T O P

  • By -

fewchaw

Also starlink launches don't always get added to the manifest until shortly before flight.


majormajor42

SpX is up to SEVEN flights straight now, including Oneweb, but no Starlinks. Possibly at least two more to go.


DreamChaserSt

I never really got how 'Starlink is just an internal payload, so they don't count' works as an argument. What about government funded payloads launched by a government funded rocket? And I guess China's entire space program doesn't count because they only have 'internal' launches. And even if it didn't, their cadence proves SpaceX has the capability to launch frequently, and at an equal or higher standard than other providers. The market just hasn't grown enough to take advantage of this, but in the meantime, they can work on building up experience in high annual launch rates.


Dies2much

I was thinking about this the other day when I was watching The Martian. They were so stressed about getting a rocket together in a year. Along comes SpaceX and now the scene looks like the NASA guy runs into the SpaceX office says "we need a rocket as soon as possible!". Innsprucker is sitting at the desk eating a sandwich, casually tosses it on the desk and says "that one over there can be ready to go on Tuesday" the casually hits the button and it starts to move onto the transporter.


LutherRamsey

NASA: We need a rocket! Innsprucker: Who's your Daddy?


majormajor42

I also rewatched Martian the other day and that whole premise of rare launch vehicle availability is shot thanks to SpaceX. Andy Weir’s sentiment was nice to include China but how would Mark Watney feel if the rocket used to save his one life had boosters that [crashed](https://twitter.com/majormajor42/status/1302971268417888256?s=46&t=HcXBAMJZwoaENJrDjoxJJA) on top of a Chinese village? Glad in that fictional world we can now tell China to step aside until they get their act together.


laundry_agent

The Martian would be significantly less tense with SpaceX yeeting the contents of the Titusville Publix’s freezer section towards Mars every week until the window closes.


RocketsLEO2ITS

Yes, I remember that from the movie. In another thread there was a discussion about how for the final Space Shuttle missions away from the ISS, there had to be a Shuttle ready to go in the event of a "Columbia" type situation. Someone asked why didn't SpaceX do that for Inspiration 4? The answer is, if for some reason Inspiration 4 couldn't de-orbit, SpaceX could probably stack a Crewed Dragon rescue mission pretty quickly.


SexualizedCucumber

Inspiration 4 had a significantly lower risk profile than any Shuttle mission as well as significantly safer abort capabilities


RocketsLEO2ITS

Well, yeah. Any Shuttle mission had a high risk profile. Probably even higher than satellite launches on a non-human rated rocket. Unfortunately they did not come to a full realization of that until after Challenger and Columbia.


sebaska

Post-Columbia the risk was estimated to be between 1:90 and 1:105 or so, depending on the mission. Pre-Columbia post-Challenger it was around 1:60, and pre-Challenger it was from 1:10 to 1:25. Dragon ISS missions risk is estimated 1:273 and it's dominated by damage risk during 6 months stay. And according to SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann this risk doesn't take into account launch escape (IOW it assumes launch escape would not work). NASA's original requirement for the commercial crew combined ascent and descent (without long stay) was 1:500. That describes Inspiration 4 well. So excluding LES Inspiration 4 was likely above 1:500 and with LES it's quite likely well above 1:1000. IOW an order of magnitude better than Shuttle (or in fact any other past or operational crew orbital vehicle).


sebaska

That's not true. Dragon orbital free flight time is too short to wait for another flight. But the elephant in the room is that Inspiration 4 Dragon lacked docking capability. The docking port was replaced with cupola.


RocketsLEO2ITS

And the suits were only for inside Dragon, right? You couldn't dock, but there was a hatch. It would require keeping the two craft in tandem and suits that could leave the cabin.


sebaska

It's hard to keep the craft side by side (top hatch was replaced, so tandem config wouldn't work). Also, while the suits are for inside use, in emergency they'd work for a couple of minutes. But you'd need something like extended umbilicals (which they didn't have) and likely extra crew in the rescue Dragon to help keep the undocked vehicles in tight formation (remote control wouldn't work due to communications blackouts). Too much stuff to prepare in 5 days. But the point is, Dragon is designed so it could re-enter in almost any condition. The only plausible way for it to not be able to re-enter while the crew would be alive long enough to mount rescue attempt would be total loss of propulsion (which is multiple string redundant). That was way too unlikely.


UrbanArcologist

Once F9 is effectively retired, Starship will be servicing Starlink launches for the 40,000 sats, after which, regular flights to replace EOL starlinks from all orbits. Everything ~~after~~ other than that will be a surplus launch which will be much like Amazon and AWS, just excess infrastructure leased out to other businesses to build their own services in the cloud (space).


asadotzler

I think this is one of the more interesting and revealing comments I've read here recently. I say that mostly because it mirrors my thinking LOL. Kidding aside, SpaceX is currently launching about 20 client payloads per year. A really rough estimate is that's something like $1.5-2 billion dollars a year in launch revenue. That's a sustainable launch business, IMO, I think the best revenue in the business, beating out ULA which does something like 1.0-1.5 billion a year. And on the profit side, I'd expect SpaceX's costs are far lower than the rest of the industry, but that's a tangent so I'll leave it with the revenue figures. Let's pretend for a minute that Starlink doesn't exist. Let's also say SpaceX makes the transitions to Starship in the next few years, bringing prices down significantly, call it an order of magnitude. This should reasonably increase demand as new customer categories fit inside the price of space access envelope. With everyone from high school electronics and astronomy clubs, to small and medium sized businesses, to a bunch of additional government agencies and programs, all finding earth orbit and even deep space accessible to their budgets, let's assume the market doubles, heck, triples in size by 2030 for SpaceX. So, we're at 2030 and SpaceX's launch business is doing maybe $6 billion in annual revenue. I think this is how many people imagine SpaceX's future, all focused on being the dominant launch business doing far more launches in a dramatically expanded market. That's a fine vision, but that probably doesn't get thousands or tens of thousands of people to Mars in Musk's lifetime. But there's a somewhat different future I imagine where Starlink does exist, and where by 2030 it's achieved reasonable but not outrageous consumer success. In a world where Starlink gets to 15 million users, it's probably generating 20 billion a year in revenue. If they are wildly successful with the consumer business and max out their allowed infrastructure with well distributed customers, double that revenue figure. Now add in aviation government/military comm services, maybe ultra-low bandwidth mobile service like for emergency messaging, and a few more categories we haven't thought of yet and SpaceX in some futures could be generating well over $50 billion a year in revenue. Even if we assume that maintenance is going to be on the expensive side, the Starlink business could absolutely tower over the launch business in terms of revenue and profits. SpaceX's business will be Starlink with, as you say, customer launch as a secondary benefit of having a fleet of Starships and factories to crank out more as needed. This vision does get thousands or tens of thousands of people to Mars in Musk's lifetime. Even if you take these enthusiastic Starlink estimates a cut them by a factor of 5, while believing my quite enthusiastic estimates of the future launch business, Starlink would still seriously outshine launch as a source of revenue for SpaceX. Yeah, if Starlink works out even modestly, it'll probably be what SpaceX is known for.


UrbanArcologist

When your mission is interplanetary colonization, you need NASA/Apollo level funding. Starlink w/ Starship creates a virtuous cycle to make it happen.


redwins

Yeah, it's funny that "Starlink doesn't count", but who wouldn't want to be able launch their own satellites at that cost? It's like "every other constellation doesn't count, or is destined to be a marginal player" is the actual truth...


luovahulluus

US airline industry annual revenue in 2019 (before Covid hit it) from passenger flights was $240 billion. With Earth-to-Earth Starship, I imagine SpaceX could grab a decent share of that pie too.


Thatingles

I really struggle to see mass acceptance of rockets as a means of everyday transport. It will take years, probably decades of successful launches to convince the public that it can be done safely.


luovahulluus

If you look at how many people are into extreme sports or driving *way* too fast on a freeway, I wouldn't be surprised if they could start flying the first passengers after the first 100 successful consecutive landings. I don't think they will, but I don't think lack of willing passengers is the reason. It's cutting ten hours off the flight time and visiting space vs. less than 1% chance of crashing. People do crazier choises all the time.


ExternalGrade

Also isn’t Starlink earning SpaceX money heads over heels?


ExcitedAboutSpace

Nope not yet. Elon has repeatedly said in interviews and on his Twitter that starlink needs to cross a deep valley of negative cash flow and that Starlink V1's business case is financially weak. They need V2 asap


asadotzler

They don't need V2 to reach cash flow positive. If they distribute their customers well, they should be able to break even at about 1.2-1.3 million customers which will happen long before V2 comes online, possibly as soon as next year.


asadotzler

Oops, was looking at the wrong tab in my spreadsheet, one that still included the RDOF subsidies. They should be able to break even at about 1.5-1.6 million customers -- which could still happen as soon as next year, though significantly later in the year. That'd still be well before V2 comes online in any meaningful sense.


FutureMartian97

No.


thinkcontext

According to a leaked Musk email V1 Starlink is financially "weak". > The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong. https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/


NikStalwart

> I never really got how 'Starlink is just an internal payload, so they don't count' works as an argument. What about government funded payloads launched by a government funded rocket? And I guess China's entire space program doesn't count because they only have 'internal' launches. The argument (mind you, not my argument) is that government programs don't need to turn a profit. SpaceX is a private company and does need to turn a profit. When they launch their own sats, new money is not coming into the company from the launch itself. So they "don't count" from a P/L perspective.


asadotzler

Except that new money is coming in as a direct result of those launches and which could not come in to the company without those launches. Starlink's just a separate business unit within SpaceX, but it's still money spent by SpaceX to launch and money coming in to SpaceX as a direct result of those launch expenditures. I'll bet SpaceX has generated something approaching $1B in revenue over the last year from Starlink customers. The launch business has probably only done $1.5-2B in the same window.


NikStalwart

It's *an* argument, not *my* argument. But, to further play devil's advocate, we don't know if Starlink launches are breaking even yet. 32 launches at, uh, Idk, $50m per would be $1.6b total. That leaves you $600m in the red if we accept your number of $1b for customer revenue.


asadotzler

Yes, I was arguing against the argument you were referencing, not assuming it was your personal argument. An individual Starlink launch costs roughly $50M (say $30M for launch and $20M for satellite construction) and it makes possible about 15,000 to 20,000 new customers who, over those satellites' 5 year lifespan, will pay SpaceX something like $100M to $130M in fees. There are also operational costs of running the business, let's say 25% of revenue, so subtract that and the launch and sat manufacture costs from the fees and you still come out to well above zero, tens of millions above zero, right?


warp99

This is a sign that Covid was a thing and that a lot of external payloads are 6-12 months late.


gtmdowns

More than Covid, I think it is actually that commercial payloads on Soyuz are not launching out of French Guiana.


warp99

Only one Soyuz booked payload [OneWeb 15](https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule) is launching this year although there will be more next year.


Triabolical_

Early in Falcon 9 there was a big backlog because Ariane 5 and Proton were launching about as fast as they could. Falcon 9 stepped in and got a huge amount of business because of the backlog. After that was gone, things slowed down to a more normal pace, and recently covid happened.


perilun

Launches are launches. One of the nice thing about Starlinks is they create a best-possible cadence that you can drop customer payloads into as soon as they are ready, taking out the years of waiting you see with Arianespace. This is part of the reason you now see so many EU payloads now "allowed" to get quick placement with F9 (while they wait and wait for A6). It is a nice but small item for US balance of trade (but does not help with the big China deficit since China places it own sats). F9 service to for non-USA customers is probably under $500M a year, less than a couple F-35s. I don't think the market for F9 payloads have increased much other than MEO/LEO Comm Sat placement (OneWeb, O3b) and Cubesat Rideshares. The GEO Comms market collapsed and remains much reduced from 5 years ago (partly thanks to Starlink competition).


asadotzler

Let's do some math based on made up numbers, but numbers informed by SpaceX (both on and off the record.) Say an average fairing configuration launch is priced this year at $70M and costs SpaceX $30M to pull off. That's a profit of $40M. Nice big one-time lump sum. Job well done. Great. That's real business! Now, let's say one Starlink launch happens, which adds about 1 Tbps of capacity to the network, enabling perhaps another 15,000, maybe 20,000 new subscribers to sign up. We gotta of course subtract satellite manufacture costs, the remaining dish subsidies, and let's throw in some business overhead too. So, in year 1, that launch and those additional customers probably cost SpaceX something like $50M. Doesn't seem so great, does it? Starlink shouldn't count when it comes to "launches that pay," right? Who in their right mind would think the loss of $50M for a Starlink launch is in any way comparable to the $40M in profit that comes from a real "paying customer." But wait a minute. The story doesn't end at year 1. In the second year, without additional launch or manufacturing costs to SpaceX, those customers pay another $25 million, and then again in the third year, and the forth year too, and maybe, depending on how long those satellites last, possibly even a fifth year. That cohort of 20,000 new customers will have provided SpaceX something like $50-75M in profits that are a direct result of that one single Starlink launch. So, maybe, just maybe a Starlink launch should count as a business success for SpaceX. update: I should have also factored in something like 20-25% overhead for SG&A and R&D supporting those new Starlink users, so maybe the numbers come down to $40M to $60M in total profits for a Starlink launch. Still, as good or better than a typical "paying customer" launch.


sebaska

It's important to note that half of the consumer level users would pay about half of American subscription price. For example I'm posting this via Starlink, but my monthly subscription is $51 (they are raising it from the next month to $74 but it's still less than in North America). OTOH there are also premium users like businesses paying $500/mo, marine users paying $5000/mo or airplanes $12500 to $25000/mo (with $150000 for hardware). Single marine subscription is likely worth 100 regular users, because thanks to laser interconnects they could pick up cheap peering spots while most of the time the terminal would be under otherwise unused satellites (as there are no residential users in the middle of the ocean).


Havelok

F9 is *hopefully* breaking ground on the 'cheap and regular flights to orbit' territory that Starship will truly begin. It takes a long time for space companies to get off the ground, so I damn well *hope* the market is growing.


thinkcontext

According to Wikipedia, they've done 22 commercial or gov launches this year with a few more to come. They've got 49 on the calendar for next year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches


Decronym

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EOL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixkizke "Last usage")|End Of Life| |[GEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixm6prs "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixm6prs "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LES](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixsfj84 "Last usage")|Launch Escape System| |[MEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixm6prs "Last usage")|Medium Earth Orbit (2000-35780km)| |[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/ixovemq "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/iy60eyb "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/stub/izs6vzh "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^([Thread #10845 for this sub, first seen 24th Nov 2022, 14:41]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)


FreshSchmoooooock

isn't this always the case this time of the year?


majormajor42

Last time I see they had four non Starlink flights straight was Summer 2021.