ESA in discussion with SpaceX on launch requirements

[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.