SpaceX's Competitors Scramble to Try to Build Reusable Rockets (msn.com) 55
When SpaceX developed reusable boosters for its Falcon rockets, it helped cut costs of launches.
Now the Wall Street Journal reports that last week's first-time catch of "its huge Starship booster" could "extend SpaceX's cost advantages, especially in launches to low-Earth orbit, where SpaceX and others operate satellites." A fully and rapidly reusable Starship would push down SpaceX's costs by limiting the need to crank out new hardware and cutting downtime between flights, space industry executives say. Bain, the consulting firm, has estimated that Starship would reduce the cost of getting each kilogram to low-Earth orbit by 50 to 80 times... SpaceX's rocket peers are moving toward reusability, but they are behind the progress Musk's company has made.
- The huge booster that will power New Glenn, the orbital rocket Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is developing, is designed to be reusable. That rocket is slated to launch for the first time next month.
- ULA, the rocket operator owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is looking to recover the two engines that help power the first part of its new rocket, Vulcan Centaur. The parent company for Arianespace, whose new vehicle is powered by an expendable booster, has also invested in a startup developing a reusable booster.
- Last year, Rocket Lab USA used an engine that had flown before on a flight of its Electron rocket, and is working on a new vehicle, called Neutron, with a booster it could use again.
- Jason Kim, chief executive of Firefly Aerospace, said the reusable vehicle the Texas-based company is developing with Northrop Grumman would give launch customers more flexibility and better pricing. "It really comes down to the affordability and the schedule," Kim said in a recent interview.
"We need reusability for rockets, just like we have reusability for cars, for airplanes, for bicycles, for horses," Musk said in a video SpaceX posted earlier this year...
Now the Wall Street Journal reports that last week's first-time catch of "its huge Starship booster" could "extend SpaceX's cost advantages, especially in launches to low-Earth orbit, where SpaceX and others operate satellites." A fully and rapidly reusable Starship would push down SpaceX's costs by limiting the need to crank out new hardware and cutting downtime between flights, space industry executives say. Bain, the consulting firm, has estimated that Starship would reduce the cost of getting each kilogram to low-Earth orbit by 50 to 80 times... SpaceX's rocket peers are moving toward reusability, but they are behind the progress Musk's company has made.
- The huge booster that will power New Glenn, the orbital rocket Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is developing, is designed to be reusable. That rocket is slated to launch for the first time next month.
- ULA, the rocket operator owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is looking to recover the two engines that help power the first part of its new rocket, Vulcan Centaur. The parent company for Arianespace, whose new vehicle is powered by an expendable booster, has also invested in a startup developing a reusable booster.
- Last year, Rocket Lab USA used an engine that had flown before on a flight of its Electron rocket, and is working on a new vehicle, called Neutron, with a booster it could use again.
- Jason Kim, chief executive of Firefly Aerospace, said the reusable vehicle the Texas-based company is developing with Northrop Grumman would give launch customers more flexibility and better pricing. "It really comes down to the affordability and the schedule," Kim said in a recent interview.
"We need reusability for rockets, just like we have reusability for cars, for airplanes, for bicycles, for horses," Musk said in a video SpaceX posted earlier this year...
Well duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever there is a fundamental shift in technology that results in dramatically lower costs, you will always see competitors seek to imitate for the simple reason that if they do not then they will not remain in business much longer. This is the very nature of competition and the longer there isn't a true competitor the higher launch costs will remain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Well duh. (Score:4, Informative)
What are the dramatically lower costs
Here you go: https://www.spacex.com/ridesha... [spacex.com]
That's a handy online calculator for getting a quote from SpaceX based on desired orbit and payload mass. You could also trivially look up the articles regarding the NASA contracts for resupplying and bringing crew to the ISS.
Re: (Score:1)
What are the dramatically lower costs
Here you go: https://www.spacex.com/ridesha... [spacex.com]
That's a handy online calculator for getting a quote from SpaceX based on desired orbit and payload mass. You could also trivially look up the articles regarding the NASA contracts for resupplying and bringing crew to the ISS.
So you are not familiar with the Loss Leader concept? My question is not related to the price quoted, but the "vendor cost"
This is not some sort of made up thing. Wal-Mart has used it in the past when they wanted to extinguish small competitors (like pharmacies). Undercut the competition, and after they are out of business, then you are free to charge as you like.
My point is not the charge, but the cost to Spacex. It isn't trivial, especially when they do a barge landing. There is a lot of logistics a
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly not having to build a new set of boosters every time is going to save on those manufacturing costs. There is some cost to refurbishing and requalifying the boosters for flight again, but it's unlikely to be as much as building new ones.
Of course SpaceX won't offer super low pricing when they can just charge a bit less than their nearest competitor.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
- every time I come in her and there is a post regarding Space Karen's reusable and presumably dirt cheap rockets,
Please don't post about your personal escapades on Slashdot...
Re: Well duh. (Score:2)
Re: Well duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
The SpaceX engines can't throttle that extreme. The thrust of an engine is enough to lift the empty rocket which is why the Falcon 9 has to do a suicide burn and cuts off the engine right as it lands. The new starship booster has the capability to hover which gives it a lot more flexibility
WSJ and execs: wow, really sharp! (Score:5, Informative)
A fully and rapidly reusable Starship would push down SpaceX's costs by limiting the need to crank out new hardware and cutting downtime between flights, space industry executives say.
Wow, those are some sharp executives. Give them a raise and extra bonuses!
If they, and the WSJ, are just now figuring this stuff out, after Falcon has been dominating the space industry for years, well...'nuf said.
It's pretty sad that the old-space companies have completely missed the resusability train. Neither ULA nor Ariane ever even considered reusability when designing their current rockets. Both depend on lobbying and governmental restrictions to stay in business. The other space start-ups are at least adapting their strategies, but they are years behind.
Re:WSJ and execs: wow, really sharp! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there is the thing.. in most organisations you get promoted by not making mistakes, nut doing a great job. And any new thing is a risk, so just saying no to anything new is on average better for your personal future. If the organisation suffers, then too bad is the thing that most esecs seem to think.
Re: (Score:3)
in most organisations you get promoted by not making mistakes, nut doing a great job.
To be more precise, if you DO make a mistake, your coworkers (other ladder climbing managers) will use it to back stab you, or front stab you. That creates the perverse (but very concrete) incentive to not take risks.
Re:WSJ and execs: wow, really sharp! (Score:4, Insightful)
Reusing the orbital craft is much more difficult to do economically than the booster. It re-enters far faster with much more damage---or would take much more fuel to slow down, severely reducing paying payload.
I suspect SpaceX may go to an expendable upper stage (light and with higher capacity as it doesn't need to survive coming back) for numerous missions, particularly those which need extra orbital energy.
Re: WSJ and execs: wow, really sharp! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In these cases they should just use another craft. There are many use-once rockets. It saddens me when they throw away the core of Falcon heavy. Pointless waster of an otherwise good rocket.
One of the problems with the reusable rocket concept is that there are a hell of a lot of orbital shells that can't be reached if the main objective is to land and re-use the rocket. If one of Space Karen's rockets is used, we'll have to make a decision to either not recover the rocket, or not launch anything to that orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with the reusable rocket concept is that there are a hell of a lot of orbital shells that can't be reached if the main objective is to land and re-use the rocket.
With the ability to choose the launch site, and the ability to land the booster on a ship in the ocean, not that many orbital planes can't be reached. Vandenberg for the polar and sun-synchronous orbits, the Cape for low inclinations up to ISS orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees.
Primarily the reason to use a Falcon in expendable mode is that the launch energy needed is so high that you need to use all the fuel you have to reach it, rather than same enough fuel to brake from the high energy trajectory and la
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect they'll just keep using Falcon 9 or Falcon heavy for that. The whole point of Starship is to be able to launch 40 to 100 tons to low orbit, land, refuel, load the cargo and launch again.
Once upon a time, the purpose of StarShip was to take humanity to Mars, and get a million people living on Mars by 2050.
Re: (Score:2)
Because two things can't be simultaneous?
The rapid iteration is part of why SpaceX has done things nobody else has, with a lot more government help, and a lot more money.
While I have doubts about the longevity of Martian space colony, I can see how to get there by 2050.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Extra orbital energy"??? The upper stage you're talking about ("Starship") is being evolved toward 200 metric tonne (the weight of the Statue of Liberty) capacity to LEO per flight, per ship, on a fully reusable basis. So the idea of needing more energy than that is kind of preposterous, let alone needing it for "numerous missions." What kind of mission would that even be?
The Establishment of Musk's vision of a million people on Marts by 2050.
Re: (Score:2)
A ship being decommissioned after a long service life might be disposed of with a rare expendable flight opportunity, but that would probably only happen every few years, and potentially only starting decades af
Re:WSJ and execs: wow, really sharp! (Score:4, Insightful)
If they, and the WSJ, are just now figuring this stuff out, after Falcon has been dominating the space industry for years, well...'nuf said.
They aren't. Stop confusing actual business decisions with a sound bite given to unwashed masses for a news article.
Neither ULA nor Ariane ever even considered reusability when designing their current rockets.
No shit Sherlock. SpaceX only proved the concept was actually viable *after* ULA and the ESA started designing their current rockets, and even then SpaceX didn't prove they could actually reliably bring down costs by reusing equipment until 6 years ago. Developing shit takes time, there was never a scenario where anyone without a crystal ball would have reusable rockets in their current 2024 lineup, except for the company that spend a decade developing and proving the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
If they, and the WSJ, are just now figuring this stuff out, after Falcon has been dominating the space industry for years, well...'nuf said.
They aren't. Stop confusing actual business decisions with a sound bite given to unwashed masses for a news article.
Neither ULA nor Ariane ever even considered reusability when designing their current rockets.
No shit Sherlock. SpaceX only proved the concept was actually viable *after* ULA and the ESA started designing their current rockets, and even then SpaceX didn't prove they could actually reliably bring down costs by reusing equipment until 6 years ago. Developing shit takes time, there was never a scenario where anyone without a crystal ball would have reusable rockets in their current 2024 lineup, except for the company that spend a decade developing and proving the concept.
And then there is the issue that you can't hit all of the available orbits if the number one priority is reusability. It all depends on where you want the payload to end up at. Spacex does some cool stuff, but they cannot ignore orbital and sub-orbital mechanics.
If we continue to make reusability the main mission, we're going to have to start making the sections of the rockets into actually fly home like a plane. Some of the orbital shells take the first stage to a place where they have to be discarded.
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX was already price competitive against both ULA and Ariane Space before reuse. What Ariane Space offers is sovereign launch capability, which is their entire reason to exist in the first place, not needing permission from Department of Defense to launch their military satellites. ULA's main customer is Department of Defense, so not as price sensitive. After reuse, satellite operators that's price sensitive looks to SpaceX first to see if there's a spare launch slot available.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty sad that the old-space companies have completely missed the resusability train. Neither ULA nor Ariane ever even considered reusability when designing their current rockets. Both depend on lobbying and governmental restrictions to stay in business. The other space start-ups are at least adapting their strategies, but they are years behind.
It's sad but predictable. Two words: cost plus.
Re: (Score:1)
A fully and rapidly reusable Starship would push down SpaceX's costs by limiting the need to crank out new hardware and cutting downtime between flights, space industry executives say.
Wow, those are some sharp executives. Give them a raise and extra bonuses!
And we'll finally get to use all of those SpaceShip grabbers that Elon (all hail!) placed on Mars.
A decade behind (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies are a full 10 years behind SpaceX (2015 - first reusable Falcon 9 debut). New Glenn probably is the furthest along and they still haven't launched it. Neutron will probably launch next year too I suppose. But then they aren't fully and rapidly reusable -- only their first stage is reusable (like Falcon 9). What are they going to do when SpaceX's fully and rapidly reusable Starship become available to customers in 2026? It will be impossible to beat SpaceX on launch cost. And no the "small launch" market isn't going to save them. Starship will have rideshare and satellites can use a thruster to get into whatever orbit they need. The only niche will be small satellites that need to quickly get into a particular orbit. How many of customers are there for something like that? Oh and existing Falcon 9s will still be around.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand SpaceX has proven which concepts work, so that's a load of effort their competitors don't have to waste on other ideas that will ultimately be rejected.
I expect the first major competitors will be from China. They are already fairly advanced with re-usable booster development and will have it working in the next six months most likely. They have some other interesting technology like the ability to launch from a ship. They will get the cost of heavy lift down quickly too, thanks to their m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A decade behind (Score:2)
Re:A decade behind - Stainless Steel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> What are they going to do when SpaceX's fully and rapidly reusable Starship become available to customers in 2026?
ULA partners believe they will be able to deploy their antigrav tech in 2027.
That's why they panicked and got Mike Rogers to kill the Eminent Domain portion of the Schumer-Rounds Amendment to the 2024 NDAA.
He's the Congressman from Wright-Pat and his pal from Huntsville was the only other voice against but they both bought Chairman positions with ULA money so democracy has no say.
Senate pas
Re: (Score:1)
Just build a coil gun (Score:2)
Re: Just build a coil gun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're looking for a long, east facing gentle rise to extremely high altitude, as close to the equator as possible, somewhere you can anchor it securely, and somewhere stable with a low probability of terrorism.
Good luck. But I'd try Ecuador. It'd certainly be a mega-project, and you'd be limited as to what you could launch due to the g-forces of the launch. And I'm not even sure it'd be economically viable after construction due to the ongoing maintenance requirements alone.
Reminds me of the touchscreen scramble (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of when I used the first iPhone at an Apple store when it launched. Doing a smooth screen rotation by turning the phone, and pinch-to-zoom on a map app, looked like alien technology. Then Motorola, HTC, Samsung, Blackberry, LG and others scrambled to release touchscreen phones. Most were awful in terms of screen responsiveness to touch, and they were laggy.
Competitors in space vehicle re-use will come, because re-use will be table-stakes for space.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you should mention LG, they had an all touch phone with slide-to-unlock (which Apple tried to patent) out before the iPhone was announced.
The iPhone is an interesting example because it was surpassed relatively quickly in most regards, but is still popular.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Fascists don't scare me. I've lived under progressives.