SpaceX (Vol. 2)
Discussion
GTO-3R said:
I think it's fair to say that other space companies have got a LONG way to go before even coming close to catching SpaceX. It's remarkable the cadence in which they're able to launch.
It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
I thought the Japanese approach interesting - major on 3D printing components to get the price of an expendable down far enough to compete. Is that really feasible, given how cheap SpaceX is going to start making engines?It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
Obviously it hasn’t actually made orbit yet
What’s happening with Virgin Orbit? Have they figured out what happened off Cornwall? If the Japanese tech really is transformational economically, it might make sense for Virgin to collaborate with them - get the small launch price down a lot lower.
Interesting times.
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, and another cargo Dragon is scheduled to go up on Wednesday at 12.30 am UK time.
The rate of launches is such that pretty much whenever I'm in Central Florida for work I get to see one.This will be the first night time one though, so heading over to some bridge the local team have advised me of, which should be good viewing (c.15 miles from pad).
Hoping to see the space octopus or whatever it's called!
Looks like just as I missed Artemis by a few weeks, I'm going to miss Spaceship too by a similar amount.
Was well worth the trip! Jellyfish looked awesome, as did the Bay being lit up by the exhaust.
That's four launches seen for me now I think. Three falcons and one heavy.
Realised Starship launches from Texas, which puts paid to the idea of organising my next trip to coincide. Would like to see a SLS launch though.
That's four launches seen for me now I think. Three falcons and one heavy.
Realised Starship launches from Texas, which puts paid to the idea of organising my next trip to coincide. Would like to see a SLS launch though.
MartG said:
Sway said:
Realised Starship launches from Texas, which puts paid to the idea of organising my next trip to coincide
I believe that once operational, it will fly from CanaveralThere's rumors of another at one of the 40 pads, I don't recall the letter
skwdenyer said:
GTO-3R said:
I think it's fair to say that other space companies have got a LONG way to go before even coming close to catching SpaceX. It's remarkable the cadence in which they're able to launch.
It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
I thought the Japanese approach interesting - major on 3D printing components to get the price of an expendable down far enough to compete. Is that really feasible, given how cheap SpaceX is going to start making engines?It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
Obviously it hasn’t actually made orbit yet
What’s happening with Virgin Orbit? Have they figured out what happened off Cornwall? If the Japanese tech really is transformational economically, it might make sense for Virgin to collaborate with them - get the small launch price down a lot lower.
Interesting times.
1: Virtually every cost reduction you can make to an expendable can also be made to a reusable. There aren't substantially different margins for the design of most components between something that will be used once and something that would be used 20 times. The only examples I can think of are solid rockets and ablatable coatings.
2: The expendable vs reusable trade only makes sense when the cost of the vehicle is a small portion of the cost of flying. This is normally true when you have a limited number of launches and your fixed costs like operating the factory, launch pad, mission control and design functions dominate the cost. As you move to higher launch rates most of those costs stay fixed and become a lower proportion of the costs of flying. What SpaceX has done is found a launch market which allows high flight rates and thus lowering the proportion of fixed costs of operation per flight.
I can't see how Virgin pulls itself out of where it is, their product is niche and there isn't much money in it per launch, what they have doesn't scale and they are competing against SpaceX which has a marginal cost of about $20m to orbit today and about 15x the capacity per launch ergo.
Most of the small launch people who will survive used the small launcher as something to demonstrate competence and then get on with building a medium sized vehicle.
Talksteer said:
skwdenyer said:
GTO-3R said:
I think it's fair to say that other space companies have got a LONG way to go before even coming close to catching SpaceX. It's remarkable the cadence in which they're able to launch.
It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
I thought the Japanese approach interesting - major on 3D printing components to get the price of an expendable down far enough to compete. Is that really feasible, given how cheap SpaceX is going to start making engines?It will be very interesting to see what happens once they get Starship up and running.
Obviously it hasn’t actually made orbit yet
What’s happening with Virgin Orbit? Have they figured out what happened off Cornwall? If the Japanese tech really is transformational economically, it might make sense for Virgin to collaborate with them - get the small launch price down a lot lower.
Interesting times.
1: Virtually every cost reduction you can make to an expendable can also be made to a reusable. There aren't substantially different margins for the design of most components between something that will be used once and something that would be used 20 times. The only examples I can think of are solid rockets and ablatable coatings.
2: The expendable vs reusable trade only makes sense when the cost of the vehicle is a small portion of the cost of flying. This is normally true when you have a limited number of launches and your fixed costs like operating the factory, launch pad, mission control and design functions dominate the cost. As you move to higher launch rates most of those costs stay fixed and become a lower proportion of the costs of flying. What SpaceX has done is found a launch market which allows high flight rates and thus lowering the proportion of fixed costs of operation per flight.
I can't see how Virgin pulls itself out of where it is, their product is niche and there isn't much money in it per launch, what they have doesn't scale and they are competing against SpaceX which has a marginal cost of about $20m to orbit today and about 15x the capacity per launch ergo.
Most of the small launch people who will survive used the small launcher as something to demonstrate competence and then get on with building a medium sized vehicle.
It seems the basic problem is VO just didn't understand the trajectory of launch costs, and perhaps massively underestimated how aggressive SpaceX were going to be. Starship really does seem to be a potential game-changer (and, even if it isn't, it *promises* to be one, which is going to give investors and buyers pause for thought re VO, I'd have thought).
If public figures are accurate, VO's Launcher One is going to cost $40k/kg.
Here's where I think the market is (and correct me if I'm wrong).
VO can launch a maximum of 500kg (and more usually 300kg) into, realistically, any LEO - their operational flexibility to go anywhere in the world they're allowed is potentially an important differentiator, permitting cost-effective orbital injection at inclinations just not usually accessible otherwise.
AIUI, VO is ~$12m / launch = $24-40k / kg. This is something like 10x the current SpaceX price / kg.
SpaceX wouldn't historically sell you a 300kg mission, however. But Starship looks like it can launch (a) very cheaply, and (b) can carry a wide range of payloads in one mission. So, as long as your orbital requirements match up with something Starship can offer, SpaceX are going to dramatically change the economics once again.
The Falcon Transporter "ride-share" flight was the first warning shot here - price per kg still something like 25% of VO's price. Starship could wipe out much of the smallsat launch market entirely.
That seems to push VO (and other smallsat launchers) into niches not easily-served by SpaceX - more challenging orbits, for instance. But how big is the market for that? And does it justify the sort of investment that Virgin have made?
Sadly, it looks like the VO proposition was the "right" one back in the early/mid 2000s, when Virgin Galactic kicked off, and the ideas of doing smallsat launches first took hold. But the pace of Virgin development has been cripplingly slow.
VO was formally spun out / founded in 2017. In the time since then, SpaceX developed and successfully flew the Falcon-1, for an investment estimated at something like 10% of that claimed for Virgin Orbit.
Honestly, it is hard to shake the idea that VO has spent far too much money developing fundamentally the wrong tech, not to mention underpinning what Musk has achieved at SpaceX.
Arnold Cunningham said:
Perhaps not fundamentall wrong tech - maybe, but I can also see the benefits. But Space-X, I agree, are so far ahead of anyone now that it's going to be hard for anyone to compete unless/until Space-X have a major whoopsie of some sort.
Rather than reply in detail here, I've gone over to the Virgin Orbit thread here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Better than at T+3 seconds I suppose. Presumably there's a whole host of checks that run in the last few seconds that could have caused that. They had a launch abort on the crew dragon mission a few weeks ago too didn't they? Given the launch cadence thier success rate is still bloody impressive though.
Arnold Cunningham said:
Perhaps not fundamentall wrong tech - maybe, but I can also see the benefits. But Space-X, I agree, are so far ahead of anyone now that it's going to be hard for anyone to compete unless/until Space-X have a major whoopsie of some sort.
To a degree they are just an outlier, there will be a role for launchers to exist for people don't want to use SpaceX because they are a competitor. There will be a role for launchers to exist purely to give various users options.
There will be launchers that exist purely to give national sovereignty.
SpaceX has also proven that space "isn't that hard" with numerous other venture funded people flying. Once we have some stable configurations for reusable vehicles expect various state actors to simulate the development of similar capabilities.
See Airbus Vs Boeing.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff