Interesting points, but this is sort of a ridiculous statement: "it has not really invented or discovered anything more innovative than making the lower stages of their rockets land vertically", this is a sign that these first-stage launches have become so routine, that now people just hand-wave and say "so what?"
But I do think there's a lot to the author's point #4:
"Even if we assume that SpaceX is actually cost competitive, who will use their launch services? Here is a hint- almost nobody outside the USA. Here is why.. Countries such as Russia, China, India and Japan are going to use their own launch systems for a number of reasons such as ensuring national security, keeping their own scientists and engineers employed and maintaining national pride. Also, vertical integration of spacecraft and launcher programs create far more cost savings than using somebody else to launch your spacecraft using slightly cheaper launchers.Even European countries are unlikely to use SpaceX over their own ESA launch systems- even if they are a bit more expensive because it is about technology, jobs and security. Furthermore, countries other than those listed above are also unlikely to use SpaceX since countries like China already offer very competitive packages covering everything from satellite design and launch to post-launch support."
The government based space missions across the world won't use SpaceX because of all those reasons. Cost doesn't matter to them.
NASA will use SpaceX because it's an American company.
There's nothing to point 4. It assumes that only places with launch programs want to launch satellites (wrong) and that companies in those places will stick with the local alternatives (also wrong). As counterexamples:
1. SES-8, SES-9 and SES-10 were both for SES, which is a Luxembourgish company
2. Inmarsat-5 F4; Inmarsat is British
3. JCSAT-14 and JCSAT-16 are operated by SKY Perfect JSAT Group, which is Japanese
4. Eutelsat 115W and Eutelsat 117W B; Eutelsat is French
5. Thaicom 6 and Thaicom 8; Thaicom is (unsurprisingly) Thai
6. TürkmenÄlem 52E is Turkmen
7. AsiaSat 6 and AsiaSat 8; AsiaSat is based in Hong Kong
8. RazakSAT is operated by the Malaysian government
9. The most recent mission to the ISS (CRS-11) carried a Chinese experiment as part of its payload.
Also, BulgariaSat is set to launch on the 17th, and FORMOSASAT (Taiwanese) is upcoming, though no date has been set yet.
Sure, the government based space missions won't use SpaceX. That's a non-issue.
SpaceX's launch manifest is filled with ~70% commercial customers anyways from the likes of: France, Japan, China, Canada, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Malaysia.
They're eating commercial launches for breakfast and putting huge pressure on Arianespace, ILS, and ULA. And they haven't even begun to reap the full cost savings of reusable rockets.
No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up.
>No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up.
How will a couple of blown rockets affect this plan?
We're 10 days out from the 2nd launch and landing of a previously flown Block 3 rocket. Their 1st relaunch and landing ended with a happy customer. Customers seem to have no problem lining up for reusable rockets already.
This number probably come from the fact that 9 out of 10 engines can be recovered, the last engine being in the disposable second stage. But even if we only talk about the engines, it completely disregards refurbishment costs.
And there are many other things that won't get recovered besides the second stage engine, like the rest of the second stage, fuel, LOX, helium, launch infrastructure and preparation costs. Parts fail and need to be replaced, and let's not forget the risk of a failed launch or recovery. To allow a 10x cost reduction, they also need to be 10x more reliable.
The reality is more about a 40% cost reduction goal, still great.
I'm not a 'rocket scientist', but this article seems as if the person who wrote it is neither and most of the arguments tend to feel like arguments from ignorance - 'I don't get it so it must be scam'.
Very interesting, and I would say "brave" article, to be submitted to HN!
Something I have often wondered and curious what the spacex's solution is to this
>But why? Why did countries like the ex-USSR which made them in tens of thousands prefer to use new engines than use ones they knew could be reused. Well.. it comes down to a cost and risk calculation. Rocket engines, even the most simplified and robust ones, are always one tiny defect away from blowing up. It is easier to be certain about the lack of tiny but fatal defects in a newly built engine than a refurbished one. Moreover the cost of a refurbished engine blowing up once in a while exceeds the cost of using freshly built engines. Also refurbishing and testing used engines can get almost as expensive as building new ones from scratch.
Also, no wonder this is getting downvoted considering how the article ends....
>My point is that SpaceX is bluffing and lying when it claims the ability to “disrupt” the space launch business or become the dominant global player in that sector. What is especially sad to see is the number of otherwise intelligent people who are willing to treat the press releases of that company as holy gospel. Then again the USA is full of self-delusional types who are confident of becoming multi-millionaires within the next decade. To summarize, the long-term (and even medium-term) business model of SpaceX is a confidence scam based on rosy and polished presentations combined with exhortations to positive thinking. And that is why I called it a quintessentially american fraud.
12 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 30.6 ms ] threadBut I do think there's a lot to the author's point #4:
"Even if we assume that SpaceX is actually cost competitive, who will use their launch services? Here is a hint- almost nobody outside the USA. Here is why.. Countries such as Russia, China, India and Japan are going to use their own launch systems for a number of reasons such as ensuring national security, keeping their own scientists and engineers employed and maintaining national pride. Also, vertical integration of spacecraft and launcher programs create far more cost savings than using somebody else to launch your spacecraft using slightly cheaper launchers.Even European countries are unlikely to use SpaceX over their own ESA launch systems- even if they are a bit more expensive because it is about technology, jobs and security. Furthermore, countries other than those listed above are also unlikely to use SpaceX since countries like China already offer very competitive packages covering everything from satellite design and launch to post-launch support."
The government based space missions across the world won't use SpaceX because of all those reasons. Cost doesn't matter to them.
NASA will use SpaceX because it's an American company.
1. SES-8, SES-9 and SES-10 were both for SES, which is a Luxembourgish company
2. Inmarsat-5 F4; Inmarsat is British
3. JCSAT-14 and JCSAT-16 are operated by SKY Perfect JSAT Group, which is Japanese
4. Eutelsat 115W and Eutelsat 117W B; Eutelsat is French
5. Thaicom 6 and Thaicom 8; Thaicom is (unsurprisingly) Thai
6. TürkmenÄlem 52E is Turkmen
7. AsiaSat 6 and AsiaSat 8; AsiaSat is based in Hong Kong
8. RazakSAT is operated by the Malaysian government
9. The most recent mission to the ISS (CRS-11) carried a Chinese experiment as part of its payload.
Also, BulgariaSat is set to launch on the 17th, and FORMOSASAT (Taiwanese) is upcoming, though no date has been set yet.
SpaceX's launch manifest is filled with ~70% commercial customers anyways from the likes of: France, Japan, China, Canada, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Malaysia.
They're eating commercial launches for breakfast and putting huge pressure on Arianespace, ILS, and ULA. And they haven't even begun to reap the full cost savings of reusable rockets.
No one will be able to compete with SpaceX once they achieve full reusablility with Block 5. Their costs to launch will go down by 90% (10x cost reduction): meaning that SpaceX can respond to any competitors' price reductions instantaneously ... while stacking huge amounts of cash, on fantastic margins, as everyone else tries to catch up.
How will a couple of blown rockets affect this plan?
SpaceX has been methodically derisking.
We're 10 days out from the 2nd launch and landing of a previously flown Block 3 rocket. Their 1st relaunch and landing ended with a happy customer. Customers seem to have no problem lining up for reusable rockets already.
Why not wait till that before getting all hyped up. Isn't this exactly what the article criticizes?
This number probably come from the fact that 9 out of 10 engines can be recovered, the last engine being in the disposable second stage. But even if we only talk about the engines, it completely disregards refurbishment costs.
And there are many other things that won't get recovered besides the second stage engine, like the rest of the second stage, fuel, LOX, helium, launch infrastructure and preparation costs. Parts fail and need to be replaced, and let's not forget the risk of a failed launch or recovery. To allow a 10x cost reduction, they also need to be 10x more reliable.
The reality is more about a 40% cost reduction goal, still great.
Which is innovative enough for me. Cheap reusable rockets have been the holy grail of spaceflight for a long time.
There is still a lot to be done, but the current pace is high. I'm optimistic.
1. SpaceX proves rockets can be reused and have huge cost advantage.
2. SpaceX missions have a lot of non-USA payload. E.g.: "BulgariaSat 1" on June 15: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
3. USA has no capability of launching astronauts into space without SpaceX.
Something I have often wondered and curious what the spacex's solution is to this
>But why? Why did countries like the ex-USSR which made them in tens of thousands prefer to use new engines than use ones they knew could be reused. Well.. it comes down to a cost and risk calculation. Rocket engines, even the most simplified and robust ones, are always one tiny defect away from blowing up. It is easier to be certain about the lack of tiny but fatal defects in a newly built engine than a refurbished one. Moreover the cost of a refurbished engine blowing up once in a while exceeds the cost of using freshly built engines. Also refurbishing and testing used engines can get almost as expensive as building new ones from scratch.
Also, no wonder this is getting downvoted considering how the article ends....
>My point is that SpaceX is bluffing and lying when it claims the ability to “disrupt” the space launch business or become the dominant global player in that sector. What is especially sad to see is the number of otherwise intelligent people who are willing to treat the press releases of that company as holy gospel. Then again the USA is full of self-delusional types who are confident of becoming multi-millionaires within the next decade. To summarize, the long-term (and even medium-term) business model of SpaceX is a confidence scam based on rosy and polished presentations combined with exhortations to positive thinking. And that is why I called it a quintessentially american fraud.