Ariane 6 is set to match (CURRENT) SpaceX F9 Prices Per Kg

[fredinno]

http://spacenews.com/ariane-6-rocket-designers-say-theyll-match-or-beat-todays-spacex-prices-on-per-kilogram-basis/

Quote

LES MUREAUX, France – Europe’s next-generation Ariane 6 rocket remains on track for a 2020 first launch with a cost structure allowing the heavier Ariane 64 version to advertise per-kilogram prices below today’s Space X Falcon 9, European government and industry officials said April 6.

They said they saw no roadblocks to the 2020 first-flight date despite what they described as noncritical delays that have no impact on the rocket’s design, performance or cost targets.

Quote

Ariane 6 comes in two versions. The Ariane 62 has two solid-fueled strap-on boosters, which also serve as the first stage of Europe’s Vega small-satellite launcher, and is capable of placing a 5,000-kilogram satellite into geostationary transfer orbit.

The Ariane 64 carries four strap-on boosters and can place satellites weighing a combined 10,500 kilograms into that orbit, which is where most commercial telecommunications satellites operate.

Patrick Bonguet, Ariane 6 program head at ASL, said Ariane 6 is keeping to its promise of reducing per-kilogram launch prices by 40-50 percent compared to today’s Ariane 5.

Quote

SpaceX prices are typically around $60 million per commercial launch. By the time the Ariane 6 enters service – the initial launch in mid-2020 is scheduled to lead to the full cadence of 11-12 missions per year by 2023 – SpaceX plans to be reusing its Falcon 9 first stage on a regular basis.

SpaceX has said reusing the stage should allow them to reduce Falcon 9 prices by around 30 percent.

People on the comments on this article are saying that ArianeSpace should be aiming for a 30% lower cost target, as SpaceX has stated that reusability could reduce costs by 30%.

FH costs are also comparable to Ariane 6 costs for the same payload, assuming the costs targets for both are met.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_development_funding

A methane or H2 upper stage could also reduce SpaceX costs.

 

What do you guys think? Will ArianeSpace manage to level its ground with SpaceX? Or will SpaceX manage to undercut them again by 2020?

Edited April 7, 2016 by fredinno

[Nibb31]

1) I doubt reusability alone will bring prices down by an extra 30%. Even if it does save them some money in the end (which isn't a given), SpaceX is already the cheapest shop in town. Why would they want to cut prices even more, especially if they are trying to raise money to develop Musk's Mars plans.

2) Arianespace needs to reduce their prices too. However, I fail to see how Ariane 6 can actually be that much cheaper. It reuses most of the technology from Ariane 5, including the Vulcain and the upper stage, but also needs a lot of new development and a new launch pad.

[fredinno]

2 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

1) I doubt reusability alone will bring prices down by an extra 30%. Even if it does save them some money in the end (which isn't a given), SpaceX is already the cheapest shop in town. Why would they want to cut prices even more, especially if they are trying to raise money to develop Musk's Mars plans.

2) Arianespace needs to reduce their prices too. However, I fail to see how Ariane 6 can actually be that much cheaper. It reuses most of the technology from Ariane 5, including the Vulcain and the upper stage, but also needs a lot of new development and a new launch pad.

The development money is coming from the European government.

It also uses horizontal integration (and vertical integration of SRBs and payload- something the Delta IV tried, but failed in cost)

It uses a new upper stage (and engines) and cheaper monolithic SRBs.

The core is also stretched.

Ariane VI is basically a new LV that uses the same H2 fuel and diameter as Ariane V.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Nibb31 said:

1) I doubt reusability alone will bring prices down by an extra 30%. Even if it does save them some money in the end (which isn't a given), SpaceX is already the cheapest shop in town. Why would they want to cut prices even more, especially if they are trying to raise money to develop Musk's Mars plans.

Well if you have rockets launching almost every week for prices of like $200 kg, even though they may be losing money for the first few years, after awhile, there would be a feedback loop as more and more people sign up for SpaceX's rockets, which will generate even more money than before, pushing SpaceX to the spotlight as the absolute best launch provider, and pushing other rocket businesses almost out of business, with the almost all of the launches for them being from their government. Generating potentially billions, or even tens of billions per month for SpaceX, also, having mostly of fully reusable rockets would save money for SpaceX since they won't have to spend $60 million every launch to provide a rocket, instead they'll be spending more like $20 million or less, giving them more money for the development of the MCT, and overall, adding to the budget (Whatever it may be) of their Mars colony.

[sevenperforce]

That's silly.

"Our planned heavy-lift launcher will match your operating medium-lift launcher in per-kilogram costs!" Apples and oranges.

Never mind that Falcon Heavy is much further along than Ariane 6.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Well if you have rockets launching almost every week for prices of like $200 kg,

That sort of price is pure fantasy, with or without reusability.

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

instead they'll be spending more like $20 million or less,

Not realistic either. Cost of a launch <> Cost of launch vehicle.

The biggest part in the launch cost is the workforce. The actual hardware is only a minor part of the total launch cost, and the manufacturing cost of the first stage is only a part of the total hardware cost. There is also infrastructure, logistics, testing, payload integration, and all sorts of administrative overhead. Reusing first stages does little to reduce the workforces or any of those other costs, and SpaceX has already managed to price themselves 50% cheaper than their competition, so expecting reusability to further decrease launch prices by more that 10% is wildly optimistic.

 

[sevenperforce]

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

That sort of price is pure fantasy, with or without reusability.

Not realistic either. Cost of a launch <> Cost of launch vehicle.

The biggest part in the launch cost is the workforce. The actual hardware is only a minor part of the total launch cost, and the manufacturing cost of the first stage is only a part of the total hardware cost. There is also infrastructure, logistics, testing, payload integration, and all sorts of administrative overhead. Reusing first stages does little to reduce the workforces or any of those other costs, and SpaceX has already managed to price themselves 50% cheaper than their competition, so expecting reusability to further decrease launch prices by more that 10% is wildly optimistic.

That's why I still have a warm place in my heart for small SSTO concepts, despite how difficult they would be to design. Launch vehicle costs can be brought quite low by reusing separate stages, but the only way to significantly decrease workforce is to go to a single launch vehicle with minimal refurbishment.

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Well if you have rockets launching almost every week for prices of like $200 kg, even though they may be losing money for the first few years, after awhile, there would be a feedback loop as more and more people sign up for SpaceX's rockets, which will generate even more money than before, pushing SpaceX to the spotlight as the absolute best launch provider, and pushing other rocket businesses almost out of business, with the almost all of the launches for them being from their government. Generating potentially billions, or even tens of billions per month for SpaceX, also, having mostly of fully reusable rockets would save money for SpaceX since they won't have to spend $60 million every launch to provide a rocket, instead they'll be spending more like $20 million or less, giving them more money for the development of the MCT, and overall, adding to the budget (Whatever it may be) of their Mars colony.

Then they'd get a monopoly and raise prices

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

That's silly.

"Our planned heavy-lift launcher will match your operating medium-lift launcher in per-kilogram costs!" Apples and oranges.

Never mind that Falcon Heavy is much further along than Ariane 6.

Ariane 62 carries about as much to GTO as F9 with reuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

So, I think it is VERY relevant, that's the rocket they are comparing to F9.

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That sort of price is pure fantasy, with or without reusability.

Not realistic either. Cost of a launch <> Cost of launch vehicle.

The biggest part in the launch cost is the workforce. The actual hardware is only a minor part of the total launch cost, and the manufacturing cost of the first stage is only a part of the total hardware cost. There is also infrastructure, logistics, testing, payload integration, and all sorts of administrative overhead. Reusing first stages does little to reduce the workforces or any of those other costs, and SpaceX has already managed to price themselves 50% cheaper than their competition, so expecting reusability to further decrease launch prices by more that 10% is wildly optimistic.

 

Also, satellites are the more expensive part of a rocket launch. If SpaceX really wanted to revolutionize space, it should also move into satellite construction to reduce costs.

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Also, satellites are the more expensive part of a rocket launch. If SpaceX really wanted to revolutionize space, it should also move into satellite construction to reduce costs.

The last bit leaked about this seems have been 1.5 years ago "to be announced in three months".  Note that there are two different types (at least) types of communication satellite and some big differences between them.

LEO (Iridium style).  These birds act as antennas that point down from a few hundred kilometers from Earth, that typically don't expect the Earth-based antenna to do any sort of tracking ("up" might be helpful, but presumably not required).  This typically means that the satellite user needs to own the spectrum being used.  I'd expect this to work more or less like cell-towers: with a single (ok, cell towers typically provide 3) cell, but if you really wanted to you could presumably provide multiple cells with a single satellite (assume not important as I doubt it would save weight and simply give additional points of failure).

GSO (traditional style).  Not F9's preferred customer (unless you like making holes in barges).  Since they are easy to track (for fixed ground-based users), they can likely get away with using any spectrum they want (on the other hand, that orbit is prime real estate).  I'm pretty sure that each owner of whatever degrees of GSO has specific ideas about frequencies and modulations used, and I think there are only 180 positions allowed (spacing is important).  Don't expect these mass-produced anytime soon.

I'd guess that space-x has made considerable progress on building LEO communications satellites (and I wouldn't be surprised if they already shelved the idea.  But they made enough progress to run the idea up the flagpole).  I can't imagine what other satellites they could make...

GSO satellites: Low double digit production rate might be worthwhile.  Probably beyond what space-x can afford to get into, maybe with outside investors (with radio expertise) it should be possible.  It really depends on the owners of existing birds wanting to upgrade and money.  Lots of money.

Science satellites: While reproducing experiments is important, I can't see mass produced science satellites.

Spy satellites: LOL.  I'm sure the NRO wants to have their black budgets in that kind of high-visibility scheme.  I'm sure they are equally eager to let other nations have access to similar toys and won't get between the builder and previous customers.

science probes [taken to LEO and provides its own booster]: I *thought* NASA considered a single-digit group of similar probes that would visit a bunch of planets/asteroids/comets.  I don't think they ever got produced, or at least without heavy customization.

Asteroid mining: I wish.  Probably even more LOL than spy satellites, but maybe less so in a few decades.

[FishInferno]

I'm all for new launchers, but the problem is that Ariane 6 (and Vulcan) can compete with Falcon 9 RIGHT NOW, but that isn't a guarantee when they finally do take flight.  F9 is double the performance it was in its first iteration, and it definitely wont double again but I wouldn't be surprised if it got more upgrades.  A6 and V also basically ignore Falcon Heavy

[max_creative]

Even if they can match the launch prices, what about reusability? Ok the big SRBs are relatively cheap, but still! And the Mars plans! And what about the falcon heavy? 

[Temeter]

1 hour ago, FishInferno said:

I'm all for new launchers, but the problem is that Ariane 6 (and Vulcan) can compete with Falcon 9 RIGHT NOW, but that isn't a guarantee when they finally do take flight.  F9 is double the performance it was in its first iteration, and it definitely wont double again but I wouldn't be surprised if it got more upgrades.  A6 and V also basically ignore Falcon Heavy

All rockets get massive upgrades over their lifespan. The performance of the Ariane 5 was also severely enhanced, while it's launch costs were lowered.

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

Ariane 62 carries about as much to GTO as F9 with reuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

So, I think it is VERY relevant, that's the rocket they are comparing to F9.

Nope. Ariane 62 is a model for government and scientific launches, 64 is for intended for commercial launches. Hence the latter is trimmed for cost efficiency.

Comparably, e.g. the Falcon Heavy most likely won't do dual launches. Or quad launches, to actually use the rockets payload capability. Which won't really work, cause it has less volume than the A64, which is specifically built to support dual launches similar to Ariane 5.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Temeter

[FishInferno]

1 hour ago, Temeter said:

All rockets get massive upgrades over their lifespan. The performance of the Ariane 5 was also severely enhanced, while it's launch costs were lowered.

Yes, but the F9 will already be upgraded while Ariane 6 will be fresh off the press

[fredinno]

 

6 hours ago, Temeter said:

 

Nope. Ariane 62 is a model for government and scientific launches, 64 is for intended for commercial launches. Hence the latter is trimmed for cost efficiency.

Comparably, e.g. the Falcon Heavy most likely won't do dual launches. Or quad launches, to actually use the rockets payload capability. Which won't really work, cause it has less volume than the A64, which is specifically built to support dual launches similar to Ariane 5.

So? Ariane 62 has approx 10T to LEO capacity (done by comparing Atlas V payloads to GTO to Ariane 6's), thus replacing ArianeSpace Soyuz.

I would argue that, yes, Ariane 62 will see at least some commercial business- after all, ArianeSpace Soyuz does.

Also, the Falcon Heavy has the largest payload fairing made, according to SpaceX. It should support dual-launch, plus reuse (of at least the boosters), even with the low ISP upper stage, due to the fact even the reusable versions are around 29T to LEO capacity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2bz9dw/what_is_the_leo_payload_of_a_fully_reusable/

The version with high-speed core reuse and normal RTLS booster reuse should match up with Ariane 64 capacity.

However, SpaceX is only listing numbers for a 6.4T to GTO payload, or full RTLS reuse on all 3 F9 cores.

Thus, using these numbers SpaceX has given, a fully reusable FH is $13.3 Million per mT to GTO, while a Ariane 64 is $9.3 Million per mT to GTO. Going dual payload (like it will usually do) however, the payload for Ariane 64 decreases, thus, the cost increases to $10.2 Million per mT to GTO.

However, making the core expendable increases payload for the FH enormously, and thus decreases costs. If this route is taken, (plus a 1T dual launcher system, assuming it is the same weight as the one used on Ariane 5/6) Falcon Heavy is $6.54 Million per mT to GTO.

On the other hand, if we assume the fast barge landings are in half of full RTLS landings and expendable, the cost is ~$9 mT to pet mT to GTO.

TL;DR: If ArianeSpace meets its cost goals, Ariane 64 will be fully competitive with FH. However, this depends on how reuse for FH goes.

6 hours ago, max_creative said:

Even if they can match the launch prices, what about reusability? Ok the big SRBs are relatively cheap, but still! And the Mars plans! And what about the falcon heavy? 

I think the analysis above goes to show that reuse is not as good as people think. It reduces payload capacity enormously, and thus increases cost- if SpaceX can't make reuse actually cheaper, they are actually giving themselves a huge competitive disadvantage. You need a lot of cost savings via reuse to actually save money.

SpaceX should be happy if reuse causes them to break even on costs, TBH.

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

The last bit leaked about this seems have been 1.5 years ago "to be announced in three months".  Note that there are two different types (at least) types of communication satellite and some big differences between them.

There is also a market for Earth Observation sats, you know. Also, cubesats (and supporting parts) are a good idea to move into, those are getting pretty big.

GPS sats might also work, but those are controlled by militaries, so it's probably out the window, along with spysats.

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

 

LEO (Iridium style).  These birds act as antennas that point down from a few hundred kilometers from Earth, that typically don't expect the Earth-based antenna to do any sort of tracking ("up" might be helpful, but presumably not required).  This typically means that the satellite user needs to own the spectrum being used.  I'd expect this to work more or less like cell-towers: with a single (ok, cell towers typically provide 3) cell, but if you really wanted to you could presumably provide multiple cells with a single satellite (assume not important as I doubt it would save weight and simply give additional points of failure).

You could possibly merge this satellite type with Earth Observation sats.

This is probably a good place for SpaceX to start, along with Cubesats.

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

GSO (traditional style).  Not F9's preferred customer (unless you like making holes in barges).  Since they are easy to track (for fixed ground-based users), they can likely get away with using any spectrum they want (on the other hand, that orbit is prime real estate).  I'm pretty sure that each owner of whatever degrees of GSO has specific ideas about frequencies and modulations used, and I think there are only 180 positions allowed (spacing is important).  Don't expect these mass-produced anytime soon.

No, but they are a preferred customer for FH.

They won't be mass-produced, but you can still reduce costs here via cheaper components.

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

 

science probes [taken to LEO and provides its own booster]: I *thought* NASA considered a single-digit group of similar probes that would visit a bunch of planets/asteroids/comets.  I don't think they ever got produced, or at least without heavy customization.

NASA seems to be taking a route that prefers the use of existing designs, buses and components for new spacecraft (like MAVEN->Psyche and Phoenix->Insight). Of course, the market is small, so there's only so much commonality you can do before you sacrifice science.

[Temeter]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

So? Ariane 62 has approx 10T to LEO capacity (done by comparing Atlas V payloads to GTO to Ariane 6's), thus replacing ArianeSpace Soyuz.

I would argue that, yes, Ariane 62 will see at least some commercial business- after all, ArianeSpace Soyuz does.

Also, the Falcon Heavy has the largest payload fairing made, according to SpaceX. It should support dual-launch, plus reuse (of at least the boosters), even with the low ISP upper stage, due to the fact even the reusable versions are around 29T to LEO capacity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2bz9dw/what_is_the_leo_payload_of_a_fully_reusable/

The version with high-speed core reuse and normal RTLS booster reuse should match up with Ariane 64 capacity.

However, SpaceX is only listing numbers for a 6.4T to GTO payload, or full RTLS reuse on all 3 F9 cores.

Thus, using these numbers SpaceX has given, a fully reusable FH is $13.3 Million per mT to GTO, while a Ariane 64 is $9.3 Million per mT to GTO. Going dual payload (like it will usually do) however, the payload for Ariane 64 decreases, thus, the cost increases to $10.2 Million per mT to GTO.

However, making the core expendable increases payload for the FH enormously, and thus decreases costs. If this route is taken, (plus a 1T dual launcher system, assuming it is the same weight as the one used on Ariane 5/6) Falcon Heavy is $6.54 Million per mT to GTO.

On the other hand, if we assume the fast barge landings are in half of full RTLS landings and expendable, the cost is ~$9 mT to pet mT to GTO.

TL;DR: If ArianeSpace meets its cost goals, Ariane 64 will be fully competitive with FH. However, this depends on how reuse for FH goes.

The Falcon core has a diameter of 3.66m, while the Ariane 6 is 5.4m. Even if your fairing is expanding, you can't really beat that cargo volume. Directly out of your article:

"Ariane 6 will have twice the mass and twice the volume of the Falcon 9, at less than twice the price,” Bonguet said.

Ariane also uses the Sylda, which has been developed since much ealier variants of the vehicle. I don't think SpaceX ever indicated of having a similar technology, or the Falcon even being able to handle such a system.

Spoiler

 

Furthermore, most commercial, large GTO satellites are currently around 5 tons. So to actually use the Falcon Heavy efficiently with those satellites, a dual launch wouldn't suffice. You need a quad launch. The Heavy is designed to have more than 20 ton to GTO capability!

Edited April 8, 2016 by Temeter

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Temeter said:

The Falcon core has a diameter of 3.66m, while the Ariane 6 is 5.4m. Even if your fairing is expanding, you can't really beat that cargo volume. Directly out of your article:

"Ariane 6 will have twice the mass and twice the volume of the Falcon 9, at less than twice the price,” Bonguet said.

Ariane also uses the Sylda, which has been developed since much ealier variants of the vehicle. I don't think SpaceX ever indicated of having a similar technology, or the Falcon even being able to handle such a system.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Furthermore, most commercial, large GTO satellites are currently around 5 tons. So to actually use the Falcon Heavy efficiently with those satellites, a dual launch wouldn't suffice. You need a quad launch. The Heavy is designed to have more than 20 ton to GTO capability!

It's only to use a 20 T capacity without reuse and crossfeed. Since SpaceX wants to do reuse, that number is pointless to quote.

Hopefully, the Falcon Heavy will be able to do dual launch, even in its smaller fairing, otherwise they'll have to depend on reuse to make launches cheaper than Ariane 6. And that's a big "if" for SpaceX.

[Temeter]

52 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It's only to use a 20 T capacity without reuse and crossfeed. Since SpaceX wants to do reuse, that number is pointless to quote.

Hopefully, the Falcon Heavy will be able to do dual launch, even in its smaller fairing, otherwise they'll have to depend on reuse to make launches cheaper than Ariane 6. And that's a big "if" for SpaceX.

Idk, thing with falcon heavy is, I heard apparently the price expectations were already rised to 130m (no source tho)? I'm not sure it is going to really be a contender for the conventional GTO market satellites (rather for bigger models), I'd assume that's going to be more of a job for the Falcon 9, whose reusability is probably going to be more efficien that the FH will be.

I mean, it's definitly gonna be awesome to see what the FH does to the market. Currently the D4H is the heaviest rocket, and that's only 2/3rd of the capability to 2 to 4 times the price.

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, Temeter said:

Idk, thing with falcon heavy is, I heard apparently the price expectations were already rised to 130m (no source tho)? I'm not sure it is going to really be a contender for the conventional GTO market satellites (rather for bigger models), I'd assume that's going to be more of a job for the Falcon 9, whose reusability is probably going to be more efficien that the FH will be.

I mean, it's definitly gonna be awesome to see what the FH does to the market. Currently the D4H is the heaviest rocket, and that's only 2/3rd of the capability to 2 to 4 times the price.

Apparently it's $85 Million for now, for a fully reusable RTLS FH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_development_funding

However, that's a small payload compared to Ariane 6, so FH still loses in cost.

[Temeter]

20 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Apparently it's $85 Million for now, for a fully reusable RTLS FH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_development_funding

However, that's a small payload compared to Ariane 6, so FH still loses in cost.

Right, that was fully reusable! Those numbers make me wonder a bit if FH will be too common flying with full reusability. 6.5 tons sounds like a very small jump from the maxed 5.3 of F9*. Main advantage of the FH seemed always the capability of high launch weights at a - in comparision kinda ridiculous low price.

Then again it might change with later upgrades. E.g. the Raptor upper stage might be a bit of a game changer.

*Although it's quite cheap IF your satellite weights 6T. Could be an edge in competition.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Temeter

[fredinno]

13 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Right, that was fully reusable! Those numbers make me wonder a bit if FH will be too common flying with full reusability. 6.5 tons sounds like a very small jump from the maxed 5.3 of F9*. Main advantage of the FH seemed always the capability of high launch weights at a - in comparision kinda ridiculous low price.

Then again it might change with later upgrades. E.g. the Raptor upper stage might be a bit of a game changer.

*Although it's quite cheap IF your satellite weights 6T. Could be an edge in competition.

I don't think the methane upper stage will change much. CH4 only has ~20s ISP greater than RP-1.

Supercooled H2/Lox upper stages would be a true game changer, but SpaceX seems to have abandoned that idea for some reason...

GEO satellites are expected to grow to 8T in the near future so

[sevenperforce]

I think SpaceX has a decided advantage due to the versatility and flexibility of their launch platforms. Between Falcon Heavy reusable, Falcon Heavy expendable, Falcon Heavy core expendable, and the various options for Falcon 9, they can service just about any combination of launch requests. They are also small, and are able to fit their launches to the specific requests and requirements of their customers, as evidenced by the last mission.

Price per kilogram isn't everything, or we would already be using Big Dumb Boosters. A better metric would probably be price per kilogram for a specific mission profile.

[Windspren]

On 4/7/2016 at 10:57 AM, fredinno said:

Then they'd get a monopoly and raise prices

Ariane 62 carries about as much to GTO as F9 with reuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

So, I think it is VERY relevant, that's the rocket they are comparing to F9.

Also, satellites are the more expensive part of a rocket launch. If SpaceX really wanted to revolutionize space, it should also move into satellite construction to reduce costs.

 

If they increased prices, that would encourage other launch companies to start up and SpaceX would be forced to lower prices by the free market. This is why it's really hard to keep a monopoly on something.

The article said that they were comparing the Ariane 64 to the F9.

I think that they're building a factory which will make cheap WiFi sats.

[fredinno]

5 minutes ago, Laythe Dweller said:

 

I think that they're building a factory which will make cheap WiFi sats.

They were, we haven;t heard anything about it in a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_development_facility

Quote

However, in November 2015, company Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell indicated that the entire satellite effort was speculative, and low among the company's many priorities. "We don’t have a lot of effort going into that right now. Certainly I think that from a technical perspective this could get done," Shotwell said. "But can we develop the technology and roll it out with a lower-cost methodology so that we can beat the prices of existing providers like Comcast and Time Warner and other people? It’s not clear that the business case will work."^[6]

7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I think SpaceX has a decided advantage due to the versatility and flexibility of their launch platforms. Between Falcon Heavy reusable, Falcon Heavy expendable, Falcon Heavy core expendable, and the various options for Falcon 9, they can service just about any combination of launch requests. They are also small, and are able to fit their launches to the specific requests and requirements of their customers, as evidenced by the last mission.

Price per kilogram isn't everything, or we would already be using Big Dumb Boosters. A better metric would probably be price per kilogram for a specific mission profile.

Falcon 9 can't service small and LEO sats, which is a good reason why a smaller upper stage is a good idea- since SpaceX wants to launch a LEO sat constellation, and F9 is too bid for it, even at reuse to RTLS (10T to LEO).

I honestly think SpaceX should concentrate on reuse to Barges only, it has a higher failure rate, but once it is working, they can increase payload capacity enormously, and get the larger satellite market too, and possibly do dual launches.

With a high-speed barge landing, F9 whould be around 13.5T to LEO.

A "Falcon 5" for LEO use, competing against Soyuz, would be 7T to LEO with Barge landings, or 9T to LEO expendable and 5T to LEO RTLS landings.

A VEGA competitor might also be a good idea, but it would depend on a bustling LEO sat market. In that case, the "Falcon 1" would be 2T to LEO Barge Landings, 3T to LEO expendable, and 1T to LEO RTLS landings

[AngelLestat]

ESA needs to invest in Skylon..  that is their only card for the moment..  all these "new" rockets are made just for survive these period.

A lot of countries and companies are making their appearance in the space industry..  someone that always see the past will remain in the past..

 

[Pipcard]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

A "Falcon 5" for LEO use, competing against Soyuz, would be 7T to LEO with Barge landings, or 9T to LEO expendable and 5T to LEO RTLS landings.

A VEGA competitor might also be a good idea, but it would depend on a bustling LEO sat market. In that case, the "Falcon 1" would be 2T to LEO Barge Landings, 3T to LEO expendable, and 1T to LEO RTLS landings

Falcon 9 is already competing against Soyuz, "Falcon 5" and VEGA-class launchers would only result in extra manufacturing costs (different production lines) and they would rather carry small satellites as secondary payloads on Falcon 9, which is why they aren't making Falcon 1s anymore.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Pipcard