increase in launch tempo.

But four years is a long time, and Amazon must surely think that New Glenn will eventually ramp up and the other two launchers will have completed their launches before 2026. New Glenn, with its reusable first stage,  is intended to be cost-competitive with F9, So F9 would not replace all the launches, maybe only some of the non-NG launches.

Separate from all that, Amazon would need to consider Starship, which an objective observer would probably evaluate as being likely to be in service before New Glenn. Starship will reduce the pressure on the F9 cadence even if Kuiper stayed on F9.

SpaceX is launching at roughly 50/year, now, and most of those are Starlink. They could also offer FH, which has same capacity as New Glenn even with reuse of 3 cores, recovery of fairing. Only upper stage expended.

Consider that SpaceX will soon transition all Starlink launches to Starship, so F9 will have massive capacity availability even without adding more people.

Or if upper stage production capacity and range availability was a constraint and they were worried about Starship not being available and Amazon wanted the unbeaten proven reliability of falcon nine, SpaceX could just plan to use falcon heavy for Starlink as backup.

So yeah, I don’t think there’s a problem there as far as capacity with Falcon. SpaceX has more than necessary.

[DistantTemple]

Maybe SX will not "want" to increase stage 2 production for various reasons, or it may be inconvenient. However remember the CEO has a "thing" about ramping production. He might moan mightily, but has proven that tents and 24 hour working can be pulled out of the hat in pretty short order! SX will earn money, plus again prove itself amazingly agile if it can rise to these challenges. I can hardly imagine them not doing so. They will likely get a chance to reuse boosters really quickly, and achieve other firsts they have touted!
There is little or no development work to do in duplicating the S2 line! Just copy it!

[darkenfast]

Amazon had reasons for making the decision they did. If it turns out in a few years that that it was wrong and they've blown it financially AND jerked around several large launch companies while doing so, then SpaceX will just shrug and continue what they've doing, which is selling launches and Starlink.

I really like what SpaceX is doing. I also will bet that many who are accused in a knee-jerk fashion of being SpaceX "amazing people" would, in fact, be happy to see more competition with them. But being competitive with SpaceX means radically reducing costs through reusability, and so far, other operators of medium-to-large rockets are struggling to get (several years from now), where SpaceX has already been for some time.

A lot of the unhappiness with B.O. is because of disappointment with their performance.
New Glenn will be a nice tool in the toolbox if Blue can get it going, but they can't continue plodding along at their present rate.

Vulcan isn't going to have a great future if ULA can't get at least SOME reuse out of it. Blue's secretive delays on the BE-4 aren't helping.

Ariane 6 is already obsolete before it's even flown and a reusable replacement is years away.

Some of you who've spent your careers in the legacy companies and bureaucracies don't like the enthusiasm that SpaceX attracts. That's understandable, but do something better instead of disparaging people who like SpaceX   

[Surfdaddy]

Amazon had reasons for making the decision they did. If it turns out in a few years that that it was wrong and they've blown it financially AND jerked around several large launch companies while doing so, then SpaceX will just shrug and continue what they've doing, which is selling launches and Starlink.

I really like what SpaceX is doing. I also will bet that many who are accused in a knee-jerk fashion of being SpaceX "amazing people" would, in fact, be happy to see more competition with them. But being competitive with SpaceX means radically reducing costs through reusability, and so far, other operators of medium-to-large rockets are struggling to get (several years from now), where SpaceX has already been for some time.

A lot of the unhappiness with B.O. is because of disappointment with their performance.
New Glenn will be a nice tool in the toolbox if Blue can get it going, but they can't continue plodding along at their present rate.

Vulcan isn't going to have a great future if ULA can't get at least SOME reuse out of it. Blue's secretive delays on the BE-4 aren't helping.

Ariane 6 is already obsolete before it's even flown and a reusable replacement is years away.

Some of you who've spent your careers in the legacy companies and bureaucracies don't like the enthusiasm that SpaceX attracts. That's understandable, but do something better instead of disparaging people who like SpaceX   

Kuiper is in a tough spot, and due to the BE4 delays, even ULA is in a tough spot - all due to Blue Origin.
I remember posts saying SpaceX wasn't professional when they sent up a block of cheese, posts saying that they wouldn't try landing on a barge, and posts saying that even if they managed to recover 1st stages, that it wouldn't be economical to reuse them. All proven wrong. Which is perhaps why we are enthusiastic about SpaceX.

I guess Bezos just could not stomach the thought of buying F9 launches.

[arachnitect]

Amazon had reasons for making the decision they did. If it turns out in a few years that that it was wrong and they've blown it financially AND jerked around several large launch companies while doing so, then SpaceX will just shrug and continue what they've doing, which is selling launches and Starlink.

I really like what SpaceX is doing. I also will bet that many who are accused in a knee-jerk fashion of being SpaceX "amazing people" would, in fact, be happy to see more competition with them. But being competitive with SpaceX means radically reducing costs through reusability, and so far, other operators of medium-to-large rockets are struggling to get (several years from now), where SpaceX has already been for some time.

A lot of the unhappiness with B.O. is because of disappointment with their performance.
New Glenn will be a nice tool in the toolbox if Blue can get it going, but they can't continue plodding along at their present rate.

Vulcan isn't going to have a great future if ULA can't get at least SOME reuse out of it. Blue's secretive delays on the BE-4 aren't helping.

Ariane 6 is already obsolete before it's even flown and a reusable replacement is years away.

Some of you who've spent your careers in the legacy companies and bureaucracies don't like the enthusiasm that SpaceX attracts. That's understandable, but do something better instead of disparaging people who like SpaceX   

Kuiper is in a tough spot, and due to the BE4 delays, even ULA is in a tough spot - all due to Blue Origin.
I remember posts saying SpaceX wasn't professional when they sent up a block of cheese, posts saying that they wouldn't try landing on a barge, and posts saying that even if they managed to recover 1st stages, that it wouldn't be economical to reuse them. All proven wrong. Which is perhaps why we are enthusiastic about SpaceX.

I guess Bezos just could not stomach the thought of buying F9 launches.

I don't think it has been established that SpaceX made a competitive offer and there are several reasons to believe they did not

[DistantTemple]

It is not established that SpaceX made a competitive offer and there are several reasons to believe they did not

SX really has a full manifest. Stepping up to ONE WEB looks like a win all round, including international qudos for rescuing a competitor abused by Russia.

Kuiper and its owner are a different kettle of fish! Besos tried hard to tie SX's ankles by patenting barge landing.... etc. Oh and then the legal challenge to Starship Artemis...

No, One Web got in first. The manifest is full for the next two + years, wait your turn, and pay full price. No favours  for a competitor who has acted in such bad faith.

[M.E.T.]

We obviously don’t know the behind the scenes details here. Can SpaceX make a (much) cheaper offer than either of ULA/Ariane/BO? Undoubtedly.

Did they choose to do so? We don’t know.

Overall, this deal is a rather good strategic outcome for SpaceX. Their big revenue play is Starlink. Aiming for up to $30B/year according to their own estimates. And Starlink’s main “potential” competition is probably Kuiper.

This deal forces Amazon to spend up to twice as much to get Kuiper launched, adds significant risk by relying on as yet unflown rockets, and most importantly, likely lengthens the Kuiper roll out schedule by YEARS compared to what F9 could have delivered if SpaceX was so inclined.

Meanwhile the deal does not delay Starlink rollout at all.

So while I initially thought Amazon’s choice of using cumbersome, Old Space style launch companies (yes I include BO in that category) was driven by personal animosity rather than sound business reasons, the more I think about it the more I am inclined to consider that they were at least partly forced into this move by SpaceX choosing not to submit a competitive bid.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, I think by picking 3 launchers that haven't ever launched anything, this might actually end up helping Starlink stay on top for longer than if they had picked Falcon 9. It also means Amazon has less money to spend on Kuiper. And by supporting two expendable launchers (with the 3rd, New Glenn, being already given plenty of money), they're kind of undercutting any of the reusable launchers that would have any chance of really giving F9, let alone Starship, a run for the money. Two oldspace firms, plus Blue (which kind of aspires to be one) at a time when non-billionaire-founded NewSpace firms are taking a beating in the stockmarket.

We shall see.

[Cheapchips]

An alternative reason for SpaceX, Terran R and Rocket Labs missing out on Kuplier is common fairing size and deployment options.

The three chosen vehicles offer 20m+ length farings.  The conventional nature allows radial deployment from a 'tower' payload adaptor.

Both Starship and Terran R's chomper deployment wouldn't work if Amazon are deploying in the same way as OneWeb. Not without a vehicle specific deployment design anyway.  Arguably worth it for a cheap ride, but we don't know actual pricing for either vehicle yet.

Falcon Heavy might end up with a 20+ fairing, but then you're entering the cost territory of the vendors they've chosen.

[Ike17055]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

more accurately. remove "this thread" and insert "all the threads."

[Ike17055]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...this was, in a sense the same logic behind dependency on Russia for the RD-180 --why would we want to try to just "redo" what they have successfully done?" goes the saw --well, becasuse there are risk factors other than just cost factors --as we have become painfully aware.  As an Amazon shareholder (and frankly, who isn't in some form or other), I recognize that they are INVESTING in the development of something that will have significant upfront costs -- and this is far from new for any Tech company, not just the Tech Titans.  The long term perspective of investing demands that they focus on the emerging industry that involves competition, and need to ensure that enabling environment is assured. This course of action addesses that. Moreover, I may want to avoid the risk factors of a single launch provider who likewise is or will be a direct competitor, and one that is run by someone who often acts out like a spoiled child.  My investment is not assured, but is MOST LIKELY managed better by the course of action Amazon is taking here. this is far from just a grudge -although that is undoubtedly one factor, but a relevant one.  Key to investing: think like an owner --because you are. 

[LouScheffer]

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...this was, in a sense the same logic behind dependency on Russia for the RD-180 --why would we want to try to just "redo" what they have successfully done?" goes the saw --well, becasuse there are risk factors other than just cost factors --as we have become painfully aware. 

I don't think anyone is arguing they should have gone with ONLY SpaceX, for exactly the reasons you describe.  A typical response in a situation like this is to give 60% to the low cost bidder, and 40% to the new entrants.  This gets the majority of the cost savings while keeping the market competitive and preventing reliance on a single supplier.

As an Amazon shareholder (and frankly, who isn't in some form or other), I recognize that they are INVESTING in the development of something that will have significant upfront costs -- and this is far from new for any Tech company, not just the Tech Titans.  The long term perspective of investing demands that they focus on the emerging industry that involves competition, and need to ensure that enabling environment is assured. This course of action addesses that. Moreover, I may want to avoid the risk factors of a single launch provider who likewise is or will be a direct competitor,

As an Amazon shareholder, you are investing in a satellite constellation.   You need that constellation up as quickly, reliably, and cheaply as possible.  You are NOT investing in the launch industry - that's a side project of one of your founders.  In terms of the constellation, it appears that SpaceX could do the job more quickly, more reliably, and cheaper than the vendors they chose. This does not mean SpaceX should get ALL the business, but by including them you will improve the odds your investment pays off.

one that is run by someone who often acts out like a spoiled child. 

Agree with this.  *Two* spoiled brats is a recipe for disaster.

My investment is not assured, but is MOST LIKELY managed better by the course of action Amazon is taking here. this is far from just a grudge -although that is undoubtedly one factor, but a relevant one.  Key to investing: think like an owner --because you are. 

Agree you should think like an owner, but disagree with their course of action.   Their primary concern should be the constellation.  They also need to be concerned about the health of alternatives in the launch market, but this can be addressed by splitting the order.  If you think of this as an optimization problem, what percentage of the order given to SpaceX would optimize Amazon profits?  It's not 100%, for reasons of risk and competition, but it's not 0% either.

[LouScheffer]

... in what other field would you go with an unproven provider with higher prices?

Somewhat off topic, but one example of this happening is the Porsche Taycan (their new electric car).  They had something like 30,000 pre-orders even though it was unproven and considerably more expensive than other electric car alternatives with similar performance (notably Tesla).

What is different here is that Porsche has a long history of providing a superior product, at least in terms of driver experience.  Rockets are judged on more objective measures, and the products are measurably similar.

What is the same, of course, was this it was a Musk product that was not being chosen, in favor of the more expensive and unproven alternative.

[M.E.T.]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...this was, in a sense the same logic behind dependency on Russia for the RD-180 --why would we want to try to just "redo" what they have successfully done?" goes the saw --well, becasuse there are risk factors other than just cost factors --as we have become painfully aware.  As an Amazon shareholder (and frankly, who isn't in some form or other), I recognize that they are INVESTING in the development of something that will have significant upfront costs -- and this is far from new for any Tech company, not just the Tech Titans.  The long term perspective of investing demands that they focus on the emerging industry that involves competition, and need to ensure that enabling environment is assured. This course of action addesses that. Moreover, I may want to avoid the risk factors of a single launch provider who likewise is or will be a direct competitor, and one that is run by someone who often acts out like a spoiled child.  My investment is not assured, but is MOST LIKELY managed better by the course of action Amazon is taking here. this is far from just a grudge -although that is undoubtedly one factor, but a relevant one.  Key to investing: think like an owner --because you are.

So in this scenario an added cost for any non-SpaceX entrant to the LEO internet market is to artificially subsidise the otherwise non-competitive launch providers in order to stave off single-provider dominance?

Seems like a rather hefty burden for all would-be entrants to carry. Or if we apply a form of game theory, for SOME entrants to carry, as any that choose not to engage in this subsidization can just go to SpaceX for cheap launches, leaving the subsidizers to carry the burden alone.

[Steve G]

Amazon’s Kuiper constellation is a direct competitor to Starlink’s. They will not use SpaceX even if they were half the cost. They will not let SpaceX anywhere near their birds that have proprietary technology they want to keep far away from their rivals, even if safeguards were put in place such as classified military satellites.

Furthermore, it’s in everyone’s interest to have multiple LV suppliers. No one wants to see SpaceX have a monopoly on the launch market. Kuiper using SpaceX will never happen, and any debate concerning this is folly.

[ulm_atms]

Amazon’s Kuiper constellation is a direct competitor to Starlink’s. They will not use SpaceX even if they were half the cost. They will not let SpaceX anywhere near their birds that have proprietary technology they want to keep far away from their rivals, even if safeguards were put in place such as classified military satellites.

Furthermore, it’s in everyone’s interest to have multiple LV suppliers. No one wants to see SpaceX have a monopoly on the launch market. Kuiper using SpaceX will never happen, and any debate concerning this is folly.

While I 100% agree with you, the bolded part could, one day, easily not be true.  People were saying the exact same thing with OneWeb and SpaceX....where are we now?

[DanClemmensen]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...

What part of my post do you believe to be "flawed and absurd"? My post is not part of a premise. It stands alone.

[RedLineTrain]

Amazon’s Kuiper constellation is a direct competitor to Starlink’s. They will not use SpaceX even if they were half the cost. They will not let SpaceX anywhere near their birds that have proprietary technology they want to keep far away from their rivals, even if safeguards were put in place such as classified military satellites.

Furthermore, it’s in everyone’s interest to have multiple LV suppliers. No one wants to see SpaceX have a monopoly on the launch market. Kuiper using SpaceX will never happen, and any debate concerning this is folly.

Important notes...
(1) Kuiper has chosen to forgo the high inclination market and therefore certain customers who need global coverage.  It will only compete from 56 degrees North to 56 degrees South.
(2) Amazon has data center needs and it seems likely that it will not serve Azure's or Google's data center needs.  So Amazon has a sizeable captive market -- i.e., not touched by Starlink.

Amazon could probably justify the constellation based solely on its data center needs, in which case they should wish to economize and get to market as quickly as possible.

[Robotbeat]

I don’t think Amazon’s data centers can be affordably serviced by Kuiper. The price Amazon itself pays for bandwidth between data centers is one or two orders of magnitude less than residential folk pay on average.

MAYBE at Starlink scale with Starship, you could actually start being competitive, but probably not otherwise. At least not with the architecture Kuiper is using.

However, service direct to users (residential or business, etc) is another story.

[RedLineTrain]

This is a new type of service not offered to data centers by other means, such as fiber.  It is high value and as an added layer of resiliency probably can support a 10x or more price than what Amazon currently is paying for bandwidth.

For context, in 2021, AWS did $61 billion in business (at a very high profit margin).  Mid-decade, it could be multiples of that.  It seems worth improving the resiliency of the offering, if possible.

[Tev]

AWS already has expensive bandwidth compared to competitors, I doubt you would find many buyers for 10x price.

Network resilience is also only a minor part of cloud reliability.

[TrevorMonty]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...

What part of my post do you believe to be "flawed and absurd"? My post is not part of a premise. It stands alone.

I don’t think Amazon’s data centers can be affordably serviced by Kuiper. The price Amazon itself pays for bandwidth between data centers is one or two orders of magnitude less than residential folk pay on average.

MAYBE at Starlink scale with Starship, you could actually start being competitive, but probably not otherwise. At least not with the architecture Kuiper is using.

However, service direct to users (residential or business, etc) is another story.

Kuiper provides very high data security unlike terrestrial internet. Its very hard ease drop on these satellite transmissions especially both way traffic.

There are lot AWS customers who are willing to pay for extra data security.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Asteroza]

Why don't people buy iPhones?

"People" are not publicly-held corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Amazon board of directors needs to have a defensible economic reason to have not chosen SpaceX, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. "Don't fund your competition" may be defensible.

this is more of the same flawed and absurd premise that ONLY SpaceX "makes sense" because it is or appears to be cheapest...

What part of my post do you believe to be "flawed and absurd"? My post is not part of a premise. It stands alone.

I don’t think Amazon’s data centers can be affordably serviced by Kuiper. The price Amazon itself pays for bandwidth between data centers is one or two orders of magnitude less than residential folk pay on average.

MAYBE at Starlink scale with Starship, you could actually start being competitive, but probably not otherwise. At least not with the architecture Kuiper is using.

However, service direct to users (residential or business, etc) is another story.

Kuiper provides very high data security unlike terrestrial internet. Its very hard ease drop on these satellite transmissions especially both way traffic.

There are lot AWS customers who are willing to pay for extra data security.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Gonna have to remark on the data security aspect. It's not like the old days of terrestrial unencrypted links getting tapped. Google learned their lesson regarding the NSA tapping their unencrypted links between US datacenters, and every other major multi-datacenter organization now manages their own encrypted VPN links between datacenters, or uses a cloud providers encrypted VPN link. That's enough for tapping protection via traffic data encryption, maybe not enough for traffic/metadata analysis protection. It also means nothing in the face of a legal government tapping like a national security letter, if a tapping device gets dropped into a network right before the VPN gateway. Some of the newer cloud architectures do traffic encryption at all levels, including every server themselves (see mesh overlay types like wireguard/tailscale).

There are niches in low latency though, such as synchronization activities (between databases for instance), or out-of-band management plane networks, that could garner a premium network service.

[Star One]

Amazon had reasons for making the decision they did. If it turns out in a few years that that it was wrong and they've blown it financially AND jerked around several large launch companies while doing so, then SpaceX will just shrug and continue what they've doing, which is selling launches and Starlink.

I really like what SpaceX is doing. I also will bet that many who are accused in a knee-jerk fashion of being SpaceX "amazing people" would, in fact, be happy to see more competition with them. But being competitive with SpaceX means radically reducing costs through reusability, and so far, other operators of medium-to-large rockets are struggling to get (several years from now), where SpaceX has already been for some time.

A lot of the unhappiness with B.O. is because of disappointment with their performance.
New Glenn will be a nice tool in the toolbox if Blue can get it going, but they can't continue plodding along at their present rate.

Vulcan isn't going to have a great future if ULA can't get at least SOME reuse out of it. Blue's secretive delays on the BE-4 aren't helping.

Ariane 6 is already obsolete before it's even flown and a reusable replacement is years away.

Some of you who've spent your careers in the legacy companies and bureaucracies don't like the enthusiasm that SpaceX attracts. That's understandable, but do something better instead of disparaging people who like SpaceX   

And you clearly missing what Ariane means to ESA and Europe, as you are not understanding that it is as much about having independent access to space without having to rely on a US company.

[Star One]

Amazon’s Kuiper constellation is a direct competitor to Starlink’s. They will not use SpaceX even if they were half the cost. They will not let SpaceX anywhere near their birds that have proprietary technology they want to keep far away from their rivals, even if safeguards were put in place such as classified military satellites.

Furthermore, it’s in everyone’s interest to have multiple LV suppliers. No one wants to see SpaceX have a monopoly on the launch market. Kuiper using SpaceX will never happen, and any debate concerning this is folly.

This and this. I very much doubt they wanted a direct competitor to see their satellites so from that viewpoint not choosing Space X is logical.

[Asteroza]

Amazon’s Kuiper constellation is a direct competitor to Starlink’s. They will not use SpaceX even if they were half the cost. They will not let SpaceX anywhere near their birds that have proprietary technology they want to keep far away from their rivals, even if safeguards were put in place such as classified military satellites.

Furthermore, it’s in everyone’s interest to have multiple LV suppliers. No one wants to see SpaceX have a monopoly on the launch market. Kuiper using SpaceX will never happen, and any debate concerning this is folly.

This and this. I very much doubt they wanted a direct competitor to see their satellites so from that viewpoint not choosing Space X is logical.

The odds of Amazon PR not showing a sat before fairing encapsulation is next to nil in this age of social media.  Which means the sats will be seen, pretty much informing anybody who wants to pay attention. Just look at the resolution on press kit photos these days.

Generally a sat maker only needs to provide masses and moments of inertia to the launch provider, along with payload adapter interface specs, and that it. SpaceX wouldn't be extracting substantially more info than OSINT hounds if Kuiper rode with them. Heck, there are probably many NSF'ers contributing to OSINT data on the sats already.

[Jim]

Generally a sat maker only needs to provide masses and moments of inertia to the launch provider, along with payload adapter interface specs, and that it. SpaceX wouldn't be extracting substantially more info than OSINT hounds if Kuiper rode with them. Heck, there are probably many NSF'ers contributing to OSINT data on the sats already.

and outer mold line

[Asteroza]

Generally a sat maker only needs to provide masses and moments of inertia to the launch provider, along with payload adapter interface specs, and that it. SpaceX wouldn't be extracting substantially more info than OSINT hounds if Kuiper rode with them. Heck, there are probably many NSF'ers contributing to OSINT data on the sats already.

and outer mold line

Would that be necessary as long as you remain within the payload users guide available volume instructions? As long as you are out of the keep-out zones during launch and separation, the shape shouldn't really matter?

[Jim]

Would that be necessary as long as you remain within the payload users guide available volume instructions? As long as you are out of the keep-out zones during launch and separation, the shape shouldn't really matter?

Every ICD I have seen includes one (even IXPE). 

[LouScheffer]

Would that be necessary as long as you remain within the payload users guide available volume instructions? As long as you are out of the keep-out zones during launch and separation, the shape shouldn't really matter?

Just guessing, but I suspect there is a step in the launch readiness process that says something like "Run the payload-fairing compatibility test program" and verify output says "it fits".  There is no check box for "program not needed; result is obvious".  It's easier to provide the actual mold line than the get a waiver, which would need to go through a review board.

[Barley]

Are the supplied mold lines always minimal?

As a mathematician I'm happy to say that a 1m diameter sphere will fit in a 1m cube, but this tends to incite violence from engineers.  Saying a 1m sphere fits in a 10m cube will definitely cause violence.

[Seamurda]

While Bezos is chairman of board he isn't CEO anymore and isn't solely responsible for deciding which launch providers Amazon uses. Management may have excluded him from decision making process given he owns Blue and conflict of interests.

Amazon is on a tight schedule and can't risk relying on new RLVs like Neutron and Terran R. A6 and Vulcan maybe new LVs but they are flying lot of flight proven systems and expected to fly in next few months. The other big plus is both companies have excellent launch records.
New Glenn on other hand is riskier option but likely to be cheaper than A6 and Vulcan.

 The initial constellation of 3500 satellites won't be last expect 1000s more over the coming years. There will be other launch contracts in future, by which time the new generation of RLVs will be flying.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

The choice of launch system providers will not have made it anywhere near Jeff Bezos. Kuiper is a business unit of Amazon, they will own the processes used to select the vendors.

An investment of this size will certainly need to be signed off by the board of Amazon itself but I would expect that they would be scrutinizing the process rather than driving it.

[meekGee]

Boy, the SpaceX bias is really evident in this thread.

You can't have it both ways.

First you argued how Kuiper is not Bezos's play toy because Bezos doesn't have the majority of Amazon shares.

Now you're arguing that Kuiper shares your personal disdain of SpaceX and so will rather choose expendable rockets than finance SpaceX.

So which is it?

And remember, you got equally upset over people predicting oneWeb should choose  SpaceX. You just forgot the personal angle deorbited when Wyler got the boot.

[mkent]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
38 Vulcan launches, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

Don't look now, but if I've counted correctly, ULA now has more external commercial launches on its manifest than SpaceX does.

[kevinof]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
<b>38 Vulcan launches</b>, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

Don't look now, but if I've counted correctly, ULA now has more external commercial launches on its manifest than SpaceX does.

Yes but what I’d love to know is at what margin? A low margin deal  might allow them to scale and fill out the books but that doesn’t last forever. Will be interesting to see.

[TrevorMonty]

Amazon have signed Kuiper launch contracts with ULA, Blue Origin, and Arianespace. A lot of launch contracts.
<b>38 Vulcan launches</b>, 18 Ariane 6 launches, and 12 New Glenn launches (with an option for an additional 15).

Don't look now, but if I've counted correctly, ULA now has more external commercial launches on its manifest than SpaceX does.

Yes but what I’d love to know is at what margin? A low margin deal  might allow them to scale and fill out the books but that doesn’t last forever. Will be interesting to see.

Profit is likely to go up on missions booked before Amazon deal. The higher volumes mean all 80 odd LVs on their manifest should be lot cheaper to manufacture.
Investing in automated manufacturing becomes lot more viable as volumes go up, this applies to most of their suppliers. The other plus is lead times should drop allowing them to be more responsive.




Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Jim]

1.  First you argued how Kuiper is not Bezos's play toy because Bezos doesn't have the majority of Amazon shares.

2.  Now you're arguing that Kuiper shares your personal disdain of SpaceX and so will rather choose expendable rockets than finance SpaceX.

So which is it?

3.And remember, you got equally upset over people predicting oneWeb should choose  SpaceX. You just forgot the personal angle deorbited when Wyler got the boot.

1.  Just stated a fact and correcting wrong information.   And because of that, it isn’t The same as Blue Origin.  Kuiper has other bosses to satisfy.

2.  It have no personal disdain for SpaceX, much less to share.  My beef is with SpaceX amazing people.  Kuiper not using SpaceX because it would be funding Starlink is a legitimate business practice.

3.  Jeesh!  Upset? Nothing of the sort.  Just questioning the mindset that doesn’t look past SpaceX(see #2) for answers.

I work with SpaceX daily on multiple missions. So what you think my views (you are reading too much into posts) are not reality.  It’s just another symptom of your skewed view of reality.

[meekGee]

1.  First you argued how Kuiper is not Bezos's play toy because Bezos doesn't have the majority of Amazon shares.

2.  Now you're arguing that Kuiper shares your personal disdain of SpaceX and so will rather choose expendable rockets than finance SpaceX.

So which is it?

3.And remember, you got equally upset over people predicting oneWeb should choose  SpaceX. You just forgot the personal angle deorbited when Wyler got the boot.

1.  Just stated a fact and correcting wrong information.   And because of that, it isn’t The same as Blue Origin.  Kuiper has other bosses to satisfy.

2.  It have no personal disdain for SpaceX, much less to share.  My beef is with SpaceX amazing people.  Kuiper not using SpaceX because it would be funding Starlink is a legitimate business practice.

3.  Jeesh!  Upset? Nothing of the sort.  Just questioning the mindset that doesn’t look past SpaceX(see #2) for answers.

I work with SpaceX daily on multiple missions. So what you think my views (you are reading too much into posts) are not reality.  It’s just another symptom of your skewed view of reality.

Thing is, most of your fanboi concern is self-created.

Because some fans are under informed (which is always the case) you get trapped into shooting down everything everyone says, including things that are otherwise completely sensible, and many things that in retrospect have proven to be accurate.

In fact the way SpaceX's trajectory has been tracking, it's statistically impossible that those were all lucky guesses. Maybe some of the amazing people actually understood a thing or two.

This recent argument is an excellent case in point. No reasonable observer would miss the importance and criticallity of Boca Chica to the SpaceX Mars program, nor would they miss the importance of Starship in general, irrespective of whether DoD takes full advantage of it early or not.

You OTOH are getting lost in the details, about procurement policies and fairing diameters and who knows what else, and are missing the overall picture, much as you did with F9 and Starlink.