ESA in discussion with SpaceX on launch requirements

[hektor]

Exclusive: Europe eyes Musk's SpaceX to replace Russian rockets

[jstrotha0975]

No, this can't be true, Anyone but spaceX...

[edkyle99]

Would be "temporary" to bridge a gap.  SpaceX one of several options.  Japan and India are other options.  Soyuz was only flying once or twice a year from Kourou, so this probably would not amount to a large number of flights.

 - Ed Kyle

[hektor]

It was suggested a few weeks ago in Ars Technica that Euclid was a possible candidate.

[M.E.T.]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

[Jim]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

[M.E.T.]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

Far be it for me to tell you what to want or not want🤷‍♂️.

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

[freddo411]

Wow.  A lot of tears over buying a couple of flights.

I wonder if a European will accuse ESA of subsidizing SX so therefore more money should go to building another ariane  throw away booster

[hektor]

This is a parenthesis. There is a de facto F9 near monopoly due to geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine) and delays in development of some competitors.

But in a few years there will be new vehicles, etc. and the parenthesis will be over.

[Jim]

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

You think

[M.E.T.]

Wow.  A lot of tears over buying a couple of flights.

I wonder if a European will accuse ESA of subsidizing SX so therefore more money should go to building another ariane  throw away booster

Yep, aren’t these the guys who have basically been accusing SpaceX of underhanded shenanigans for selling F9 launches “below cost price” thanks to supposedly being cross subsidised by the US military and NASA?

Guess that cross subsidisation is now quite palatable for them.😀

[DanClemmensen]

This is a parenthesis. There is a de facto F9 near monopoly due to geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine) and delays in development of some competitors.

But in a few years there will be new vehicles, etc. and the parenthesis will be over.

Indeed. In a few years, SpaceX will retire the F9/FH when a new rocket with vastly superior economic performance becomes operational. Now what rocket might that be?

[ZachS09]

This is a parenthesis. There is a de facto F9 near monopoly due to geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine) and delays in development of some competitors.

But in a few years there will be new vehicles, etc. and the parenthesis will be over.

Indeed. In a few years, SpaceX will retire the F9/FH when a new rocket with vastly superior economic performance becomes operational. Now what rocket might that be?

Uh, this monstrosity that is both shiny and buff. And it claims it can rule the world.

[Jim]

This is a parenthesis. There is a de facto F9 near monopoly due to geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine) and delays in development of some competitors.

But in a few years there will be new vehicles, etc. and the parenthesis will be over.

Indeed. In a few years, SpaceX will retire the F9/FH when a new rocket with vastly superior economic performance becomes operational. Now what rocket might that be?

Stop

[meekGee]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

Well his point was that for sure ESA doesn't want that either.

But here we are.

[wannamoonbase]

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

You think

It may not all be getting to funding Mars settlement, but it's not funding bloated intentionally inefficient defense companies either.

SpaceX has established the capacity and launch cadence to absorb demand.  It's working well for them, Putin just helped them out.

The US should have gotten off Russian engines long ago.  But for some reason we thought building rocket engines was insurmountably expensive.  If only all that time and money spent on the J2X engine had gone to something useful.

[RedLineTrain]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

[Hyperborealis]

This is what vertical integration gets you--resilience to supply-chain shocks.

[DanClemmensen]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

Some of this is luck. SpaceX's business model is that Starlink is a reliable low-priority customer, so they will pretty much always have a launcher available for a higher-priority customer who is willing to pay for it. I don't think SpaceX anticipated the sudden surge in demand for F9 launches, but they were able to accommodate it almost by accident.

[M.E.T.]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

Some of this is luck. SpaceX's business model is that Starlink is a reliable low-priority customer, so they will pretty much always have a launcher available for a higher-priority customer who is willing to pay for it. I don't think SpaceX anticipated the sudden surge in demand for F9 launches, but they were able to accommodate it almost by accident.

Well, back when they landed their first booster they had a production capacity of around 12 expendable F9 rockets per year. Now that they only have to produce maybe 4 or so boosters a year, the freed up capacity is churning out 2nd stages by the truck load.

SpaceX basically has unlimited launch capacity at this point. There might be additional ramp-up costs to jump past temporary production ceilings at various levels, but if sufficient demand exists they can pretty much pump out as many launches as their launch facilities can accommodate.

[DanClemmensen]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

Some of this is luck. SpaceX's business model is that Starlink is a reliable low-priority customer, so they will pretty much always have a launcher available for a higher-priority customer who is willing to pay for it. I don't think SpaceX anticipated the sudden surge in demand for F9 launches, but they were able to accommodate it almost by accident.

Well, back when they landed their first booster they had a production capacity of around 12 expendable F9 rockets per year. Now that they only have to produce maybe 4 or so boosters a year, the freed up capacity is churning out 2nd stages by the truck load.

SpaceX basically has unlimited launch capacity at this point. There might be additional ramp-up costs to jump past some temporary production ceilings, but if sufficient demand exists they can pretty much pump out as many launches as their launch facilities can accommodate.

The rate is currently constrained by the recovery fleet, range availability,  and refurbishment, not by production. I suppose they could add staff to speed up refurbishment, but adding recovery vessels on short notice is hard. Since the demand surge is likely to now  be over and the longer-term demand for F9 is likely to drop off starting next year(?), SpaceX is probably reluctant to make new investments in F9 capacity.

[Nomadd]

Stop

 If you knew the power of the Shiny Side...

[M.E.T.]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

Some of this is luck. SpaceX's business model is that Starlink is a reliable low-priority customer, so they will pretty much always have a launcher available for a higher-priority customer who is willing to pay for it. I don't think SpaceX anticipated the sudden surge in demand for F9 launches, but they were able to accommodate it almost by accident.

Well, back when they landed their first booster they had a production capacity of around 12 expendable F9 rockets per year. Now that they only have to produce maybe 4 or so boosters a year, the freed up capacity is churning out 2nd stages by the truck load.

SpaceX basically has unlimited launch capacity at this point. There might be additional ramp-up costs to jump past some temporary production ceilings, but if sufficient demand exists they can pretty much pump out as many launches as their launch facilities can accommodate.

The rate is currently constrained by the recovery fleet, range availability,  and refurbishment, not by production. I suppose they could add staff to speed up refurbishment, but adding recovery vessels on short notice is hard. Since the demand surge is likely to now  be over and the longer-term demand for F9 is likely to drop off starting next year(?), SpaceX is probably reluctant to make new investments in F9 capacity.

Yep. I find it useful to look at it from a cumulative perspective. As in, how many total launches will F9 complete over its entire lifetime - meaning until the rocket is retired.

It is already approaching 200. I expect its lifetime launch tally to reach around 400.

So let’s say there are 200-250 launches left - with maybe 3 years of high cadence representing the bulk of that, and then a 5-10 year tail thereafter with a dwindling number of “traditionalist” customers insisting on F9 even when Starship is in operation.

So any investment SpaceX makes in F9 now, needs to be seen in the context of those 200-250 remaining lifetime launches.

Not worth over investing in it at all.

[rubicondsrv]

but adding recovery vessels on short notice is hard.

the barges are the biggest issue there. there aren't really any DP equipped deck barges just waiting for hire.

best case it would take a few months to outfit a barge to be minimally functional for a landing platform.   

[meekGee]

There's irony here, in that SpaceX intentionally did not lower prices to match internal cost, for a number of well discussed reasons, and then just as things were going according to plan, their low-cost high-capacity competitor just offs themselves.

Best laid plans and all.

But yeah, competition is good, but winning competitions is better.

[Comga]

Would be "temporary" to bridge a gap.  SpaceX one of several options.  Japan and India are other options. 
Soyuz was only flying once or twice a year from Kourou, so this probably would not amount to a large number of flights.

 - Ed Kyle

Way to sandbag, Ed!
SpaceX's dominance isn't total, permanent, or all that significant, really, in the global sense of things.
Right

SpaceX's unmatched ability (It surely is.) to expand their manifest on demand is just what is needed at the moment when the Russians have taken themselves out of the commercial launch business, at which they were doing well.
It shows that now is the right time for (mostly) reusable launch launch vehicles.
Was this an inevitable outcome?
No
Was it well thought out and executed?
Yes

It serves the Russians right, and is such delicious karma.
Remember that theirs were the guys who spit, physically not metaphorically, on Musk for being so presumptive as to ask to buy their glorious rockets just because he was rich. (About a third of a billion dollars! Woo Hoo!)

[wannamoonbase]

There's irony here, in that SpaceX intentionally did not lower prices to match internal cost, for a number of well discussed reasons, and then just as things were going according to plan, their low-cost high-capacity competitor just offs themselves.

Best laid plans and all.

But yeah, competition is good, but winning competitions is better.

SpaceX spent years and who knows how many millions developing F9 and the ability to reuse the booster and fairing. They need to earn back that investment, there is no need to leave money on the table.

Prices will come down closer to the actual costs when/if there is competition.

[alugobi]

Well they're just price gouging.

[wannamoonbase]

Well they're just price gouging.

Yes, and still cheaper than every other launch provider in history.

[alugobi]

Would be "temporary" to bridge a gap. 

Way to sandbag, Ed!

Lol.

"temporary", in quotes, as in not so temporary.  Once EU sat makers get a taste of the fractional cost to launch compared to Ariane and Vega, [arnold]they'll be back.[/arnold]

[Robotbeat]

I strongly support competition, but… It is satisfying to see, after two decades of dismissal and belittlement, SpaceX and their workhorse reusable Falcon 9 becoming so utterly dominant.

I hope all the providers learned their lesson and will start relying more on reuse instead of cheap, geopolitically-questionable labor for expendable hardware.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

After starting at about the same time frame. SpaceX has done to the world LV manufacturers/designers that Tesla has done to the Car manufactures around the world. Things have changed and will no longer be the same. Therefore as existing and new companies spring up with new vehicles they will address the reasonableness of their design in order to get the investment or government funding (EVEN IN cHINA). So more competition is around the corner just like what has recently shown up in the EV market. Once the paradigm has changed it takes a lot to change it back even more so than it took to change it to this new one.

Up and coming new F9 sized or larger designs:
Neutron -Reusable
Antares330 -unknown reusability status
New Glenn -Reusable
New design China LVs -Reusable

[Greg Hullender]

They should invite SpaceX to launch from the Guiana Space Centre. I hear the ELS pad is available now. :-)

--Greg

[butters]

What ESA and Arianespace need is a commitment from Eutelsat-OneWeb, Airbus, etc. that there will be a European megaconstellation on something like the scale of Kuiper if not Starlink. They've always been caught up in the "It's not needed!" attitude, their failure to recognize the value of reusability tightly interwoven with their failure to recognize the applications of high launch cadence.

Starlink scares the European aerospace industry more than the reusable F9 steamroller ever could with manifests like there were in 2018 and 2019. It's what's happened since 2020 that's shown them the error of their ways. It's the value of combining high-rate rockets with high-rate payloads that changes the ballgame for both sides of the industry.

SpaceX solved the chicken-and-egg problem that arguably doomed the generation of LEO constellation providers who went bankrupt in the early 2000s and possibly doomed previous reusable launch vehicle projects. Now everybody has to play catch-up. It's not just the Europeans, there's a lot of "let them eat hat" going around, because it was hard to believe that anybody could launch 3000 satellites in 2.5 years until they watched it happening from the sidelines.

Before the Eutelsat acquisition, OneWeb and Relativity announced some kind of preliminary launch deal for what they're calling the Gen2 constellation. Launching on Terran-R isn't necessarily a bad thing in the nearer term, but in the meantime they need to be developing a reusable launch system with the confidence that the European constellation will be a reliable anchor customer when it's ready.

[rpapo]

Remember that theirs were the guys who spit, physically not metaphorically, on Musk for being so presumptive as to ask to buy their glorious rockets just because he was rich. (About a third of a billion dollars! Woo Hoo!)

Now he is worth that much.  Then he was a nobody, from their point of view.  He had "only" $170-180M in cash burning a hole in his pocket at the time, which was nothing to the oligarchs, and not that big a deal by Silicon Valley standards.

But I agree.  Karma can really bite sometimes.

[Athelstane]

I strongly support competition, but… It is satisfying to see, after two decades of dismissal and belittlement, SpaceX and their workhorse reusable Falcon 9 becoming so utterly dominant.

I hope all the providers learned their lesson and will start relying more on reuse instead of cheap, geopolitically-questionable labor for expendable hardware.

Re: Reusability

It has to emphasized that the Falcon 9 was the lowest cost and lowest price medium class clauncher in the world before they ever reused a single flight proven booster in March 2017. They achieved this through a comprehensive approach to reducing cost and obstacles to iteration. They build and source as much in house as they can. They use off-the-shelf commercial components where they can do the job. And so on.

What reuse really does is allow a higher cadence. And that's really paying off now.

[ZachF]

This is a parenthesis. There is a de facto F9 near monopoly due to geopolitical circumstances (Ukraine) and delays in development of some competitors.

But in a few years there will be new vehicles, etc. and the parenthesis will be over.

Eh, I suspect SpaceX will lift a majority of the worlds tonnage to orbit for quite a while. This year they’re on track to lift around 2/3rds of the world’s tonnage to orbit, even when adjusted for LEO requiring less dV. In a few years their market share of tonnage to orbit might be as high as 90%+…

Boeing built a majority of the world’s airliners for almost half a century, for a little historical comparison.

[Zed_Noir]

Remember that theirs were the guys who spit, physically not metaphorically, on Musk for being so presumptive as to ask to buy their glorious rockets just because he was rich. (About a third of a billion dollars! Woo Hoo!)

Now he is worth that much.  Then he was a nobody, from their point of view.  He had "only" $170-180M in cash burning a hole in his pocket at the time, which was nothing to the oligarchs, and not that big a deal by Silicon Valley standards.

But I agree.  Karma can really bite sometimes.

Actually he is worth a few magnitudes more than that. Just look up his current pay package in stock options with Tesla.

[freddo411]

They should invite SpaceX to launch from the Guiana Space Centre. I hear the ELS pad is available now. :-)

--Greg

I get it, tongue in cheek.

But actually, Europe would have a lot to gain if they welcomed SX with open arms to make a new pad .. maybe a starship pad

[punder]

SpaceX did something else that put them ahead—they basically ignored the pandemic while others slowed down considerably. India for example.

[M.E.T.]

SpaceX did something else that put them ahead—they basically ignored the pandemic while others slowed down considerably. India for example.

Is this meant to be a criticism or a compliment?

[butters]

They should invite SpaceX to launch from the Guiana Space Centre. I hear the ELS pad is available now. :-)

--Greg

I get it, tongue in cheek.

But actually, Europe would have a lot to gain if they welcomed SX with open arms to make a new pad .. maybe a starship pad

Whatever the equivalent of United Rentals is in French Guiana, that's who they need to call. Just start building production pathfinders and let the design process play out in parallel. Don't design a rocket and then figure out how to build it. Bending metal will inform the design.

Rivals wouldn't have to embrace SpaceX's products if they would learn to embrace their processes. That's the not-so-secret sauce.

[edkyle99]

Would be "temporary" to bridge a gap.  SpaceX one of several options.  Japan and India are other options. 
Soyuz was only flying once or twice a year from Kourou, so this probably would not amount to a large number of flights.

 - Ed Kyle

Way to sandbag, Ed!
SpaceX's dominance isn't total, permanent, or all that significant, really, in the global sense of things.
Right

I pointed out that the number of Soyuz launches to replace is small, which is a fact.  I'm not trying to make a larger point.

 - Ed Kyle

[AmigaClone]

Would be "temporary" to bridge a gap.  SpaceX one of several options.  Japan and India are other options. 
Soyuz was only flying once or twice a year from Kourou, so this probably would not amount to a large number of flights.

 - Ed Kyle

Way to sandbag, Ed!
SpaceX's dominance isn't total, permanent, or all that significant, really, in the global sense of things.
Right

I pointed out that the number of Soyuz launches to replace is small, which is a fact.  I'm not trying to make a larger point.

 - Ed Kyle

ArianeSpace was involved in commercializing some Soyuz flights from Baikonur and Vostochny Cosmodromes as well as those from Kourou. Still it likely would not involve many Soyuz missions.

The upper stage of the Vega and Vega-C rockets is made in the Ukraine. Depending on the number they have available, it could be ESA could get in discussion with SpaceX or India about launching those payloads. Even less impact with those potential payloads.

[rpapo]

Remember that theirs were the guys who spit, physically not metaphorically, on Musk for being so presumptive as to ask to buy their glorious rockets just because he was rich. (About a third of a billion dollars! Woo Hoo!)

Now he is worth that much.  Then he was a nobody, from their point of view.  He had "only" $170-180M in cash burning a hole in his pocket at the time, which was nothing to the oligarchs, and not that big a deal by Silicon Valley standards.

But I agree.  Karma can really bite sometimes.

Actually he is worth a few magnitudes more than that. Just look up his current pay package in stock options with Tesla.

He is the world's richest man now.  I was speaking of his net worth at the time he met with the Russians, in 2000 or 2001.

[Rik ISS-fan]

After reading three pages of mostly nonsens replies. Here's my attempt for a little bit more informative post.
ESA (the European Space Agency) has a small number of payloads manifested on Soyuz-ST for the 2022-2023 period.
- Several launches with multiple Gallileo (EUSPA GNSS) satellites. 2-4x ~700kg to MEO 23222km 66°
- ESA M2 Euclid  ~2200kg to Earth-Sun L2
- ESA Earth Explorer 6; EurthCARE. 2350kg to SSO ~400km
This are the missions ESA _(/EUSPA) is searching alternative launchers for because the Soyuz-ST isn't available any longer. So this is like the NASA or the USAF is requesting launch options for some payloads.

Soyuz has launched commercially 64x for the STARSEM alliance, 27x from ELS France Guiana (VSxx launches) and 37x from other Soyuz pads (STXX missions). The Oneweb contract was the last commercial contract the Starsem alliance closed. After this contract Russian companies were selected to sell Soyuz lunches commercially.
In 2011 the development of Ariane 6 was initiated because for many European institutional payloads Arianespace only had the Soyuz-ST as launch option. And Russia was increasing Soyuz launch cost.
The development of Ariane 6 and Vega C should change that, but the developments aren't finished jet.
Vega-C has successfully flown it's maiden launch. Ariane 6 is in final phases of development, but problems still could emerge. It that happens, ESA has to search other launch options for more payloads.

The Falcon 9 with horizontal payload integration could be a suitable launch option for some satellites.
Some require vertical payload integration. when does that become available?
Other missions, for example the take Gallileo launches, will result in the Falcon upper-stage will become a huge space debits item. I also think Ariane 6 requires the ASTRIS kick-stage for these missions.  I think PSLV or GSLV are much better suited for these launches. Because of the in orbit/ kick stages they use.

[Blackjax]

It's fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine at the moment when the rocket fleets worldwide are turning over has put everybody except SpaceX in a bind.

So far, SpaceX is managing the transition well.  Rather than "this is what dominance gives you," I would say "this is what reusability gives you."

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS, or if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

[Jim]

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS,

It all depends on mass and trajectory.

if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

All can, just more efficient to fly more satellites and do downrange landing

[Nomadd]

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS, or if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

That's actually the plan if one of the barges takes some unexpected time off.
 Right now they mainly want to launch as much as they can as fast as they can.

[wannamoonbase]

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS, or if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

That's actually the plan if one of the barges takes some unexpected time off.
 Right now they mainly want to launch as much as they can as fast as they can.

Been waiting to see if/when a RTLS Starlink launch might happen.

My own pet theory is that the F9 Upper State is too valuable because it maybe their production limit.

[DanClemmensen]

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS, or if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

That's actually the plan if one of the barges takes some unexpected time off.
 Right now they mainly want to launch as much as they can as fast as they can.

Been waiting to see if/when a RTLS Starlink launch might happen.

My own pet theory is that the F9 Upper State is too valuable because it maybe their production limit.

My pet theory: sunk costs are sunk. They are already paying the fixed costs of the recovery fleet, so the difference in mission cost is just the difference between RTLS cost and ASDL operating cost. This remains true until the launch rate exceeds the ASDL operating capacity. Until that happens, the cost per satellite is cheaper using the barges.

[butters]

Other missions, for example the take Gallileo launches, will result in the Falcon upper-stage will become a huge space debits item. I also think Ariane 6 requires the ASTRIS kick-stage for these missions.  I think PSLV or GSLV are much better suited for these launches. Because of the in orbit/ kick stages they use.

Falcon 9 injects GPS satellites into a transfer to a very similar MEO and does a deorbit burn on those missions. Does Galileo need direct-to-MEO with circularization from the launch vehicle?

[Zed_Noir]

After reading three pages of mostly nonsens replies. Here's my attempt for a little bit more informative post.
ESA (the European Space Agency) has a small number of payloads manifested on Soyuz-ST for the 2022-2023 period.
- Several launches with multiple Gallileo (EUSPA GNSS) satellites. 2-4x ~700kg to MEO 23222km 66°
- ESA M2 Euclid  ~2200kg to Earth-Sun L2
- ESA Earth Explorer 6; EurthCARE. 2350kg to SSO ~400km
This are the missions ESA _(/EUSPA) is searching alternative launchers for because the Soyuz-ST isn't available any longer. So this is like the NASA or the USAF is requesting launch options for some payloads.

Soyuz has launched commercially 64x for the STARSEM alliance, 27x from ELS France Guiana (VSxx launches) and 37x from other Soyuz pads (STXX missions). The Oneweb contract was the last commercial contract the Starsem alliance closed. After this contract Russian companies were selected to sell Soyuz lunches commercially.
In 2011 the development of Ariane 6 was initiated because for many European institutional payloads Arianespace only had the Soyuz-ST as launch option. And Russia was increasing Soyuz launch cost.
The development of Ariane 6 and Vega C should change that, but the developments aren't finished jet.
Vega-C has successfully flown it's maiden launch. Ariane 6 is in final phases of development, but problems still could emerge. It that happens, ESA has to search other launch options for more payloads.

The Falcon 9 with horizontal payload integration could be a suitable launch option for some satellites.
Some require vertical payload integration. when does that become available?
Other missions, for example the take Gallileo launches, will result in the Falcon upper-stage will become a huge space debits item. I also think Ariane 6 requires the ASTRIS kick-stage for these missions.  I think PSLV or GSLV are much better suited for these launches. Because of the in orbit/ kick stages they use.

According to ISRO website the PSLV-XL which is the most capable version of the PSLV could loft 1750 kg to 600km SSO. So don't appear to have the performance for the ESA missions except for launching a solo Gallileo.

The GSLV Mark II has a checkered launch history and has flown infrequently with payload capacities of 5000 kg to LEO and 2500 kg to GTO.

The GSLV Mark III has done one operational launch with payload capacities of 8000 kg to LEO and 4000 kg to GTO.

Also availability is an issue with both versions of the GSLV with a long list of payloads already manifested including OneWeb and GaganYaan missions.

Think the Euclid mission will definitely be launch ASAP on the Falcon 9. The scientific return value diminishes as other instruments come online.

The other former Soyuz-ST missions will likely also launch on the Falcon 9. Since storing the spacecrafts and retaining the ground operations staff is just added expenses if waiting for non SpaceX launch opportunities.

[Josh_from_Canada]

Falcon 9 injects GPS satellites into a transfer to a very similar MEO and does a deorbit burn on those missions. Does Galileo need direct-to-MEO with circularization from the launch vehicle?

yes

[AmigaClone]

Does anyone know if any of these ESA missions could be done RTLS, or if some starlink launches could be done with fewer satellites and do RTLS?

That's actually the plan if one of the barges takes some unexpected time off.
 Right now they mainly want to launch as much as they can as fast as they can.

Been waiting to see if/when a RTLS Starlink launch might happen.

My own pet theory is that the F9 Upper State is too valuable because it maybe their production limit.

About the only situation I can see SpaceX having a RTLS Starlink F9 launch would involve a combination of the factors below.

1) Last expected launch of Starlink 1.x satellites to a particular shell.
2) At least one Autonomous Drone Ship is down for maintenance.
3) The total weight of the Starlink satellites needed to complete the shell, any rideshare satellites, and the related deployment hardware would allow for a RTLS mission.

Note that for the situation above, shells 3 and 5 are considered as one shell.

[punder]

SpaceX did something else that put them ahead—they basically ignored the pandemic while others slowed down considerably. India for example.

Is this meant to be a criticism or a compliment?

Just an observation. But if you force me to choose... compliment.

[Asteroza]

Depending on the urgency in light of recent heavy usage of ESA SAR data, Sentinel-1c/d launches getting pushed up due to Sentinel-1b going bad might be a candidate for this?

[Star One]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

Far be it for me to tell you what to want or not want.

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

One born every minute, one born every minute.

[soyuzu]

Other missions, for example the take Gallileo launches, will result in the Falcon upper-stage will become a huge space debits item. I also think Ariane 6 requires the ASTRIS kick-stage for these missions.  I think PSLV or GSLV are much better suited for these launches. Because of the in orbit/ kick stages they use.

GSLV mk2/3 simply don’t have the coasting ability required to launch to MEO, while PSLV may not have the payload capability to launch even one Galileo.

[Robotbeat]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

Far be it for me to tell you what to want or not want.

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

One born every minute, one born every minute.

Feels good, not gonna lie, to see SpaceX succeed and totally dominate over those who were dismissive and derisive of SpaceX, NewSpace in general, and reusable rockets in particular. Aerojet was hyper-dismissive of SpaceX, saying they were all talk and no launch (now the opposite). ESA/Airbus folk were also often dismissive. Boeing was not just dismissive but also held back research from ULA on the depot tech SpaceX is now gonna use for HLS, because Boeing didn’t want any threats to Ares/SLS (and Senator Shelby similarly threatened NASA against talking about depot technology). And many Congresscritters were dismissive and hostile to NASA picking SpaceX for HSF or any change in the old guard of military contractors.

Feels good to have SpaceX succeed over the Rogozin types (remember the “trampoline” comment? Etc… not to mention Russian war crimes and invading Ukraine) in particular, which is what this thread is about (replacing Soyuz flights).

So I also enjoy it. Immensely. I am still owed a dinner bet by one of the old guard who was dismissive of SpaceX.

But I would like actual competition, from other reusable rocket companies. SpaceX alone is not nearly as good as SpaceX plus Blue Origin plus RocketLab plus Relativity plus whatever Europe (or India or Japan or other democratic nations) comes up with for reusable rockets.

[M.E.T.]

That’s the power that utter market dominance gives you.

Even the harshest critics are forced to come begging. Amazon Kuiper stands alone in their willingness to throw vast amounts of cash needlessly into the fire just to spite their competitor.

I’m thoroughly enjoying events as they play out. And this enjoyment is what the “supporters of more competition” in the launch industry want to rob us of?

No thank you. Long may the dominance continue.

This is idiotic.  I don't want one car, one plane, etc

Far be it for me to tell you what to want or not want.

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoy SpaceX’s dominance. It all goes into funding the Mars program.

One born every minute, one born every minute.

Feels good, not gonna lie, to see SpaceX succeed and totally dominate over those who were dismissive and derisive of SpaceX, NewSpace in general, and reusable rockets in particular. Aerojet was hyper-dismissive of SpaceX, saying they were all talk and no launch (now the opposite). ESA/Airbus folk were also often dismissive. Boeing was not just dismissive but also held back research from ULA on the depot tech SpaceX is now gonna use for HLS, because Boeing didn’t want any threats to Ares/SLS (and Senator Shelby similarly threatened NASA against talking about depot technology). And many Congresscritters were dismissive and hostile to NASA picking SpaceX for HSF or any change in the old guard of military contractors.

Feels good to have SpaceX succeed over the Rogozin types (remember the “trampoline” comment? Etc… not to mention Russian war crimes and invading Ukraine) in particular, which is what this thread is about (replacing Soyuz flights).

So I also enjoy it. Immensely. I am still owed a dinner bet by one of the old guard who was dismissive of SpaceX.

But I would like actual competition, from other reusable rocket companies. SpaceX alone is not nearly as good as SpaceX plus Blue Origin plus RocketLab plus Relativity plus whatever Europe (or India or Japan or other democratic nations) comes up with for reusable rockets.

I think SpaceX is a unique phenomenon, which will not be seen again - because of the quirks of its founder. I think every other space company will primarily be driven by shareholder profit goals, with Elon the one who will dedicate it all (as far as he has the freedom to do so) to Mars colonization.

I think having 5 competing launch companies each eke out modest launch revenue and having to cover 5 separate sets of overhead costs, before spreading some long awaited returns to 5 sets of shareholders inevitably leaves less surplus to be pumped into the Mars dream.

If 5 companies share $10B annual launch revenue between them, some will break even, some will make a loss and a few will make a modest profit, to be distributed to their eager stock holders. If one company earns all of the $10B on the other hand, (or most of it, given some artificially enforced competition), economies of scale will give them a much larger profit margin which can be invested in Mars, if the owner happens to value that as his life goal.

In short, without going into too much more detail, that’s why I am happy to see SpaceX dominate the market - including against other New Space companies.

[Robotbeat]

Blue Origin is similar to SpaceX in having a starry eyed founder which maintains financial control of the company.

I’d say that Relativity is similar, but Tim Ellis doesn’t have full financial control of the company. Maybe Impulse, however.

But there’s a lot more than $10B in the space economy. (Although launch revenue will struggle to exceed $10B.)

If SLS’s budget was mostly used for launching propellant, that’d pay for on average one commercial RLV. Each of the megaconstellations (OneWeb, Kuiper, and Starlink) can each provide demand for an RLV. So there’s room for probably 4 RLVs for those things alone, if they can remain in business.

Additional things like crew/cargo launch, space tourism, eventual point to point service, etc, could each maybe support another RLV if they grow. So there could be a bunch of them.

(And each vehicle would service multiple demand sources, just as each demand source would be serviced by multiple vehicles, thus allowing redundancy and resiliency against the loss of any one vehicle and/or demand source… plus competition.)

[M.E.T.]

Blue Origin is similar to SpaceX in having a starry eyed founder which maintains financial control of the company.

I’d say that Relativity is similar, but Tim Ellis doesn’t have full financial control of the company. Maybe Impulse, however.

😀 The starry eyed founder who wanted to charge NASA $10B for an Apollo style lander on the Moon?😀

Edit:

Blue Origin? Seriously?

End edit.

As for Relativity, their stated goal, paraphrased, is to stop SpaceX from getting all the launch revenue (“Need to provide a second option other than SpaceX for constellation launches” to quote Tim Ellis).

That’s taking money away from the company most dedicated and most successful at pushing us towards a multi-planetary future.

Anyway, just explaining my motivations. Not trying to convince anyone else to share them.

[M.E.T.]

But there’s a lot more than $10B in the space economy. (Although launch revenue will struggle to exceed $10B.)

If SLS’s budget was mostly used for launching propellant, that’d pay for on average one commercial RLV. Each of the megaconstellations (OneWeb, Kuiper, and Starlink) can each provide demand for an RLV. So there’s room for probably 4 RLVs for those things alone, if they can remain in business.

Additional things like crew/cargo launch, space tourism, eventual point to point service, etc, could each maybe support another RLV if they grow. So there could be a bunch of them.

(And each vehicle would service multiple demand sources, just as each demand source would be serviced by multiple vehicles, thus allowing redundancy and resiliency against the loss of any one vehicle and/or demand source… plus competition.)

You just said it yourself - there is a lot more than $10B to be made in the space industry, but not in launch.

So why do launch? Why the need for 4 separate RLV’s? Instead, use the increasingly unstoppable, ever accelerating freight train to orbit that is SpaceX, and focus on the other $990B to be made in space, outside of launch.

[jimvela]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

[TrevorMonty]

Without competition we would all be driving black Ford Ts.

[Robotbeat]

Without competition we would all be driving black Ford Ts.

at least those are reusable.

[ZachF]

As for Relativity, their stated goal, paraphrased, is to stop SpaceX from getting all the launch revenue (“Need to provide a second option other than SpaceX for constellation launches” to quote Tim Ellis).

Not a zero sum situation.

[su27k]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

James McNerney is also two words, yet you don't see people championing for alternative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes...

[punder]

There is no contradiction between being an unashamed Elon/SpaceX fan and wanting meaningful competition in the launch business. Fly All the Rockets.

Of course that competition must be lawful and free, not some space version of KC-X.

Still amusing that SpaceX went from “nah, never happen” to “monopoly threat” in about a decade.

[Eric Hedman]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

James McNerney is also two words, yet you don't see people championing for alternative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes...

Because Airbus is a very viable alternative to Boeing commercial airplanes.

[Robotbeat]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

James McNerney is also two words, yet you don't see people championing for alternative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes...

Because Airbus is a very viable alternative to Boeing commercial airplanes.

Well I, for one, think the duopoly is problematic. It stifles progress and competition. 2 is not enough, especially as one is foreign (and the other is Boeing… 😬).

We need more. And we shouldn’t let Boeing and Airbus gobble up every would-be competitor (like Bombardier, etc…).

[jimvela]

The note about Howard Hughes is also a mention of what happened to his company as his physical and worse his mental health declined. 
Having everything riding on one ultra wealthy guy staying sane and healthy... isn't a good idea.
It's much better, in my opinion, to have many viable options with active competition whether it be launch services or airliner suppliers.

[Zed_Noir]

The note about Howard Hughes is also a mention of what happened to his company as his physical and worse his mental health declined. 
Having everything riding on one ultra wealthy guy staying sane and healthy... isn't a good idea.
It's much better, in my opinion, to have many viable options with active competition whether it be launch services or airliner suppliers.

Problem is that the one successful private launch service provider run by an eccentric Billionaire don't need to have a return on investment. Also that eccentric Billionaire's launch company have the most launch capacity availability and the cheapest launch cost. It is hard to compete commercially against that.

It appears that other than heavily government subsidized launch providers. Most launch providers with small or even medium launchers will likely be restricted to servicing only a tiny market niche with infrequent launches.

[jimvela]

I don't believe it's as simple as one eccentric rich guy in a unique situation.

Governments do not have to view indigenous launch capabilities as a cost-only sink where they don't get reasonable value for the monies they spend on it.

Commercial entities do not have to be focused only on this quarter's return or being beholden to the incoming pork barrel spending from a government.

 

[Mark K]

The note about Howard Hughes is also a mention of what happened to his company as his physical and worse his mental health declined. 
Having everything riding on one ultra wealthy guy staying sane and healthy... isn't a good idea.
It's much better, in my opinion, to have many viable options with active competition whether it be launch services or airliner suppliers.

Problem is that the one successful private launch service provider run by an eccentric Billionaire don't need to have a return on investment. Also that eccentric Billionaire's launch company have the most launch capacity availability and the cheapest launch cost. It is hard to compete commercially against that.

It appears that other than heavily government subsidized launch providers. Most launch providers with small or even medium launchers will likely be restricted to servicing only a tiny market niche with infrequent launches.

Since when has SpaceX not needed a return on investment?
Elon Musk may hold controlling interest SpaceX but there are billions of outside dollars invested, expecting more than flights to Mars.
They don't control quarter to quarter things but they are expecting a robust commercially viable company, and maybe a big payoff with Starlink.
If those investers got cold feet and pulled out that bankrupcy talk wouldn't be out of whack with the high burn rate SpaceX is following.

[Zed_Noir]

The note about Howard Hughes is also a mention of what happened to his company as his physical and worse his mental health declined. 
Having everything riding on one ultra wealthy guy staying sane and healthy... isn't a good idea.
It's much better, in my opinion, to have many viable options with active competition whether it be launch services or airliner suppliers.

Problem is that the one successful private launch service provider run by an eccentric Billionaire don't need to have a return on investment. Also that eccentric Billionaire's launch company have the most launch capacity availability and the cheapest launch cost. It is hard to compete commercially against that.

It appears that other than heavily government subsidized launch providers. Most launch providers with small or even medium launchers will likely be restricted to servicing only a tiny market niche with infrequent launches.

Since when has SpaceX not needed a return on investment?
Elon Musk may hold controlling interest SpaceX but there are billions of outside dollars invested, expecting more than flights to Mars.
They don't control quarter to quarter things but they are expecting a robust commercially viable company, and maybe a big payoff with Starlink.
If those investers got cold feet and pulled out that bankrupcy talk wouldn't be out of whack with the high burn rate SpaceX is following.

AFAIK SpaceX hasn't give out any dividends yet. And not likely to until the projected Mars colony is up and running. The profits is mostly re-invested back into SpaceX.

Most of the outside SpaceX investors understood it is a long term investment. They can cash out anytime they want, there will be someone willing to take the SpaceX shares off their hands. But they already received benefits due to the high cap ex of SpaceX (including the Starlink business) of over $125B as of May 2022 and increasing.

As SpaceX gobbles up market shares from the other commercial launch providers. They will become the "Taco Bell" that @jim is so fond of voicing.

[su27k]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

James McNerney is also two words, yet you don't see people championing for alternative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes...

Because Airbus is a very viable alternative to Boeing commercial airplanes.

Airbus is not a US company, nobody is advocating for a domestic replacement for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, why should there be advocacy for domestic replacement for SpaceX?

The commercial airplane market is much much bigger than space launch market ($100B vs a few billion), yet we only have two big players in it (plus one from China which is clearly subsidized by the government, Airbus and Boeing are heavily subsidized by respective government too I believe), why does anybody think pushing a dozen players into the much smaller space launch market is a sound idea?

If you allow foreign alternative in space launch, you can go to Arianespace or ISRO, which Kuiper and OneWeb have already chosen, which proves internationally there is alternative to SpaceX.

[su27k]

The note about Howard Hughes is also a mention of what happened to his company as his physical and worse his mental health declined. 
Having everything riding on one ultra wealthy guy staying sane and healthy... isn't a good idea.
It's much better, in my opinion, to have many viable options with active competition whether it be launch services or airliner suppliers.

Where is the advocacy for active competition for airliner suppliers? There is none, USG is not seeking alterative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, which their CEO - also a one wealth guy - made a big mess of, which shows this idea of yours is dubious at best.

A lot of things riding on a single guy staying sane and health, including the control of world's biggest nuclear arsenals which can blow up the entire Earth, nobody seems to have a problem with that.

And this doesn't even touch the fact that the only reason SpaceX is where it is today is due to this single guy, so yes there is the risk that he may take away the benefit which he himself created, so what? You wouldn't have this benefit in the first place if not for him. And the risk is justified because supporting him to continue his innovative work could bring much bigger rewards. A fully operational Starship and a Mars colony for example is worth all the competition combined, and active competition would never give you Starship or Starlink in today's market.

[M.E.T.]

Why have multiple providers when one has so much capabilities?
Two words: Howard Hughes.

James McNerney is also two words, yet you don't see people championing for alternative to Boeing Commercial Airplanes...

Because Airbus is a very viable alternative to Boeing commercial airplanes.

Airbus is not a US company, nobody is advocating for a domestic replacement for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, why should there be advocacy for domestic replacement for SpaceX?

The commercial airplane market is much much bigger than space launch market ($100B vs a few billion), yet we only have two big players in it (plus one from China which is clearly subsidized by the government, Airbus and Boeing are heavily subsidized by respective government too I believe), why does anybody think pushing a dozen players into the much smaller space launch market is a sound idea?

If you allow foreign alternative in space launch, you can go to Arianespace or ISRO, which Kuiper and OneWeb have already chosen, which proves internationally there is alternative to SpaceX.

This.

Many of the space utopians refuse to accept that the launch market is tiny, and unlikely to grow exponentially in the near future - excluding Elon’s Mars plans.

There just isn’t enough business to go around and allow 5 competitors to all achieve  economies of scale.

But there is enough to allow ONE provider to achieve decent economies of scale - as SpaceX has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate ever more efficiently as they gobble up more and more of the launch market.

Robotbeat acknowledged above that the launch market will struggle to exceed $10B a year in the near to mid term. That $10B can give us a thousand Starship flights at $10M per flight (so a capacity of 100,000 tons to orbit), while still allowing SpaceX to remain viable as a launch provider.

Or it can give maybe $2B a year to five competing providers, each trying to scrape together enough revenue to cover their duplicated fixed costs. And probably end up with a fraction of the tonnage to orbit for the $10B spent, as a result.

[Robotbeat]

Counterpoint: Each megaconstellation can support around 50 launches per year on average, and therefore at least one RLV. There are 2 active megaconstellations and another one coming. That's 3 RLVs. There may well be more megaconstellations in the future, plus launch demand from NASA (this is not insignificant as NASA leans harder and harder on commercial launch...). Artemis 3 will involve roughly 1000mt IMLEO from SpaceX, about 10 launches of Starship (actually double that as SpaceX will need to demo it). NASA requires continued launches to ISS (crew and cargo), to Gateway (currently just cargo), and for HLS (first Starship, then adding another provider) plus the CLIPS missions. In addition to the occasional Earth Observation, Astrophysics, and Robotic planetary science missions.  All told, NASA's launch demand could count as another RLV.

More precisely:
Kuiper masses about 2000mt for its initial configuration (~400mt annually?). Starlink about 3500mt in initial configuration and around 40,000mt in its final configuration (~8000mt annual?). OneWeb is 200mt initially and about 500mt for the second rung (~100mt annual?).
Artemis is about 1000mt per year for the HLS, 100mt per year for ISS servicing. 50-100mt IMLEO per year for Gateway. Maybe 150-250mt per year once CLIPS is operational and another 50mt for random non-HSF launches for a total of about 1500mt per year of launch demand from NASA. Altogether, those are about 10,000mt per year in launch demand. Split equally among 20t launchers, that's a healthy 500 launchers, enough for 10 RLVs, 5 RLVs with a healthy 100-per-year launchrate.

That's altogether pretty healthy, and I didn't cover other commsats or military stuff or space tourism. Space Tourism could be easily just as much, starting with 50mt per year for occasion LEO flights, getting much higher with Starship (Polaris Project) and then flying around the Moon (Dear Moon) to say an additional 200mt per year... Once that becomes a thing, you might get 10 tourist flights per year to the Moon. That'd equal all other demand above.

A wild card would be SBSP. The stuff the European study asks for is about 100,000t per year. I get the skepticism, but this could be conceivable at this scale.

It won't happen if we don't try.

[su27k]

You're double counting, the 8,000t for Starlink and 1,000t for HLS is only there because of Starship, it wouldn't go to 20t launchers. Take that out and your market shrinks by 90%...

[Asteroza]

A wild card would be SBSP. The stuff the European study asks for is about 100,000t per year. I get the skepticism, but this could be conceivable at this scale.

ESA EHLL is targeting 10,000t/year lift target to support SPS deployment, looks like you added an extra zero there. Your Starlink annual mass of 8000t suggests EU Starship EHLL can cover it's own Starlink class constellation, which might intermingle with any OneWeb expansion attempts.

Plus there's always the dark horse constellations in the corner that is space 5G systems like Lynk.Global and Spacemobile, if they ever get direct support from the likes of Apple or Google to seal their global smartphone hegemony.

Additionally, the numbers here are informative with respect to the chinese Guowang constellation, which would be facing similar tonnage concerns over sustainability of chinese commercial heavy RLV's in their ostensibly closed domestic market.


But we are starting to veer away from the original topic. With the announcement of EHLL, which appears to be a direct Starship competitor, how long would ESA tolerate sending payloads to F9 and Starship to avoid undercutting EHLL wooing bulk customers to drive that kind of tonnage? Ostensibly EHLL needs to support SPS deployment in 2035, which implies first flight before then. That puts perhaps a healthy 6-8 years of uncontested Starship availability temping ESA payloads, while F9 being close to Ariane 6 means payloads in lower weight classes (but above Vega) will waffle (departure window constrained payloads may consider escaping on F9).

[M.E.T.]

Counterpoint: Each megaconstellation can support around 50 launches per year on average, and therefore at least one RLV. There are 2 active megaconstellations and another one coming. That's 3 RLVs. There may well be more megaconstellations in the future, plus launch demand from NASA (this is not insignificant as NASA leans harder and harder on commercial launch...). Artemis 3 will involve roughly 1000mt IMLEO from SpaceX, about 10 launches of Starship (actually double that as SpaceX will need to demo it). NASA requires continued launches to ISS (crew and cargo), to Gateway (currently just cargo), and for HLS (first Starship, then adding another provider) plus the CLIPS missions. In addition to the occasional Earth Observation, Astrophysics, and Robotic planetary science missions.  All told, NASA's launch demand could count as another RLV.

More precisely:
Kuiper masses about 2000mt for its initial configuration (~400mt annually?). Starlink about 3500mt in initial configuration and around 40,000mt in its final configuration (~8000mt annual?). OneWeb is 200mt initially and about 500mt for the second rung (~100mt annual?).
Artemis is about 1000mt per year for the HLS, 100mt per year for ISS servicing. 50-100mt IMLEO per year for Gateway. Maybe 150-250mt per year once CLIPS is operational and another 50mt for random non-HSF launches for a total of about 1500mt per year of launch demand from NASA. Altogether, those are about 10,000mt per year in launch demand. Split equally among 20t launchers, that's a healthy 500 launchers, enough for 10 RLVs, 5 RLVs with a healthy 100-per-year launchrate.

That's altogether pretty healthy, and I didn't cover other commsats or military stuff or space tourism. Space Tourism could be easily just as much, starting with 50mt per year for occasion LEO flights, getting much higher with Starship (Polaris Project) and then flying around the Moon (Dear Moon) to say an additional 200mt per year... Once that becomes a thing, you might get 10 tourist flights per year to the Moon. That'd equal all other demand above.

A wild card would be SBSP. The stuff the European study asks for is about 100,000t per year. I get the skepticism, but this could be conceivable at this scale.

It won't happen if we don't try.

Kuiper 2000mt in total? That’s 20 Starship launches in total. 400mt per year? That’s 4 Starship launches. $40M launch revenue per year at $10M per Starship launch. Yet you state that each mega constellation could support a RLV?

Using Kuiper as the example, why develop an entirely new RLV for something that could be satisfied by 4 Starship launches per year? For $40M?

[Robotbeat]

You're double counting, the 8,000t for Starlink and 1,000t for HLS is only there because of Starship, it wouldn't go to 20t launchers. Take that out and your market shrinks by 90%...

sure, but the stuff Starship enables is stuff others will also want. People want an alternative to SpaceX as an option. Kuiper especially. But Congress and NASA would prefer a second HLS. I know some folks developing space stations would really like not just SpaceX but a similar competitor (like Terran-R).

Bezos wants to do similar stuff to what Musk is doing, just different destinations.

And note that with new technology and competition, launch mass can grow by a couple orders of magnitude even if revenue is basically flat. Operating an RLV isn’t much more than an ELV, even at lower launch rates. But the marginal cost of launch is FAR less.

I think 5 RLVs is likely too much. But 3 or 4 is feasible.