Why is SpaceX not creating its own launch vehicle for small satellites?
With a (predicted) $5.5 Billion dollar market, why isn't SpaceX trying to build its own 'mini launch vehicles'? With the brand and the technology they have, they can easily capture a huge chunk of the market.
spacex rockets launch-vehicle small-launch-vehicles
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
add a comment |
With a (predicted) $5.5 Billion dollar market, why isn't SpaceX trying to build its own 'mini launch vehicles'? With the brand and the technology they have, they can easily capture a huge chunk of the market.
spacex rockets launch-vehicle small-launch-vehicles
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36
add a comment |
With a (predicted) $5.5 Billion dollar market, why isn't SpaceX trying to build its own 'mini launch vehicles'? With the brand and the technology they have, they can easily capture a huge chunk of the market.
spacex rockets launch-vehicle small-launch-vehicles
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
With a (predicted) $5.5 Billion dollar market, why isn't SpaceX trying to build its own 'mini launch vehicles'? With the brand and the technology they have, they can easily capture a huge chunk of the market.
spacex rockets launch-vehicle small-launch-vehicles
spacex rockets launch-vehicle small-launch-vehicles
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
edited Dec 28 '18 at 10:21
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
asked Dec 28 '18 at 10:15
Amar
1,036528
1,036528
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36
add a comment |
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
They already have one. The Falcon 9. Earlier this month a single Falcon 9 put 64 smallsats on orbit. It was arranged by a rideshare company, Spaceflight, at prices that small launch vehicles would have a hard time competing with, starting at $300,000.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
add a comment |
Everything SpaceX does is in service of Elon Musk's ultimate goal of retiring to Mars. The Falcon 9 was a stepping stone, developing a separate small launcher would take a lot of development effort that doesn't help the ultimate goal.
Their plan involves moving all payloads to the BFR, a reusable spaceship that could be more economical than throwing away a small rocket on every launch.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
add a comment |
They already dipped their toes in that, it was called Falcon 1. Basically they didn't find enough demand to justify keeping it around. Granted today there is more of a demand for such then there was in the past, but...
The ultimate solution will be Starship (BFR). The estimated cost of a single launch is about $6 million. An Electron rocket costs $5 million. The amount of payload that Starship can take to LEO is VASTLY larger then an Electron rocket.
As for the $5.5 billion market size, that would include building and launching them. Let's say there is 100 launches per year, that would only come to a $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33140%2fwhy-is-spacex-not-creating-its-own-launch-vehicle-for-small-satellites%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They already have one. The Falcon 9. Earlier this month a single Falcon 9 put 64 smallsats on orbit. It was arranged by a rideshare company, Spaceflight, at prices that small launch vehicles would have a hard time competing with, starting at $300,000.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
add a comment |
They already have one. The Falcon 9. Earlier this month a single Falcon 9 put 64 smallsats on orbit. It was arranged by a rideshare company, Spaceflight, at prices that small launch vehicles would have a hard time competing with, starting at $300,000.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
add a comment |
They already have one. The Falcon 9. Earlier this month a single Falcon 9 put 64 smallsats on orbit. It was arranged by a rideshare company, Spaceflight, at prices that small launch vehicles would have a hard time competing with, starting at $300,000.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
They already have one. The Falcon 9. Earlier this month a single Falcon 9 put 64 smallsats on orbit. It was arranged by a rideshare company, Spaceflight, at prices that small launch vehicles would have a hard time competing with, starting at $300,000.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
edited Dec 28 '18 at 17:16
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
answered Dec 28 '18 at 13:52
Mark Adler
48.1k3123203
48.1k3123203
add a comment |
add a comment |
Everything SpaceX does is in service of Elon Musk's ultimate goal of retiring to Mars. The Falcon 9 was a stepping stone, developing a separate small launcher would take a lot of development effort that doesn't help the ultimate goal.
Their plan involves moving all payloads to the BFR, a reusable spaceship that could be more economical than throwing away a small rocket on every launch.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
add a comment |
Everything SpaceX does is in service of Elon Musk's ultimate goal of retiring to Mars. The Falcon 9 was a stepping stone, developing a separate small launcher would take a lot of development effort that doesn't help the ultimate goal.
Their plan involves moving all payloads to the BFR, a reusable spaceship that could be more economical than throwing away a small rocket on every launch.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
add a comment |
Everything SpaceX does is in service of Elon Musk's ultimate goal of retiring to Mars. The Falcon 9 was a stepping stone, developing a separate small launcher would take a lot of development effort that doesn't help the ultimate goal.
Their plan involves moving all payloads to the BFR, a reusable spaceship that could be more economical than throwing away a small rocket on every launch.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
Everything SpaceX does is in service of Elon Musk's ultimate goal of retiring to Mars. The Falcon 9 was a stepping stone, developing a separate small launcher would take a lot of development effort that doesn't help the ultimate goal.
Their plan involves moving all payloads to the BFR, a reusable spaceship that could be more economical than throwing away a small rocket on every launch.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
edited Dec 28 '18 at 11:42
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
answered Dec 28 '18 at 11:17
Hobbes
86.8k2247394
86.8k2247394
add a comment |
add a comment |
They already dipped their toes in that, it was called Falcon 1. Basically they didn't find enough demand to justify keeping it around. Granted today there is more of a demand for such then there was in the past, but...
The ultimate solution will be Starship (BFR). The estimated cost of a single launch is about $6 million. An Electron rocket costs $5 million. The amount of payload that Starship can take to LEO is VASTLY larger then an Electron rocket.
As for the $5.5 billion market size, that would include building and launching them. Let's say there is 100 launches per year, that would only come to a $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
add a comment |
They already dipped their toes in that, it was called Falcon 1. Basically they didn't find enough demand to justify keeping it around. Granted today there is more of a demand for such then there was in the past, but...
The ultimate solution will be Starship (BFR). The estimated cost of a single launch is about $6 million. An Electron rocket costs $5 million. The amount of payload that Starship can take to LEO is VASTLY larger then an Electron rocket.
As for the $5.5 billion market size, that would include building and launching them. Let's say there is 100 launches per year, that would only come to a $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
add a comment |
They already dipped their toes in that, it was called Falcon 1. Basically they didn't find enough demand to justify keeping it around. Granted today there is more of a demand for such then there was in the past, but...
The ultimate solution will be Starship (BFR). The estimated cost of a single launch is about $6 million. An Electron rocket costs $5 million. The amount of payload that Starship can take to LEO is VASTLY larger then an Electron rocket.
As for the $5.5 billion market size, that would include building and launching them. Let's say there is 100 launches per year, that would only come to a $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
They already dipped their toes in that, it was called Falcon 1. Basically they didn't find enough demand to justify keeping it around. Granted today there is more of a demand for such then there was in the past, but...
The ultimate solution will be Starship (BFR). The estimated cost of a single launch is about $6 million. An Electron rocket costs $5 million. The amount of payload that Starship can take to LEO is VASTLY larger then an Electron rocket.
As for the $5.5 billion market size, that would include building and launching them. Let's say there is 100 launches per year, that would only come to a $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
answered Dec 28 '18 at 14:46
PearsonArtPhoto♦
80.3k16230441
80.3k16230441
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
add a comment |
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
1
1
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
“The estimated cost of a single [BFR] launch is about $6 million.” I’d be very skeptical of that. Let’s see how well the Falcon 9 Block 5 does first.
– Michael
Dec 28 '18 at 20:20
1
1
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
@Michael though it's worth noting the BFR will likely be able to achieve lower costs than the F9B5 every will, due higher reusability % and focus.
– NPSF3000
Dec 28 '18 at 23:08
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33140%2fwhy-is-spacex-not-creating-its-own-launch-vehicle-for-small-satellites%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The cost of a rocket does not scale linearly with payload mass. The cost and weight for electronics will be about the same for a smaller rocket. Therefore using the same rocket for launch of many small satellites together may be cheaper. Using the same launch vehicle instead of developing a new one saves a lot of money.
– Uwe
Dec 28 '18 at 12:36