Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

The SpaceX internet service isn't just about building a new product- it's about smoothing demand for SpaceX's primary business.

Space launches are a high-variability industry. Sometimes there's lots of demand, sometimes you lose the ability to launch for 4 months because of a minor accident (or $250m explosion...).

This internet service is a new customer who can smooth demand out. SpaceX sets a goal for launches for a year, and gives the internet company 20% of their launches. If they oversell, some internet launches get cancelled. If they undersell, the internet company buys extra. Either way, booster production remains smooth. Every other customer is afraid of using used boosters? No problem, watch SpaceX use them themselves.

And if the internet thing doesn't turn out to be profitable? Ah well, the capital that financed it probably came from outside anyways.

View on HN

The SpaceX internet service isn't just about building a new product- it's about smoothing demand for SpaceX's primary business.

Space-X's problem is not lack of demand. Their problem is that they can't keep up with their launch backlog. Their latest stall in launches after the blowup on the pad last September cost them about $250 million. The Falcon Heavy is at least four years late. The Brownsville launch site slipped two years.

If the whole first stage reuse thing pans out they could be looking at 1) faster average turnarounds as the reuse customers require less time to service and 2) more reusable hardware than customers willing to fly on certified pre-owned rockets.

If everything goes as planned they will be immensely successful, sure. But when have they ever accomplished any of their plans on schedule? Clients are starting to get tired of SpaceX's wildly overoptimistic forecasting - see AsiaSat switching providers, and that was before the recent failure. A slow estimate you can deliver is better than a fast estimate you can't.

Yes. Here's Space-X's launch manifest.[1] They used to put dates on future launches, but that got to be too embarrassing. Then they just listed them in order of projected launch. Now they're alphabetical.

About half of those could be launched now if Space-X was ready. Some, like ISS resupply missions, are supposed to happen periodically. Most of the satellite launches are waiting on Space-X, not the payload. Space-X already lost Inmarsat, which will use ArianeSpace instead.

[1] http://www.spacex.com/missions

You're overstating the Inmarsat situation: Inmarsat moved one satellite to ArianeSpace:

http://spacenews.com/inmarsat-shifts-satellite-from-spacex-t...

Inmarsat still has 2 launches on the SpaceX manifest.

Money quote: "Inmarsat is looking forward to continuing to work with SpaceX going forward," the company said in its statement.

Most of the payments are made upfront and for milestones hit. As in a lot of it is paid up. The only reason that works is having the govt as a customer.

The Russians can any day drop their margins and put SpaceX out of business. They have the tech and the track record that SpaceX will take another decade or two to match.

SpaceX is being propped up cause NASA, Boeing, Lockheed et al have become such dinosaurs that they can't do anything by themselves.

>The Russians can any day drop their margins and put SpaceX out of business.

This is an argument I haven't heard before. Any sources I can read up on to learn more?

I'm not sure it's true, I would also like to see the sources.

As for the 'tech', yes the Russians have a long and pretty good history with rocketry but SpaceX has technological edges as well.

Rocket launches aren't exactly over the counter commodity with stable prices.

Having said that, here - http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum13/topic2156/?PAGE... - is a table maintained by Russian space forum participant(s). You can dig for more original sources from there.

You're using a forum posts as a credible source? Really?

Well, this is the best public Russian space forum. Won't get any better in Russian, with all Russian sources.

So - yes, I agree that the information sources are limited. But at least you can try to trace the original sources from posts there.

On the original question, I haven't seen a comparison of actual SpaceX launch prices with actual launch prices used by other launch providers, specifically Russian ones. With Russians it could be useful to check both "commercial" and "federal" launch prices, as the first are driven by market, while second are more driven by actual costs.

Can SpaceX prices be compared to Russian ones?

> both "commercial" and "federal" launch prices, as the first are driven by market, while second are more driven by actual costs.

I.e. "federal" prices are likely subsidized. What's the point using them?

There are at least two arguments in favor of ability to keep Russian launches cheap(er).

First if mentioned in John Clark's "Ignition!", where he says that the Russian approach to bigger payload isn't the technology, but just the size of the rocket - with same low-tech as something smaller. So, in other words, technological edges aren't always translating into lower costs in this industry.

Second is Russian's technological edges with kerosene liquid fuel engines. Technologies are well-optimized, including costs, and are the primary used ones for Russian space program. Not solid rockets, not hydrogen - and comparatively little hydrazin-based rockets, at least by the number of launches.

As an aside, solid rockets is perhaps the part that disappointed me most about "Ignition!". I guess it shows its age. Do you know of any reading about their development? Couldn't find much on Wikipedia...

Those are interesting arguments but there isn't any evidence.

Where is the evidence that SpaceX rockets are cheapest? Just because SpaceX says so?

The Russians can absolutely not just drop the margins and put SpaceX out of bushiness. Of course if the Russian state would fully fund everything and over free space access, so could the US. Neither of them will, neither can practically, politically do it. Its a pretty absurd claim, that I have heard nobody make except you.

SpaceX is not being propped up, the get contract because they beat everybody else on price.

> Its a pretty absurd claim, that I have heard nobody make except you.

Nevertheless it's a widely circulated claim in certain groups.

The idea that "SpaceX beats everybody on price" unfortunately got little actual checks. Of course there is the claim, and some support for that, like rocket structure, engines - but not the actual comparisons. SpaceX does wonderful advancements - but just how wonderful and how do they compare with existing offerings on the whole range of parameters, including price, is rarely compared to what SpaceX actually proclaims.

Don't overestimate the cost of older technologies.

> Their problem is that they can't keep up with their launch backlog

Yes and no. The have 6 boosters sitting around that no one is willing to use because they were previously flown. No one will take the risk of going first.

As well, SpaceX could meet that demand by increasing their size, but there is a risk that once their backlog is completed they'd need to scale down again. A customer like the internet service smooths that demand no matter the situation.

That is false. The have people who want to fly them, they have actually already sold some.

Really? I hadn't realized! Please, sources! Fantastic news for SpaceX.

Edit: my point about smoothing demand remains though. If they can double their output without worrying about fluctuations in demand, they'll increase efficiency.

>And if the internet thing doesn't turn out to be profitable? Ah well, the capital that financed it probably came from outside anyways...

So like paying one credit card bill with another credit card. Right?

Except those outside investors won't be paid back if it fails.

isn't that exactly the same risk for any other kind of investment? if it works out, you get paid, if it fails you loose your money

Yes, but my response was in reference to the comment that SpaceX internet endevour investment was similar to paying one credit card with another. In that case, the credit card companies will come knocking. In the SpaceX case, the investors involved with the internet business, if it fails, won't come knocking the same way a credit card company will. They may be entitled to some IP and physical goods, but they can't just ask for their money back, plus interest.

If the internet isn't profitable then don't they also not smooth out demand , use up money that could be used to improve their rockets and or have actual profit ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com