Talk:Space launch market competition

Adjust launch price per kilogram?

SpaceX increased their price per kilogram to $5,500. (see: https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/)

Unfortunately, with no date, and no editor signature on this, it is impossible to even tell in what epoch of time this comment applies. Moreover, there is no full citation on the source provided, so we also have no date on just when such a US$5500/kg might have even been stated. It's just a bare URL; and those change all the time, as they are vulnerable to link rot. N2e (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Misleading title , needs more pre-2010

This article doesn't discuss Space launch market competition but rather only competition after 2010. Commercial space launch market exists since 1980s (or 70s, depending how you look at it) and a competition on it can be dated back to '90s (Eurockot, Starsem, Arianespace, Sea Launch, cosmos, etc.) This article seems to focus only on a competition that relates to private spaceflight, in which case it'd be appropriate to rename the article. Or add content filling huge time gap of all the events before last 5 years. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely need to find sources that will support adding more detail about the period circa 1980s where some competition emerged—generally at the international (between nations) level between national providers that had, at the time, launch vehicles that were 100% developed by national governments—and were just beginning to be used as commercial launchers. In my experience looking for sources, most of the articles of that time focus on the government end of the objectives (increasing GDP, outdoing some other national government, etc.) even though there was some amount of price competition going on as various nations began to allow commercial companies to begin to pay-for-launch-of and operate commsats. So it has been difficult to add to the encyclopedia about the market competition aspects in that era.

But as sources are located, please add them here, or update the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources, with details about some of the cost and price competition aspects of reusable launch vehicles

• Peter B. de Selding's article on Elon Musk remarks at APSCC 2017 conference, 12 October 2017. Good info, would definitely be useful to improving the article; don't have time to write at present. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• ILS says Proton Medium will compete head to head with Falcon 9, 12 October 2017. N2e (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Space Shuttle/STS did commercial launches until 1986

After Challenger disaster in 1986 Reagan ended commercial satellite launches on Space Shuttle. Could say how many the shuttle actually did and when. - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For sure Rod57. I know it was originally a policy position taken that the Shuttle would fly commercial payloads, and that it changed later as the design showed up some problems and the system could really not keep up with military-plus-some-NASA payloads, and the system became way too expensive to interest the commercial launch service buyers in any case. If you have sources for any of that, would be good to have you add it to the article. N2e (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes : Looks like (from a non-authorative list) commercial satellites on STS-5 (2), STS-7 (2), STS-41B (2), STS-41D (3), STS-51A (1), STS-51D (1), STS-51G (3), STS-51I (1 or 2), STS-61B (3), and maybe STS-61C, and STS-8. 18-21 commercial satellites in just over 3 years ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool. If you can find reliable sources that we can use as citations, might be appropriate for this article; especially if you can get price data that commercial customers paid. Since this article is about market competition, it would be quite interesting to explicate that chapter in the history of spaceflight of US gvmt-provided commercial launch services, even at subsidized prices, where the price would have been well below the US gvmt cost; simply 'cause the going market prices for commercial launches were substantially below the GAA costs that the US gvmt incurred to design, build, test, and operate that behemoth launch vehicle N2e (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

More business news coverage of the topic

Businessweek has a cover on the topic now: The New Space Age : Welcome to the next economic frontier, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 2018.

... and here is the lead article: Space is about to get a whole lot more accessible—and potentially profitable. Others in this issue as well.

I don't have time just now to parse the Bizweek articles to improve the WP article, but others feel free if you wish. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This vidcast by Startup Division, SpaceX Killer - The Great Rocket Race, published 18 June 2018, provides a very thorough overview on the entire cross-section of competition to SpaceX...

...from ULA (Delta IV, Atlas V, Vulcan, ACES), India government/ISRO (PSLV at only US$50 million per launch, charging only c. $3 per small sat launched, Mangalyaan), Ariane Group (Ariane 5, Ariane 6 aiming for prices below SpaceX eventually); Blue Origin (New Glenn); Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne via CosmicGirl, $12-15 million for payloads up to 1100 lbs.); Virgin Galactic (SpaceShipTwo, suborbital space tourism); Stratolaunch Systems (air launched rockets up to 500,000 lbs); China government/PRC (can't match SpaceX prices today, but building more capable; US government/NASA (testing SLS "is moving along", but on cost, will never compare. NASA has already spent US$23 billion to date; and wants $210 billion to reach Mars with the launcher (just to orbit it; not land on Mars); SpaceX (shifting resources to BFR) -- N2e (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Commercial launches of smallsats

With more and more commercial launches of smallsats, mostly by Rocket Lab to date, but several more are coming, we probably ought to discuss what to do with the number of commercial launches graph as these quite small launches heat up. Rocket Lab alone has done four launches in the past six months. What do other editors think would be the best solution. Add them to the main graph of the larger sat launches, or separate graph, or no graph, or what? Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Competition in the political/regulatory realm

This article describes an ongoing sort of competition in the US market, not on price, but on the regulatory burden that is placed on launch providers and new entrants into the space launch industry. ULA and its launch industry competitors in pitched fight over regulations, SpaceNews, 3 August 2019. Not really sure how this sort of regulatory competition might be covered in this article on space launch competition. N2e (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues with the graph

It has been brought to my attention that there are multiple issues with the graph on the page. First, it ostensibly counts number of rocket launches, but one of my edits was reverted under the logic that the graph actually depicts payloads launched. I feel as though that's confusing measurement, and it will grown even more confusing with the rise of LEO constellations. I think we should either standardize around rocket launches, or at the very least, re-label the graph.– Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Note: This was written in parallel to the comment above) I can see a point for counting Ariane's rideshares twice, but if we count strictly by satellite then Falcon 9 has launched way more. It launched 64 satellites with a rideshare mission in December 2018 alone, and I expect no one wants to check each satellite if they were commercial enough to be included. Iridium satellites were 10 each batch and clearly commercial. What is the justification for counting every satellite for Ariane 5 but not for Falcon 9? Do we only count above some arbitrary mass threshold? Only GTO launches? We could sum the masses of the payloads, that would favor LEO deployments but overall it might give a fairer representation of the market. Ping: User:Jadebenn. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally favor launch count, but as long as we come up with something consistent, I'm game. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I merged the two sections, we wrote them in parallel. Some launches have both commercial and non-commercial customers, but usually there is a clear primary customer or primary use of the rocket, so this is a viable option. Starlink is commercial, even though SpaceX is the customer, right? --mfb (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a grey area, but I suppose so. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The downside of the launch count is the large payload difference. A single Falcon 9 Starlink launch is 10 times the capacity of Vega. I'm not sure if we have payload masses for all launches, so maybe we can just go with the launch count and make some comment about capacity. --mfb (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. In an ideal world, I'd go for payload tonnage per company, but I doubt there's enough public info for that. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 10:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

a source for 2019 global summary of launches

Here's a link to a report that attempts to summarize 2019 launches globally. "102 Total Orbital Launches ... 492 Total Spacecraft ... 16 Commercial Launches" (in a graphic) and "Of all orbital launches in 2019, 34 came from China, 27 from the U.S., and 22 from Russia." More at the link, and in the report. Attn: JFG and mfb Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the graph and table exclude non-commercial launches?

The editing comments in the state that the totals should NOT include non-commercial launches. However, I noticed that, for example, Falcon 9 in 2019 had a TOTAL of 13 launches (the same number cited in both the graphic and matrix for this article), which included launches for NASA's Commercial Resupply Services as well as test fights of Dragon-2. I suggest that the numbers be updated to reflect commercial launches only to stay with the guidelines outlined in the article.

user:mnw2000 10:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging editor JFG, as I think this editor has done much of the work to build out those graphics you mentioned. Attn: user:mnw2000. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have restored data that reflects inclusion criteria. I also removed 2020 year in progress, because stats make no sense until we know what actually got launched after the full year is complete. — JFG ^talk 04:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On the substantial recent reduction in launch prices

A source I just ran into: The Recent Large Reduction in Space Launch Cost. Don't have the time to read it now; but could be useful for improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems a good coherent article, but it's not helped by using this wikipedia article as a source :

"In a restricted market, lower costs might not have much impact. None the less, “Satellite design and
manufacturing is beginning to take advantage of these lower-cost options for space launch services.” And, “(T)he
satellite manufacturing industry may ‘experience a shock similar to what the launcher industry is experiencing’”
(Wikipedia, Space launch market competition)"

- Rod57 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

European initiatives into reusable first stage boosters

Looks like we are finally seeing, in 2021, fuller European initiatives to design/fund/build reusable first stage boosters, along the path that SpaceX began investigating over a decade ago/achieved in 2015/2016, and then made regular and operational (89 landings to date) in 2018-2020.

This is from Peter de Selding, who does the best/deepest coverage of the European launch scene, but his stuff is mostly behind a paywall. (link). I cannot tell from the link if this is pure-play nation state funded, as traditional in European space tech sector, or if private funds driven by economic incentives (rather than geopolitical incentives of the country-level actors). But interesting to see nonetheless. If we can find non-paywalled sources, we could use to improve the article on the European response(s) to this increased market competitiveness in spaceflight services. N2e (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Source with insight into the competitive position changes over the past decade between the Russian government launch options and those by SpaceX

Article in ArsTechnica, 13 Sep 2013 by long time space journalist Eric Berger has an interesting paragraph on the competitive losses the Russian government space program has experienced over the past decade as a result of competition from SpaceX.

At the same time, Rogozin has seen SpaceX largely destroy important revenue streams for Russia's space industry. Most notably, Crew Dragon has cut off the approximately $400 million NASA paid to Roscosmos every year for crew transport services to the International Space Station. Additionally, SpaceX lobbied for a congressional mandate preventing United Launch Alliance from buying RD-180 rocket engines from Russia. Finally, the low-cost Falcon 9 rocket has eroded the commercial launch business for the Russian Proton rocket, a former workhorse that now launches about once a year.

Might be useful to improve some part of the article, especially looking back after the result has been seen in the launch numbers and pricing. N2e (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Propose delete section ( Launch vehicle cost vs mass launch cost )

Propose delete section ( Launch vehicle cost vs mass launch cost ) - It seems generic waffle - just plugging an old report - adds nothing to this article. Anyone think it's worth improving/keeping ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's not adding value to the article. --mfb (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying the focus of launch market statistics

There have been some debate about the statistics section, which revolve around the necessity to either count rocket launches, satellites placed in orbit, or total launch mass. Given that the focus of this article is competition in the satellite launch market, I had earlier focused the graph on counting satellites rather than launches. Besides, if we truly want to reflect what happens in the launch market, we should in my opinion exclude all non-competitive launches, such as military payloads (e.g. NRO spysats). There are also questions around how many satellites should be counted for each multiple launch. Therefore I'd like to re-open the debate, and start with my suggestions for counting criteria:

• Focus on the satellite launch market, which implies:
  • counting only satellite launches, not crewed spacecraft (unless the Space Shuttle was still here and launching satellites with the help of astronauts…)
  • excluding ISS logistics missions (Progress, Cygnus, Dragon, HTV)
  • excluding government contracts for defense and navigation satellites
  • excluding launches for one's own account (e.g. Starlink)
• Keep space probes and scientific satellites, even when they are not strictly market-driven (due to rocket capabilities, e.g. the James Webb telescope)
• Generally count a single event for rideshare missions with dozens of small payloads (e.g. lots of PSLV missions)
• Set a mass floor of say 1000 kg to count a satellite separately from another in cases where just a few payloads ahare a ride (so for example we would count all 3 satellites from the RADARSAT mission, but would count each Iridium NEXT launch as one event -- tricky, I know)

The floor is yours. Hopefully we can reach a consensus and implement it shortly. — JFG ^talk 14:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging contributors @Jadebenn, Mfb, Mnw2000, N2e, Rod57, and SkywalkerPL: — JFG ^talk 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A single Falcon 9 rideshare launches about the same stuff as 10-20 Electron launches, both in terms of satellite count and mass, I don't think the latter should count 10-20 times as much. I also don't see why ten 500 kg satellites should count less than two 1 tonne satellites. Going by satellite count would make the multi-ton satellites disappear among all the cubesats, so I think the ideal metric would be payload mass of commercial payloads (not funded by a government, and something rockets from more than one country can compete for). Unfortunately some masses are poorly known. I would include crewed spacecraft if the flight is privately funded (Inspiration4, Axiom missions, Maezawa in Soyuz). --mfb (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe constellations could be split out from the other statistics? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts:

1. A plain, total number of launches/mass/number of satellites is irrelevant as far as the Space launch market competition goes, because a significant number of launches is not made in any competitive way. There's literally only 1 provider doing these and they have zero impact on the space launch market competition (other than perhaps the financial health of the LSP):
   • For the reader I would recommend doing a clear differentiation throughout the article (including, but not limited to, graphs and/or data tables) between:
     • Competitive contracts (commercial and institutional)
     • Non-competitive contracts (through history and globe it's primarily institutional contracts, but also stuff like the boilerplate launches or Starlink)
     • If you really want to go in detail, there are also limited-competition contracts, notably these made in USA where no foreign launch provider can compete.
   • I would also note that certain launch providers have more than 1 rocket in their offering, while the article talks about only 1 of them (except for SpaceX where it's typically both being taken into account for whatever bizarre reasoning it might be)
   • Rideshare missions either have 1 customer buying them from the launch provider or launch provider himself signs contracts with an each individual party, so ultimately even the specific form of contracting makes a huge difference, if you want to go by the count of payloads.
2. I have an impression that there's an ongoing confusion by the authors of the article on the scope of the article and a differentiation between the space agencies, launch providers and the rocket manufacturers. These are not one and the same and cannot be used interchangeably (a thing that press gets confused often as well). At least a certain sections should decide what they want to discuss (e.g. information in a number of paragraphs is irrelevant as far as the competition on the launch market goes - I would also note that the role of the space agencies undergoes significant changes through the last two decades, so what was relevant in the '80s might not be any more now).
3. The table "Launch vehicle estimated payload cost per kg" is full of issues. E.g. using grossly outdated data without giving it a time context, ignoring the fact that prices change over time, ignoring the fact that prices change per contract, having unsourced information or numbers that never were truly contracted. All this table does is misleading people.
4. I would note that the article in the current form has a significant pro-SpaceX bias throughout several sections of the content while happily ignoring concurrent events and achievements from other competitors or going out of its way to bash the non-SpaceX providers with stuff that has hardly any relevance to the topic of the article.

Kind regards, SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Competition in the launch market clearly occurs on many margins (mass; no. of sats and therefore, usually, separation events; special requirements of the launch (orbital specification, timing control, etc.). As the article on competition clarifies, it occurs by "varying the elements of the marketing mix: price, product, promotion and place." Plus, in launches—which started out as exclusively a nation state capability without any private options—every one of the spacefaring nation states has launches that can only occur on their national launch vehicles. It would likely be near impossible to come up with a single metric or index that makes even just the private/competed launches comparable in a simple table or graph.

Still, we can all see that now there is real competition in the launch market for the diverse service offerings that go along with transporting cargo and humans to orbit. This was not true several decades ago. Might be left with merely stating what is verifiable by sources, and avoid trying to make it all fit into too tidy a graph.

Having said that, I would also include any privately funded crewed flights, as they can obviously go on any provider capable and willing to sell seats to orbit, including nation states. The Russian government has sold a few private seats (via Space Adventures for marketing and such, I believe) for more than a couple of decades now, and those (limited) seats have had prices attached, and only recently did any other private option for human spaceflight come on the scene. So in human spaceflight, the competition is limited (few providers in the market), but it is real.

I would also leave out all the orbital launch services that have to, or are highly incented to, go on the nation/continent favorites. It is hard, but perhaps not impossible, for European-funded research/science probes to just freely go wherever the price is cheapest for the service wanted. The political forces that fund the science naturally want the launches to go to their government-funded rocket programs. Ditto with US, Russian, Chinese, Indian, etc. launches with those national science projects. ISS and the countries that fund it? Same thing. N2e (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Creating an "elastic launch manifest"

• Despite the headline focus, this article from major space media provides very good summary info for the article. Simply, a major effect of the satellite build/operation side of SpaceX (Starlink payloads increasing demand in the launch service market) has been the creation of an "elastic launch manifest" for the launch service provider side of SpaceX. "Starlink has had another effect: creating a finely tuned launch system. The current Starlink generation requires SpaceX to launch Starlink satellites at a dizzying pace to build out the constellation and meet growing demand for its broadband services. Launches, as well as recovery of the Falcon 9 first stages and payload fairings, are now routine. As of Dec. 1, SpaceX had performed 54 launches in 2022; in 2002, the year Musk founded SpaceX, there were only 65 orbital launch attempts worldwide.", SpaceNews, 12 December 2022. N2e (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Post 2020 Activity - i.e. Rocket Lab's Neutron Rocket and Pricing

Need to have more information about recent activity along side the updated SpaceX pricing: Most of the information in the article appears to be 2021 or prior, and does not capture recent changes within the last two years. In just the cost per rocket and the rockets being launched, there are many changes. I.e:

Another source for SpaceX pricing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/spacex-raises-prices-for-launches-and-starlink-due-to-inflation.html

https://www.space.com/spacex-raises-prices-launch-starlink-inflation

Rocket Lab's Neutron rocket and pricing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/24/rocket-lab-neutron-launch-price-challenges-spacex.html

Astra's Rocket 4:

https://www.reuters.com/article/astra-space-rocket/astra-space-prices-next-generation-rocket-4-at-3-95-million-per-launch-ceo-idUKL2N2X428M

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/as-losses-mount-astra-announces-a-radical-pivot-to-a-larger-launch-vehicle/ SynnerInChief (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reading - — Preceding unsigned comment added by SynnerInChief (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Concur. And thanks for bringing several reliable secondary sources to the Talk page. Why don't you consider editing the article to improve it, based on these and other sources. After all, on Wikipedia, WP:ANYONECANEDIT. N2e (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Article has devolved; bogus data presented in the "Launch market" table

The "Launch market" table has had a citation needed tag on it for over five years, since 2017. The table fails WP:V as there are no citations to support that these launches were a) made and b) actually "in the market" by being competitive launches and not launches restricted to particular nation state/country launchers.

It appears that this has gotten worse in recent years of the data in the table, where many editors can and have input/changed the data, but always without reliable source WP:CS citations. I don't know how to fix it, and so am inclined to just lose the table in the article if these data cannot be sourced. (or lose the data that are unsourced). How can we improve the article so that encyclopedic statements (data) in this table are verifiable? N2e (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the data reflected in the table, as of September 2023:

• just one example of bogus data that has crept in: how did Russia make 25 "market" Soyuz launches in 2022, when the country was under severe international sanctions against a large swathe of commercial activity after 22 Feb 2022? ... and the European Space Agency even cancelled all of the Soyuz/Arianespace-commercial launches it had (previously) scheduled for 2022? But we need sources for any editor to be able to verify all of these data in the table.
• Pinging contributors @Jadebenn, Mfb, Mnw2000, N2e, Rod57, SkywalkerPL, JFG, and SynnerInChief:

I didn't get the ping (came here from the watchlist). That table is problematic and I don't see an easy way to fix it, unless we skip the "market" requirement and just list all launches. Maybe we can do all launches that are not for a government organization but that runs into problems with rideshare launches. It also ignores the different size of the rockets. Two Falcon 9 rideshare missions launch about as much as Electron has in all its history, both in terms of satellite count and mass. --mfb (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it would be very hard to build a page consensus on exactly what is "in" and what is "out" for this article on market competition. But perhaps that is the solution, mfb. Maybe we just drop the table in this article entirely, and put it into an article about a different set of spaceflight launches, where the definitions are clearer, and the "market competition" is not in the forefront. Then, this article remains one that is mostly prose, and based on reliable source citations, and simply reflects the story of market competition arriving in spaceflight over the recent decade or so. Then we don't have editors needing to figure out each and every global launch and turning it into a detailed data classification project. — N2e (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)