News Russia ceding commercial launch market to SpaceX?

[RGClark]

Russia appears to have surrendered to SpaceX in the global launch market
"The 4 percent stake isn’t worth the effort to try to elbow Musk and China aside."
ERIC BERGER - 4/18/2018, 10:01 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ndered-to-spacex-in-the-global-launch-market/

IF SpaceX also succeeds in cutting costs through reusability then Arianespace will be in the same position because their selected mode for the Ariane 6 can not be made reusable.

I suggest instead Arianespace should hedge its bets and make also a multi-Vulcain version of the Ariane 6. This version could be made to be reusable in being able to liftoff as a fully liquid-fueled launcher with no solid side boosters.

As it is now, Arianespace is betting on SpaceX to fail in reusability. Given SpaceX's history of successes, I would say that is not a good bet.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Let me fix this fanboy perspective for you

"As it is now, Arianespace is betting on SpaceX to fail in reusability profitability. Given SpaceX's history of successes not publishing their balance reports, I would say that is not a good bet."

Also, If you paid attention to another M (Macron) and the reaction of Arianespace to his words of "buying European", it might also be likely that SpaceX could remain depending on NASA money.

Also, SpaceXs future depends largely on which NASA administrator will finally do the job. There is still none.

The commercial world doesn't mind how much the American tax payer pays for them. Just like it did not mind that Arianespace is only profitable with European taxes.

 

[N_Molson]

:rofl:

 

[RGClark]

Let me fix this fanboy perspective for you

"As it is now, Arianespace is betting on SpaceX to fail in reusability profitability. Given SpaceX's history of successes not publishing their balance reports, I would say that is not a good bet."

Also, If you paid attention to another M (Macron) and the reaction of Arianespace to his words of "buying European", it might also be likely that SpaceX could remain depending on NASA money.

Also, SpaceXs future depends largely on which NASA administrator will finally do the job. There is still none.

The commercial world doesn't mind how much the American tax payer pays for them. Just like it did not mind that Arianespace is only profitable with European taxes.

The Roscosmos also bet on SpaceX to fail. Now they’re out of the commercial satellite business. They’ll only be launching government satellites.
The same will happen to Arianespace by betting on SpaceX to fail; they’ll be reduced to only launching government satellites because they’ll be priced out of the commercial market.
Arianespace is reacting to price cutting moves SpaceX made years ago. By the time Arianespace’s new launchers are in play SpaceX will already have moved on to cut prices further and they’ll still be priced out of the commercial market.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Arianespace is reacting to price cutting moves SpaceX made years ago. By the time Arianespace’s new launchers are in play SpaceX will already have moved on to cut prices further and they’ll still be priced out of the commercial market.

Blaaaaaaaaaaaa..... you have NEVER seen any reliable calculation by SpaceX but talk about "price cuts" being something sustainable. :lol: Right now, NASA is keeping SpaceX alive, that is the only fact that we have because what NASA pays to SpaceX is public knowledge. And its a huge pork barrel. Also, SpaceX has a huge amount of investors money behind now - it developed tenfold from 2012 to 2017, now SpaceX has about $21 billion behind without ever needing to publish anything about its financial situation to public investors. NASA is actually pretty helpful there to SpaceX as well. Their claimed development costs of the Falcon 9 does not say how much SpaceX invested into the smaller Falcon 5 before the COTS programm. They only tracked the Falcon 9 development.

Also, how can you complain about the Ariane 6 not being a Falcon 9 clone and at the same time suggest its design has something to do with SpaceX. The only thing SpaceX created is the political pressure on ESA to finally put an end to the Ariane 5 era, instead of riding this 1980s design for the next decades.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Yeah!! I wonder where that damn F1 went to... and all NASAs (ahem!! tax payers) USDs to 'develop' a SpaceX rocket and engine.

Are they not still using the Russian engines :thumbup:.

 

[jgrillo2002]

Never liked SpaceX, Never will.

 

[Urwumpe]

Never liked SpaceX, Never will.

Oh I can like what they achieved. And I can dislike what they did not.

And I can remember the fate of Betamax.

 

[hutchison66]

Space X is showing up all of the Government agencies especially NASA no matter where the money comes from they are working to develop capabilities that none of the others can offer and when the Crewed Dragons start flying then the Russians will lose a lot of US dollars. Falcon heavy also calls into to question why the US tax payers should pay 1 to 2 Billion a launch None of their reasons for the development of SLS make sense any more and were is the contracts to Build more RD 25 main engines they don't even have any landers in development to go to Mars or the Moon.
We all should support Space X as they may give us the future in Space that none of the Government agencies will.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I will admit that SpaceX has succeeded in largely cutting the Russians out of the commercial launch market. I mean, when was the last time they flew the Proton? It's been a while, right?

Now, that said, I'm not sure it's the cost that's been the driving force for the exodus from the Russian launchers... I think it's that SpaceX is more reliable and far more sociopolitically palatable at the moment than the Russians.

 

[Col_Klonk]

How are they going to get people up to ISS and back.
BTW.. we 're not going to Mars anytime soon - maybe 500 years or so

 

[Urwumpe]

How are they going to get people up to ISS and back.
BTW.. we 're not going to Mars anytime soon - maybe 500 years or so

Which ISS? :lol:

In a few years its the European lunar hygienic village and Fort Armstrong.

 

[Thorsten]

and when the Crewed Dragons start flying then the Russians will lose a lot of US dollars.

Except, heavens forbid, one of rockets follows the disturbing tendency to blow up with a crew on board. Might sway the general opinion whether cheapest always works best...

Let's say it's possible to look at some more transparent Musk-run companies like Tesla, study the general idea of the business model and then make an educated guess about how large safety is written elsewhere.

 

[RGClark]

Keep in mind it is not just Arianespace that is resisting reusability. All the "OldSpace" companies are as well, such as Lockheed, Boeing, ULA. The only other company seeming to embrace reusability is Blue Origin, which is another "NewSpace" company.

This resistance to innovation is what leads some space advocates to refer to "OldSpace" companies as "DinoSpace".

The appellation may be apt. They may become extinct.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

They may become extinct.

You never heard of Betamax, did you?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

That's... actually a pretty good analogy. We're in a "format war" with launchers, that's for sure. But, I suspect that the Betamax here is actually ULA and other "legacy" launchers, and the VHS is SpaceX (and once they fly New Glenn, Blue Origin).

 

[Urwumpe]

That's... actually a pretty good analogy. We're in a "format war" with launchers, that's for sure. But, I suspect that the Betamax here is actually ULA and other "legacy" launchers, and the VHS is SpaceX (and once they fly New Glenn, Blue Origin).

I am not sure. I think we are still in a world where the question is: Where is the sweet spot of reusability in terms of economics?

Being the first and best (Betamax) does not mean, you are more economic than somebody who has the cheaper processes (VHS) and can simply outperform you on the market by having the longer breath.

As you can imagine for SpaceX right now, their operations have many fixed costs, that only become useful if SpaceX does utilize them often enough. Landing barges cost and only make sense, if you land on them. Landing sites must be used. People for turn-around of a stage must have something meaningful to do. Even just having a place in a port to dock the barges costs money.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Bet they didn't think much about shipping costs :lol:
All those small tallies that eventually mount up to equal one rocket launch cost..
So a recycled (and reliably dubious ) stage could cost you double than what's peddled.
This is where NASA and it's 'Deep Pockets' (Ahem cough cough - your money) comes in.

 

[Urwumpe]

Bet they didn't think much about shipping costs :lol:
All those small tallies that eventually mount up to equal one rocket launch cost..
So a recycled (and reliably dubious ) stage could cost you double than what's peddled.
This is where NASA and it's 'Deep Pockets' (Ahem cough cough - your money) comes in.

Exactly. Or ESA money for Arianespace. :lol:

I am pretty sure: The improved IXV/Space Rider of Italy will do more for economics than the rockets can.