Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

SLS's problem is that it's cheaper to make something smaller and use a different, cheaper rocket.

With Falcon Heavy, you can save money by making something BIGGER, less efficent. Dont need micromilimeter machined parts of spaceage materials- just build something that does what you want and ride a bigger (but still relatively affordable) rocket.

And that extra payload is wasted payload that adds to the cost.

[Rakaydos]

22 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And that extra payload is wasted payload that adds to the cost.

If you need to spend an extra million on the launcher to save two  (out of like 12 million) in conruction costs, is that worthwhile?

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

That's like SLS-HLV logic, and it's struggling to find anything that might need it due to a lack of defined mission.

So disagree.

 

Apples and the thing least like apples you can imagine.  SLS-HLV (and Energia) is a government launcher (and to a large extent so are the other US offerings) - Falcon is a whole new ball of wax, a truly commercial launcher.

[Nibb31]

It doesn't really matter whether it's private or public. There is no demand for huge payloads. The only real commercial market for orbital launches is GEO comsats, which typically cost several times what it costs to launch them. Making them bigger won't bring down costs. In fact, the trend these days is to make them smaller so that they are cheaper to launch.

Lots of people don't understand that the launch cost is only a small part of what it costs to build, launch, and operate a satellite. Reducing cost of a kg to orbit by 10% or 20% is appreciable, but it's not a game changer that will create new markets if there is no actual demand already.

Falcon Heavy doesn't need crossfeed to already be overkill for the market. All it needs is to be able to launch GTO payloads with the mass penalty of getting all 3 cores back. There is no point in investing a lot of money to develop crossfeed when there are no payloads that will benefit from the extra capacity.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Nibb31

[DerekL1963]

53 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It doesn't really matter whether it's private or public. There is no demand for huge payloads. The only real commercial market for orbital launches is GEO comsats, which typically cost several times what it costs to launch them. Making them bigger won't bring down costs. In fact, the trend these days is to make them smaller so that they are cheaper to launch.

Yes, it does matter whether it's private or public - because government developed launchers* have precisely zero impetus to bring costs down.  (Which is why space access has remained so freaking expensive for so long.)   Commercial launchers have every reason to bring the price down, because it attracts business.   (Private and public.   There's a reason why ULA et al fought so hard against SpaceX getting certified.)   And even though launch costs are only a fraction of the cost to bring a comsat on stream - it's still a huge line item.   No business is going to turn down the opportunity to reduce costs.   And if the trend is to make them smaller and lighter (and less capable and more expensive), then reducing launch costs will serve to flatten or reverse that trend.  (Again, something that no business will turn down.)

Space access isn't immune to the laws of economics and the normal forces of business, and the status quo isn't a law of nature.

* E.G. the Atlas and Delta EELV's.

[Red Iron Crown]

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Space access isn't immune to the laws of economics and the normal forces of business, and the status quo isn't a law of nature.

Very true, and it's worthwhile to consider that the demand for space access is almost as inelastic as that of insulin. Those who need it *really* need it, while those that don't won't even if access cost is halved.

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Yes, it does matter whether it's private or public - because government developed launchers* have precisely zero impetus to bring costs down.  (Which is why space access has remained so freaking expensive for so long.)   Commercial launchers have every reason to bring the price down, because it attracts business.  

Commercial space flight has existed for 40 years now. The reason prices haven't gone down is due to low demand, not lack of offering. In fact, the commercial launch market is pretty saturated, between Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Soyouz, Proton, etc... for a market of less than 100 launches per year.

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

(Private and public.   There's a reason why ULA et al fought so hard against SpaceX getting certified.)  

ULA is a commercial business, of course they don't want competition. SpaceX will probably fight hard when it gets challenged too.

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

And even though launch costs are only a fraction of the cost to bring a comsat on stream - it's still a huge line item.   No business is going to turn down the opportunity to reduce costs.   And if the trend is to make them smaller and lighter (and less capable and more expensive), then reducing launch costs will serve to flatten or reverse that trend.  (Again, something that no business will turn down.)

SpaceX prices (for example), are already rock bottom. Shaving 10% off of the ticket price of $60 million is a nice saving for its customers, but when you're talking about a $500 million GEO comsat project, it's not going to be a game changer.

The launch market is pretty inelastic. SpaceX has already cut launch prices by practically 50% compared to ULA or Arianespace. That hasn't resulted in a doubling the demand for orbital launches, because that's not how it works.

[Rakaydos]

23 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The launch market is pretty inelastic. SpaceX has already cut launch prices by practically 50% compared to ULA or Arianespace. That hasn't resulted in a doubling the demand for orbital launches, because that's not how it works.

I seem to recall SpaceX having a fairly ridiculus waitlist. They're going to need to work through that.

[tater]

There is a certain point at which access to space might become cheap enough to alter the demand, but I don't think we are near that point yet. The economics require something that needs doing, as nibb31 said, or something that is not yet done, but can actually make money. 

1970s spitballing imagined solar power production as a driver for the economics of orbital spaceflight (beamed to earth using microwaves). I think that this is an entirely reasonable notion, but industrial-scale space applications will require substantially reduced costs, so maybe that could be a new set of customers if the price was right. I have no idea where that price point might be.

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I seem to recall SpaceX having a fairly ridiculus waitlist. They're going to need to work through that.

That doesn't mean that global demand for launches has increased twofold.

[wumpus]

15 hours ago, fredinno said:

And that extra payload is wasted payload that adds to the cost.

That is assuming a satellite designer doesn't have a wish list of features and power levels a mile long that isn't brutally cut down by the realities of fitting in a specific payload.  I'd be shocked silly if a few more tons of "stuff" (solar arrays, heat fins, whatever) that cranked up just the communications power a few more dB wouldn't be worth the millions needed to go from a Falcon9 to a Falcon-Heavy, assuming the Heavyweight was in the range of "typical" GTO launches.

This hardly implies that such a market is all that elastic (I'm sure plenty of those with working satellites just want copies of known good satellites), but I also can't believe you couldn't build a more capable 20 ton satellite cheaper than you could build a 4.5 ton satellite.  Judging by the prices quoted to make those things, I'd expect they are on the cutting edge (or I'm wrong and that *all* the money goes on "absolutely sure to work" and they are far more conservatively designed than you could imagine.  Markets and designing for the customers needs make for weird situations.)

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That doesn't mean that global demand for launches has increased twofold.

Exactly. All those launches are actually being taken from ArianeSpace, OrbitalATK, Russia, ULA, etc.

That's why they all hate SpaceX. The market has really barely grown, so the growth of SpaceX is at the expense of every other company that does commerical launches' expense.

[Kryten]

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Exactly. All those launches are actually being taken from ArianeSpace, OrbitalATK, Russia, ULA, etc.

That's why they all hate SpaceX. The market has really barely grown, so the growth of SpaceX is at the expense of every other company that does commerical launches' expense.

Arianespace are literally launching as fast as they can, and they've currently got more Ariane 5 launches scheduled for this year than any previous.

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Arianespace are literally launching as fast as they can, and they've currently got more Ariane 5 launches scheduled for this year than any previous.

They still hate SpaceX tho, because they anticipate that Ariane 5 business will be hit pretty bad by FH.

[Kryten]

That's not an accurate or in any way useful way to talk or think about a business, especially a large business.

[Albert VDS]

I'd like to note that launches peaked in 1968 and went down hill from there.
But they have gone up since 2006, and hopefully we'll keep this trend. [source]

Creating cheaper rockets is just one way of increasing the market, it will make it possible for companies with a smaller budget to launch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a satellite can cost from the low $50 million to $500 million.
So if a company made a satellite for $50 million wouldn't want the launch to cost 5 times as much.

So now we have cheap rockets, that doesn't mean that satellite costs will come down?
I think it open up the possibility of massproducing satellites, like what already happend with the Orbcomm satellites.
Of course they aren't mass produced as any consumer product, but enough to lower the cost.
Science space missions should also follow this way of producing probes. Look at the 2020 Mars rover it's basiclly Curiosty, but atleast 1/5 cheaper.
$1.9 billion compared to the $2.5 billion. Also a more modular approach would make satellites, probes and rovers more versatile and causes a mass production type of operation.

This will cause a feedback loop of decreasing cost, where even a bigger market can be opened so that price goes down even further.
Things like planetary missions, Earth satellites, tourism, some way to clean up space, maybe even mining, etc.
That's what needs to happen.

 

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Albert VDS said:

I'd like to note that launches peaked in 1968 and went down hill from there.
But they have gone up since 2006, and hopefully we'll keep this trend. [source]

Creating cheaper rockets is just one way of increasing the market, it will make it possible for companies with a smaller budget to launch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a satellite can cost from the low $50 million to $500 million.
So if a company made a satellite for $50 million wouldn't want the launch to cost 5 times as much.

So now we have cheap rockets, that doesn't mean that satellite costs will come down?
I think it open up the possibility of massproducing satellites, like what already happend with the Orbcomm satellites.
Of course they aren't mass produced as any consumer product, but enough to lower the cost.
Science space missions should also follow this way of producing probes. Look at the 2020 Mars rover it's basiclly Curiosty, but atleast 1/5 cheaper.
$1.9 billion compared to the $2.5 billion. Also a more modular approach would make satellites, probes and rovers more versatile and causes a mass production type of operation.

This will cause a feedback loop of decreasing cost, where even a bigger market can be opened so that price goes down even further.
Things like planetary missions, Earth satellites, tourism, some way to clean up space, maybe even mining, etc.
That's what needs to happen.

 

Only problem is that has not really increased from most of that time due to lower prices, it was greater demand. Only in the last few years has SpaceX really entered the market, lest we forget- and even then, there was only a relatively small increase in the rate of growth- despite the fact that their launches were cheaper by over 2-fold.

 

Such a feedback loop can only happen if there is enough demand- it's what needs to happen, but it launch rates remain relatively low, and nobody comes with a massive revolution in space use that increases prospective launch rates (like what happened with miniaturization and smallsats/cubesats).

 

Mass production of satellites are likely going to be the main factor to reducing costs, not launchers, which are usually much smaller in cost than the payload itself. I think that is possible for smaller cubessats/smallsats, as each has a smaller capability that must be increased by increasing the number of satellites. Smallsats are currently launching on F9, but that's only because it's cheaper. That situation won't last forever.

[Nothalogh]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

Exactly. All those launches are actually being taken from ArianeSpace, OrbitalATK, Russia, ULA, etc.

That's why they all hate SpaceX. The market has really barely grown, so the growth of SpaceX is at the expense of every other company that does commerical launches' expense.

That's no surprise, with boosters rolling out to the pad for $60,000,000

[magnemoe]

11 hours ago, fredinno said:

Only problem is that has not really increased from most of that time due to lower prices, it was greater demand. Only in the last few years has SpaceX really entered the market, lest we forget- and even then, there was only a relatively small increase in the rate of growth- despite the fact that their launches were cheaper by over 2-fold.

 

Such a feedback loop can only happen if there is enough demand- it's what needs to happen, but it launch rates remain relatively low, and nobody comes with a massive revolution in space use that increases prospective launch rates (like what happened with miniaturization and smallsats/cubesats).

 

Mass production of satellites are likely going to be the main factor to reducing costs, not launchers, which are usually much smaller in cost than the payload itself. I think that is possible for smaller cubessats/smallsats, as each has a smaller capability that must be increased by increasing the number of satellites. Smallsats are currently launching on F9, but that's only because it's cheaper. That situation won't last forever.

First spacex is pretty new on the marked and have an long backlog they don't have an huge impact yet. Arianespace is probably more nervous about that happens over time as they will get problems matching prices.

Agree on mass production, cheaper launches might make mass production of larger satellites more relevant. Also more module based designs. 
it has also been an lack of need to cut cost all over, everybody know space is expensive and customers has money so why cut costs. 

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

First spacex is pretty new on the marked and have an long backlog they don't have an huge impact yet. Arianespace is probably more nervous about that happens over time as they will get problems matching prices.

Agree on mass production, cheaper launches might make mass production of larger satellites more relevant. Also more module based designs. 
it has also been an lack of need to cut cost all over, everybody know space is expensive and customers has money so why cut costs. 

No, it'll mostly be demand that makes mass production of large satellites economical. There's no point in making huge amounts of large satellites that have no market- that would just be wasting money. Yes, cheaper launches may help, but the limited demand for space is the real issue here. And satellite designs are already usually based off a bus that is common to all other sats in that category, as long as they order it from the same company.

 

No major revolution in demand for large satellites is foreseeable in the near future. Only space tourism has a chance, which is (thankfully) much more susceptible to lower costs. However, even if assuming F9 launches are the only factor in orbital tourism costs (not true), each orbital tourist would pay $8.6 Million. That's out of reach for most (rich) people, even though I removed a huge chunk of the costs.

[Kryten]

 Commercial satellites are already produced in considerable volume to standard designs; just take a look here or here for some currently-produced examples.

[Shpaget]

Somewhat related to the cost of the satellites... Apparently there is a direct or indirect cost of an orbit slot. There is a limited number of "slots" available in the GEO, and companies, at least occasionally, auction them.

According to this, such slots alone can cost at least up to $682.5 million.

[DerekL1963]

On 1/23/2016 at 4:56 AM, Nibb31 said:

On 1/23/2016 at 0:51 AM, DerekL1963 said:

Yes, it does matter whether it's private or public - because government developed launchers* have precisely zero impetus to bring costs down.  (Which is why space access has remained so freaking expensive for so long.)   Commercial launchers have every reason to bring the price down, because it attracts business.  

Commercial space flight has existed for 40 years now. The reason prices haven't gone down is due to low demand, not lack of offering. In fact, the commercial launch market is pretty saturated, between Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Soyouz, Proton, etc... for a market of less than 100 launches per year.

*sigh* 

I didn't say commercial space flight - I said commercial launchers.   The two things don't mean the same thing, not even (censored) close.

Low demand is one factor, but that demand is low also in part because of the factors keeping the prices up.  Chief among these is the fact that US launchers (with rare exceptions) were developed under government contracts for government purposes, and even when flown commercially are tied to the immense standing army and standing bureaucracy demanded by the government.   And so long as people are willing to step up and pay the freight, none of the existing launch providers have had any impetus to reduce costs even fractionally.

This is not, as you and so many others treat it, a law of nature - it's an accident of history.

On 1/23/2016 at 4:56 AM, Nibb31 said:

SpaceX prices (for example), are already rock bottom. Shaving 10% off of the ticket price of $60 million is a nice saving for its customers, but when you're talking about a $500 million GEO comsat project, it's not going to be a game changer.

SpaceX's growing order book, and the responses of the established launch providers say otherwise.  For the first time in history there's real competition between launch providers - and the game is already very visibly changing.

 

[Kryten]

You're acting like the US is the entire story here-that they got competed out of the commercial launch market until recently is a footnote for most of us. Nibb31 is not American, and he's talking about the international commercial market of Arianespace, ILS and co.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Somewhat related to the cost of the satellites... Apparently there is a direct or indirect cost of an orbit slot. There is a limited number of "slots" available in the GEO, and companies, at least occasionally, auction them.

According to this, such slots alone can cost at least up to $682.5 million.

If so it would be an interest for larger and more capable satellites. Note that top price is over areas who need lots of communication, price over the pacific is low.