[Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger

[Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger

[Hesham ElBakoury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]

"Elon Musk may soon face a formidable challenger in the space industry
<https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40540099/elon-musk-promised-to-make-fully-reusable-rockets-13-years-ago-today-spacexs-starship-is-designed-to>
. Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab USA, Inc. RKLB, is preparing to launch
a new, larger rocket that could rival Musk’s SpaceX and potentially disrupt
the billionaire’s space dominance."

https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40571227/while-elon-musk-is-busy-taking-a-dig-at-boeing-after-starliner-fails-to-bring-astronauts-back-from-i


Hesham

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1394 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3647 bytes --]

Rocket Labs is aiming for the small/medium satellite market where customers 
don't want to pay for a dedicated flight of a F9, and don't want to wait for a 
transporter rideshare program (either because of schedule or to get a specific 
orbit). Right now with Electron, they can launch 500-700Kg to orbit vs the F9 
13,000 rtls, 18,000 drone ship, 23,000 expended (falcon heavy can get to 68,000 
expendable)

Their next rocket (Neutron) will be a reusable 1st stage and super-cheap 2nd 
stage with an early design goal of 13,000 drone ship landing payload. It could 
be real competition to the F9 (even limited to smaller payloads)

Rocket Labs is one of the few companies that I expect to survive (as they are 
working on a partially reusable rocket), but they will 
be a 2nd or 3rd tier provider.

with the exception of RFA (see below), I don't see any expendable rockets 
surviving very long

ULA talks about possibly modifying a Vulcan to break the engines off the first 
stage and landing them, then building a new 1st stage for the next flight (and 
2nd stage). Their target is to eventually hit 24 launches/year.

RFA is working on expendable designs, but using super cheap parts (automotive 
grade parts, not aerospace parts), which sounds dangerous at first, but if you 
think about it, cheap automotive grade parts are better quality (more 
consistant dimensions and materials) than manually milled space parts were back 
in the '60s.

Stoke is working on a fully reusable rocket. It's a very interesting design, but 
their current design is for 5,000kg payload capacity (if this design works, they 
may scape up)

Blue Origin is saying they may fly New Glen as early as October. It's 1st stage 
is designed to land, and per a recent interview, Jeff Bezos has two teams 
working on the 2nd stage, one with the focus of building a reusable 2nd stage so 
efficient it makes no sense to use an expendable one, and the other team working 
on an expendable 2nd stage so cheap it doesn't make sense to use an expendable 
one. If New Glen works, it will be in the same class as a Falcon Heavy with a 
design payload of 45,000kg

SpaceX Starship is designed to be fully reusable and have a payload capacity of 
100,000-200,000kg with launch costs in the same ballpark as Neutron

A few years ago Elon Musk said that fuel for a Starship would run around 
$1m/launch and launch pad, manpower, permits, etc run another $1m. Neutron 
needs less fuel, but the expendable 2nd stage costs, and (more importantly)
limits the flight rate to the 2nd stage production rate. A lower flight rate 
would be fewer flights to spread the fixed costs (manpower, faciliites) across. 
So it's a toss-up which would end up cheaper.

David Lang



On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:

> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 04:48:44 -0700
> From: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Reply-To: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
> To: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: [Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger
> 
> "Elon Musk may soon face a formidable challenger in the space industry
> <https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40540099/elon-musk-promised-to-make-fully-reusable-rockets-13-years-ago-today-spacexs-starship-is-designed-to>
> . Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab USA, Inc. RKLB, is preparing to launch
> a new, larger rocket that could rival Musk’s SpaceX and potentially disrupt
> the billionaire’s space dominance."
>
> https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40571227/while-elon-musk-is-busy-taking-a-dig-at-boeing-after-starliner-fails-to-bring-astronauts-back-from-i
>
>
> Hesham
>

Re: [Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5018 bytes --]

"RFA is working on expendable designs, but using super cheap parts
(automotive
grade parts, not aerospace parts), which sounds dangerous at first, but if
you
think about it, cheap automotive grade parts are better quality (more
consistant dimensions and materials) than manually milled space parts were
back
in the '60s."

True that. I started to work only in the early 2000s and it was in
automotive. Imagine my shock, when I transitioned into general aviation and
I found out that tolerances etc were less strict than in automotive. It's
really counterintuitive, but it's like that.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:01 PM David Lang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Rocket Labs is aiming for the small/medium satellite market where
> customers
> don't want to pay for a dedicated flight of a F9, and don't want to wait
> for a
> transporter rideshare program (either because of schedule or to get a
> specific
> orbit). Right now with Electron, they can launch 500-700Kg to orbit vs the
> F9
> 13,000 rtls, 18,000 drone ship, 23,000 expended (falcon heavy can get to
> 68,000
> expendable)
>
> Their next rocket (Neutron) will be a reusable 1st stage and super-cheap
> 2nd
> stage with an early design goal of 13,000 drone ship landing payload. It
> could
> be real competition to the F9 (even limited to smaller payloads)
>
> Rocket Labs is one of the few companies that I expect to survive (as they
> are
> working on a partially reusable rocket), but they will
> be a 2nd or 3rd tier provider.
>
> with the exception of RFA (see below), I don't see any expendable rockets
> surviving very long
>
> ULA talks about possibly modifying a Vulcan to break the engines off the
> first
> stage and landing them, then building a new 1st stage for the next flight
> (and
> 2nd stage). Their target is to eventually hit 24 launches/year.
>
> RFA is working on expendable designs, but using super cheap parts
> (automotive
> grade parts, not aerospace parts), which sounds dangerous at first, but if
> you
> think about it, cheap automotive grade parts are better quality (more
> consistant dimensions and materials) than manually milled space parts were
> back
> in the '60s.
>
> Stoke is working on a fully reusable rocket. It's a very interesting
> design, but
> their current design is for 5,000kg payload capacity (if this design
> works, they
> may scape up)
>
> Blue Origin is saying they may fly New Glen as early as October. It's 1st
> stage
> is designed to land, and per a recent interview, Jeff Bezos has two teams
> working on the 2nd stage, one with the focus of building a reusable 2nd
> stage so
> efficient it makes no sense to use an expendable one, and the other team
> working
> on an expendable 2nd stage so cheap it doesn't make sense to use an
> expendable
> one. If New Glen works, it will be in the same class as a Falcon Heavy
> with a
> design payload of 45,000kg
>
> SpaceX Starship is designed to be fully reusable and have a payload
> capacity of
> 100,000-200,000kg with launch costs in the same ballpark as Neutron
>
> A few years ago Elon Musk said that fuel for a Starship would run around
> $1m/launch and launch pad, manpower, permits, etc run another $1m. Neutron
> needs less fuel, but the expendable 2nd stage costs, and (more importantly)
> limits the flight rate to the 2nd stage production rate. A lower flight
> rate
> would be fewer flights to spread the fixed costs (manpower, faciliites)
> across.
> So it's a toss-up which would end up cheaper.
>
> David Lang
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 04:48:44 -0700
> > From: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Reply-To: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
> > To: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Subject: [Starlink] Formidable SpaceX Challenger
> >
> > "Elon Musk may soon face a formidable challenger in the space industry
> > <
> https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40540099/elon-musk-promised-to-make-fully-reusable-rockets-13-years-ago-today-spacexs-starship-is-designed-to
> >
> > . Peter Beck, the CEO of Rocket Lab USA, Inc. RKLB, is preparing to
> launch
> > a new, larger rocket that could rival Musk’s SpaceX and potentially
> disrupt
> > the billionaire’s space dominance."
> >
> >
> https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40571227/while-elon-musk-is-busy-taking-a-dig-at-boeing-after-starliner-fails-to-bring-astronauts-back-from-i
> >
> >
> > Hesham
> >_______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7672 bytes --]