The Next "SpaceX"?

[sojourner]

Here's an interesting line of thought I had.

Invariably when a new company comes in and shakes up a market successfully eventually other companies get started that try to mimic it's success by using similar processes. Now, I'm not sure that SpaceX is quite there for it to become a model for a wave of imitators yet. I think it needs another year or two of successful launches to establish it's cred, but just for fun, what do you think a "me too" company would be like? What kind of rocket would they build?

Personally, I would imagine someone, learning from SpaceX's experience, going straight to a methane fueled deep throttle main engine in a cluster of 5 to 7 engines on the first stage. I think they would aim for a payload a little larger than F9 and plan for RTLS of the first stage from the beginning. I could see them maybe diverging from the SpaceX method by making the second stage aimed at re-usability from the beginning, maybe with a lifting body shape and internalized cargo.

I think they would try and find a plant location suitable for water transport of stages to the launch site in order to avoid the size limits that SpaceX has had to deal with by transporting on trucks.

Thoughts?

[Kryten]

Somebody else popping up in the same size class as F9 or F9 heavy is unlikely. The market isn't too big at that range, and the focus on reliability makes entering it with an unproven vehicle very difficult. There may be an opportunity to enter the market after ILS collapses (given no Protons have been ordered since 2013 outside of Russia, that can't take too long now); but by that point Blue Origin are likely to be ready. Anybody trying to get in after that will have to either outprice Arianespace for the third place or start at the smaller end of the market, probably the latter.

[sojourner]

Oh sure, take the fun out of the exercise...

[xenomorph555]

It's too late for another "SpaceX", they've already got hold of the market and will completely monopolize it over time. Nothing else will survive and they're not going to just go and let a threat grow under them.

[Kryten]

It's too late for another "SpaceX", they've already got hold of the market and will completely monopolize it over time. Nothing else will survive and they're not going to just go and let a threat grow under them.

Sattelite operators aren't going to allow a single vehicle to monopolise the market, the same reason the DoD won't; they'll all be stuffed if it fails and ends up being out of service for month. They usually try to maintain three providers, those currently being SpaceX, Arianespace, and ILS. SpaceX replaces SeaLaunch, and ILS replaced ULA.

[xenomorph555]

Sattelite operators aren't going to allow a single vehicle to monopolise the market, the same reason the DoD won't; they'll all be stuffed if it fails and ends up being out of service for month. They usually try to maintain three providers, those currently being SpaceX, Arianespace, and ILS. SpaceX replaces SeaLaunch, and ILS replaced ULA.

If it's cheap enough they won't go any others.

Also, who's ILS?

[Kryten]

If it's cheap enough they won't go any others.

The cost of the entire satellite launch industry grinding to a halt for months is more than the cost of maintaining a second provider; the actual cost of launch is only a relatively small proportion of the cost of bringing a sat into operation.

Also, who's ILS?

International Launch Services, the company that markets Proton (and is attempting to market Angara) internationally.

[asmi]

If it's cheap enough they won't go any others.

Also, who's ILS?

Where did you this idea of SpaceX being cheap? Here's kicker - they are not. Not anymore.

Besides neither ILS/Khrunichev nor Arianspace will go out of business as their owners need these vehicles to launch military payloads every so often, for which they can't use foreign launch systems.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally, I would imagine someone, learning from SpaceX's experience, going straight to a methane fueled deep throttle main engine in a cluster of 5 to 7 engines on the first stage. I think they would aim for a payload a little larger than F9 and plan for RTLS of the first stage from the beginning. I could see them maybe diverging from the SpaceX method by making the second stage aimed at re-usability from the beginning, maybe with a lifting body shape and internalized cargo.

There is a reason SpaceX didn't go for methane engines right from beginning. To get respectable performance out of them, you need to develop closed-cycle engines, and they are well-known for their explosive character, so development will cost a lot of money.

[Frozen_Heart]

Where did you this idea of SpaceX being cheap? Here's kicker - they are not. Not anymore.

Erm... Falcon 9 is being marketed at $61M, Falcon Heavy at $90M. Both of those are extremely cheap compared to any competition.

Atlas V is over $160M for comparison.

[asmi]

Erm... Falcon 9 is being marketed at $61M,

Which is far cry from what they originally were telling it would cost (I think it was $20M or so - can't remember exact number).

Falcon Heavy at $90M.

But there is a problem with it - it doesn't exist. "Paper rockets are always better than real ones" © We yet to see how much it would actually cost once it starts flying. Methinks that it would cost closer to $150M mark.

Atlas V is over $160M for comparison.

We're comparing it to ILS and Arianspace, both have prices roughly in the same ballpark as SpaceX (especially keeping in mind their better GTO performance, which is important for heavy GSO comsats).

[Kryten]

Erm... Falcon 9 is being marketed at $61M, Falcon Heavy at $90M. Both of those are extremely cheap compared to any competition.

Atlas V is over $160M for comparison.

Atlas V does not really compete with Falcon, not in terms of international commercial business. ULA are currently getting a few contracts, as are Mitsubishi, but this is because SpaceX and Arianespace both have their schedules full well into 2017. With the Proton issues lately, there's no other choice.

[Alias72]

The next major space innovator won't be building missiles.

SpaceX has been revolutionary for two reasons:

SpaceX has drastically increased the rate of innovation by attempting revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary changes

SpaceX has a unique management culture that will accept reduced profits if it meets their longer term goals which means that SpaceX has brought launch costs down closer to breakeven then usual.

What this means is that any new company will not have the same thunder as SpaceX in the field of launch service. This does, however, open up the other area for revolutionary change, space structures. SpaceX's attempts to reduce launch costs WILL create a new market for permanent structures in space. This will take time, but eventually there will be new companies entering into this new market.

[Rakaydos]

The next major space innovator won't be building missiles.

SpaceX has been revolutionary for two reasons:

SpaceX has drastically increased the rate of innovation by attempting revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary changes

SpaceX has a unique management culture that will accept reduced profits if it meets their longer term goals which means that SpaceX has brought launch costs down closer to breakeven then usual.

What this means is that any new company will not have the same thunder as SpaceX in the field of launch service. This does, however, open up the other area for revolutionary change, space structures. SpaceX's attempts to reduce launch costs WILL create a new market for permanent structures in space. This will take time, but eventually there will be new companies entering into this new market.

By that standard, the "Next SpaceX" should be Liftport, if they manage to get that lunar elevator proposal off the ground, as it were. Being able to lift bulk regolith (and later on, luna-manufactured goods) to LEO-grazing orbit is a serius gamechanger for spaceflight.

[mardlamock]

I think there is potential for a next spacex, but it would have to be in India or some cheap ass place. Massively manufactured modular rockets, with cheap indian labour. Thats how electronics became so cheap people. OUTSOURCING!!!

[prophet_01]

Outsourcing is reasonable up to a certain point and at some point I even expect SpaceX to do that, but they have to become more international before that is an option. There is more than language.

However, you do NOT outsource everything.

Development can't be outsourced and although countries like india have a growing number of personal capable of working in the space industry, they are still behind in terms of know-how and experience. You also need lots and lots of companies for high quality material, equipment and infrastructure. India isn't there yet. They will be in maybe 10-20 years, but until then I doubt we will see an indian competitor.

Even then they would still have to catch up in the recovery area, which requires even more development. The bariers to enter the market are stupidly and it's a real miracle that SpaceX got this far this quickly.

Eitherway I'm not rly sure that SpaceX will do space stations and infrastriucture anytime soon, even if somebody can make a profit out of it. They are rly focused on launchers and the transport business. That is their big strength as it makes them very specialised, helps with scale effects and lowers the costs. Ultimately the falcon has a very good chance of being launched a lot and therefor to actually break even. They may be even able to make a real profit on a less subsidized market at some point. THAT is the game changer.

[Alias72]

I would like to point out that I wasn't making a prediction for the near future. I stated that I do not believe their will; be another evolutionary leap in the rocket market, and it would take a new market for that to happen. Space structures being the next market that I think will appear. I never suggested SpaceX will build structures, nor did I suggest the next SpaceX exists today. I will say the conditions for the next SpaceX don't exist today and likely for the foreseeable future.

[J.Random]

I hope the "next SpaceX" will finally concentrate on CLSS problems instead of trying to make yet another space cabbie.

[prophet_01]

Well, the space cabbi is a good thing imo. It ensures frequent launches and creates motivation to reduce launch costs which pushes innovations. SpaceX's intentions and long term goals may be questionable and too ambitious at times, but they certainly create lots of competition and reduce costs.

So what's not to like about the space cabbi?

[Zucal]

By that standard, the "Next SpaceX" should be Liftport, if they manage to get that lunar elevator proposal off the ground, as it were. Being able to lift bulk regolith (and later on, luna-manufactured goods) to LEO-grazing orbit is a serius gamechanger for spaceflight.

Why? What's the point? Where's the potential for profit in lunar regolith? Also, how the hell are they going to build a cable hundreds of kilometers long with launch costs as they are?

[Rakaydos]

Why? What's the point? Where's the potential for profit in lunar regolith? Also, how the hell are they going to build a cable hundreds of kilometers long with launch costs as they are?

The second part of your question answeres your first- the profit in lunar materials is that you can put them into orbit for far less money than launching the equivilant from earth. Part of the reason satelites are so expensive is that they are built of ultralight superoptimized components- but a lunar sweatshop knockoff can be much cruder and heavier, making up for the lost DV with a lower DV requirement.

As for how, I would imagine you would launch the cable in spools, rendevous and link them, send them out to L1, and unwind in both directions at once. It would take almost a hundred launches, even with Falcn Heavy... but its not unreasonable.

[Zucal]

The second part of your question answeres your first- the profit in lunar materials is that you can put them into orbit for far less money than launching the equivilant from earth. Part of the reason satelites are so expensive is that they are built of ultralight superoptimized components- but a lunar sweatshop knockoff can be much cruder and heavier, making up for the lost DV with a lower DV requirement.

It's far easier to launch something from Earth with a reusable launcher than it is to build a space elevator on the moon, land huge amounts of infrastructure, then send things build by the infrastructure into LEO. That plan is insane in the brain.

It would take almost a hundred launches, even with Falcn Heavy... but its not unreasonable.

That.. that's like the very definition of unreasonable! A common figure I've heard is 100 million per FH launch. One hundred FH launches would cost ten billion dollars. It would also take decades to complete.

[luizopiloto]

Virgin Galactic?

[J.Random]

Well, the space cabbi is a good thing imo. It ensures frequent launches and creates motivation to reduce launch costs which pushes innovations. SpaceX's intentions and long term goals may be questionable and too ambitious at times, but they certainly create lots of competition and reduce costs.

So what's not to like about the space cabbi?

I'd say, to get more frequent launches, you need more payloads, not another cabbie.

Virgin Galactic?

I fail to see how suborbital Ferris wheel for rich people is related to the topic. Am I missing something?

[Dkmdlb]

suborbital Ferris wheel

Aren't all ferris wheels suborbital?

[J.Random]

Well, yes, technically they are. You know what I mean. Virgin builds an entertainment, with a slight possibility to make it into (not really) public transport in the distant future.