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

[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.