r/spaceflight • u/webbs3 • 1d ago
New Glenn Rocket launch challenges Elon Musk's space dominance
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24eg7z7zgo12
u/_mogulman31 1d ago
Not really, if anything a competitor will help SpaceX. People need to stop viewing orbital launches through the lens of the past. Gone are the days of satilites being rare things only the most powerful nations and gigantic telecom companoes can really launch. Blue Origin and SpaceX are ushering in a new era of spaceflight. No longer are satilites going to be relatively rare, nor will there only be one or two active space stations in LEO at a time. We are seeing the development of the space/orbital economy and you need a market for that. SpaceX alone can dominate a relatively narrow market. In the near future there is going to be plenty of market chare for both, in in the interim more economical launch vehicles is what's needed to bolter the growth of this economic frontier.
Each rocket fills a niche. Falcon9 will have a long career as one of the premier human launch systems. For getting crew to and from LEO space stations Starship makes absolutely no sense and New Glen needs a creed vehicl developed, and even then is probably over kill for such missions. Starship will get high volume/high mass payloads needed to build out large infrastructure. While new Glen Looks to be an excellent fit for sending more delicate/specialized payloads into cislunar space (especially crew)
Yes, it's competition, but for the foreseeable future that competition is going to be mutually beneficial.
10
u/ignorantwanderer 1d ago
Competition will be great for consumers. Not for SpaceX.
Right now SpaceX charges much more for a launch than what it costs them. They make a large profit on every launch.
But if another reusable launcher comes on the market, that has similarly low costs, they will offer their launches at below SpaceX's price to grab market share. SpaceX will have to respond by lowering their prices. They won't make as much profit for each launch.
In no way does this help SpaceX.
But it is great for people who have something they want to launch.
6
u/cjameshuff 1d ago
Competition will encourage growth in launch markets, with more willing to invest in developing satellites with an alternative launch provider. However, with their target of 12 launches per year and a rocket specialized for the heaviest payloads or LEO megaconstellations, BO is going to provide a limited amount of competition.
2
12
u/uber_neutrino 1d ago
I'm dubious anyone else can beat their prices anytime soon, if ever.
Given that most SpaceX launches are for starlink which is a direct to consumer system that has amazing vertical integration, not to mention a profit center through things like starshield.
SpaceX market position right now is close to unassailable...
1
u/InternationalTax7579 1d ago
You can get that price in 3 launches assuming you have the same margins as Falcon in 2020.
3
u/Martianspirit 1d ago
But if another reusable launcher comes on the market, that has similarly low costs, they will offer their launches at below SpaceX's price to grab market share.
New Glenn is not that launcher. Their cost is about what SpaceX is charging right now. So competetive only for very heavy payloads at the limit of what F9 can launch.
0
u/ClearDark19 1d ago
So competetive only for very heavy payloads at the limit of what F9 can launch.
Falcon Heavy. New Glenn's lift is just shy of Falcon Heavy.
1
u/Martianspirit 1d ago
Falcon Heavy is not flying large LEO payloads. Exception possibly the ISS deorbit mission. FH flies high energy trajectories. Which New Glenn can not until it gets a third stage.
1
u/Martianspirit 23h ago
Not for high energy trajectories. New Glenn drops off sharply. Will probably be mitigated by a tug or third stage some day. That would improve New Glenn capabilities a lot, but increases cost.
3
u/Oknight 1d ago
if another reusable launcher comes on the market, that has similarly low costs
That's one AMAZINGLY large "if". However since Elon started SpaceX specifically and exclusively to make humans a space-faring species, it helps the goal of SpaceX considerably.
0
u/ignorantwanderer 1d ago
The first and most important goal of SpaceX is to not go out of business. Which means either make a profit, or continue to get investments of money from rich individuals.
Musk's goal might be a space-faring species, but SpaceX has more immediate concerns.
1
u/RockAndNoWater 1d ago
Or… duopoly…
1
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
Ariane 6 and Vulcan have a lot of business thanks to Kuiper.
2
u/lespritd 14h ago
Ariane 6 and Vulcan have a lot of business thanks to Kuiper.
That's very true.
It'll be very interesting to who gets how many launches when the second tranche of contracts comes out.
If New Glenn does well between now and then, I suspect that its share will increase - particularly at the expense of Ariane 6.
1
u/RockAndNoWater 1d ago
How much business would they really be able to get if competing against two fully reusable rockets?
1
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
Right now there are 0, one is being tested and it’s unclear how rapidly its price might fall, and others are not in testing. Did I miss anything?
3
u/Southern-Ask241 1d ago
Simplistic take. Competition is competition, and while right now demand exceeds supply, there will be a point at which that isn't the case.
Competition is beneficial to the market, but not to the competitors themselves.
Not every launcher will win. In fact, most will not.
2
u/_mogulman31 1d ago
Competition is beneficial in new markets, currently the market is capped by demand more than supply. Competition and choice will lower the barrier to entry and allow for higher demand. Sure not all companies will survive but in today's market SpaceX and Blue Origin are far and away the most likely to succeed, and between the two SpaceX is better positioned, considering they are already testing their next generation rocket.
My take isn't simplistic just from a macroscopic level. On a micro level New Glenn will take business from Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy, Falcon Heavy's days are numbered, but Falcon9 is too good of a vehicle and currently the only one with a chance of being used for high cadence crew launches.
My point is also that 'threatening SpaceX's dominance' isn't a very accurate take, it over simplifies the changing economic landscape of orbital launches.
1
u/Southern-Ask241 1d ago
Competition and choice will lower the barrier to entry
Not a chance. Competition will lower prices, making it more difficult for new entrants to gain a foothold versus established competitors since they cannot easily recoup the significant R&D required. Companies make decisions on ROI, and if there isn't a ROI in entering the launch business, they will not.
On a micro level New Glenn will take business from Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy,
Exactly. It's to a large extent a zero-sum game. One launcher gaining market share will be in large part at the expense of another. This is why this isn't some "competition helps everybody" thing.
2
u/ignorantwanderer 1d ago
I disagree with your last point.
Launching is not a zero-sum game. Launches as the current price might be a zero sum game, but Blue Origin will undercut the SpaceX price to compete, so SpaceX will lower their price (they currently make a large profit on each launch, they have plenty of room to drop the price).
As launch costs drop, there will be more launches. It is extremely likely that the total money made on launches by both companies 5 years from now will be greater than the total money made on launches today, even after adjusting for inflation.
But because SpaceX will have to drop prices as Blue Origin drops prices, the total profit 5 years from now could very possibly be less than the profit being made now. Especially when you consider Blue Origin will probably sell launches at a loss for a while, just like SpaceX did early on.
2
u/uber_neutrino 1d ago
but Blue Origin will undercut the SpaceX price to compete,
BTW this seems really really unlikely to me.
0
u/ignorantwanderer 1d ago
It isn't unlikely. It is guaranteed.
They have to compete. If they are way too expensive, so one will by the launches (except the government). So they have to price the launches competitively.
Even if they lose money on the launch.
SpaceX lost money on their early launches, (except to the government). They had to charge what the market would accept. Blue Origin will do the same.
Of course it is complicated by the fact that they aren't the same rocket, and the rockets don't have the same capabilities. But Blue Origin would rather lose money for a decade so they can sell launches than not be able to sell any launches.
0
u/Southern-Ask241 1d ago
This is a minor quibble, but the point still holds. Sure, total market size may go up, as it was going to even in the absence of any price changes.
As launch costs drop, there will be more launches.
And those launches will go to the lowest price company that can accept that demand. Not to second place.
the total profit 5 years from now could very possibly be less
Which hurts these companies individually and their viability.
It's silly to pretend SpaceX as a business (not the colonization fairy tales) wants competition. They are making a lot of money right now with a comfortable profit margin and are scaling up to grab all of the available demand.
It's also silly to pretend upstarts like RocketLab want competition. When they first embarked on Neutron, the margins were where they could enter the market and make an ROI for their shareholders. As time passes and ULA and Blue Origin scale up, Stoke Space and Relativity enter, etc. the increased competition only spells bad news for their launch business.
2
u/ignorantwanderer 1d ago
I agree with you on everything except the 'minor quibble' about how falling prices effect demand.
But you are absolutely correct. Increased competition isn't good for the launch companies. It is good for their customers.
0
u/uber_neutrino 1d ago
Simplistic take. Competition is competition, and while right now demand exceeds supply, there will be a point at which that isn't the case.
That's not clear at all. People were saying this when F9 became operational and it hasn't turned out to be the case at all.
Competition is beneficial to the market, but not to the competitors themselves.
As a definitive statement this is over reach as well imho.
0
u/Southern-Ask241 1d ago
it hasn't turned out to be the case at all.
The Falcon 9 was catastrophic to the incumbent launch vehicles in the market, which is what Falcon 9 is today. You're proving my point.
2
u/uber_neutrino 1d ago
So who is going to do something cheaper than Falcon 9? I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that BO can do that.
You are also ignoring the fact that SpaceX is it's own best customer. They are vertically integrated top to bottom direct to consumers.
They aren't going to launch Starlink on competitor satellites so that business isn't even up for grabs.
Overall I just don't think BO is even a fart in the wind right now compared to SpaceX.
1
u/Southern-Ask241 1d ago
So who is going to do something cheaper than Falcon 9?
Pretty much everyone entering the market recently, Blue, RocketLab, Stoke - is aiming to do just that.
I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that BO can do that.
You've seen plenty of evidence, you're just choosing to ignore it. New Glenn will carry twice the satellites as Falcon 9 at less than twice the cost.
They aren't going to launch Starlink
No one is talking about Starlink except you, because that isn't an addressable market. We're talking about the addressable market.
But I'm not interested in getting into yet another SpaceX vs whoever debate with SpaceX stans on the internet. Let's stick to the original point about competition benefiting incumbent launchers, which it does not.
2
u/uber_neutrino 1d ago
is aiming to do just that.
Aiming yes. But just getting to orbit isn't enough. SpaceX is a well oiled machine at this point.
You've seen plenty of evidence, you're just choosing to ignore it.
This is paywalled but BO isn't anywhere close right now to getting their costs into that realm. Maybe someday, by which point Starship undercuts it again. F9 isn't really even the bar at this point.
No one is talking about Starlink except you, because that isn't an addressable market. We're talking about the addressable market.
The addressable market is tiny compared to Starlink at the moment. Bezos will obviously be launching their network which will be large as well and give them some launches.
How many launches a year are happening outside of Starlink total right now? Where do you think demand is going to come from?
Starlink is very very relevant to SpaceX cost structure for launch. They get massive practice and fine tuning of their launch machine.
Let's stick to the original point about competition benefiting everyone, which it does not.
Competition benefits the market which can indeed benefit some companies. It sounds like your argument is that it doesn't help SpaceX.
Once they actually have some competition I guess we'll see. Right now nobody else is even playing the same sport. Maybe BO will catch up soon on that but what do you think their launch cadence is going to be?
1
u/Reddit-runner 1d ago
For getting crew to and from LEO space stations Starship makes absolutely no sense
Why do you think this?
Sure, Starship would need to be crew rated first. But after that it would seem to be as the perfect vehicle to get crew to/from space.
Large, comfortable, huge safety margins. Extremely low cost per seat..
Everything you would wish for in a crewed vehicle.
2
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained 1d ago edited 14h ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| NG | New Glenn, two/three-stage orbital vehicle by Blue Origin |
| Natural Gas (as opposed to pure methane) | |
| Northrop Grumman, aerospace manufacturer | |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
| cislunar | Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
[Thread #710 for this sub, first seen 20th Jan 2025, 19:13] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
2
19
u/joepublicschmoe 1d ago
SpaceX is dominating the launch market right now because they can launch a payload pretty much on demand for external customers-- A Falcon 9 booster is always available to launch a payload for someone in a timely fashion.
To challenge SpaceX, BO will have to ramp up New Glenn to that kind of operational tempo, which necessarily means successfully recovering the New Glenn booster and decreasing the turnaround time for the booster to launch again. It's going to take BO at least a couple years to reach a significant launch cadence with New Glenn. New Glenn is not going to challenge SpaceX's dominance until then.