Dave, I feel you need to consider market elasticity. As new vehicles like Starship start offering newer lift capabilities, then newer payloads will start appearing too -- not just satellite constellations, but large single-unit payloads like space station modules, lunar habs, Mars habs, etc. Hell, I bet Starship will be taking bulldozers to the Moon & Mars too. With the arrival Starship and its vastly greater lift capacities, then the size and scope of payloads will also expand in major ways.
I liken Starship to driving a school bus to work. If you work at taking bus load of kids to school it makes sense. But if you are only driving 3 or 4 people to work, maybe a 4 door sedan makes more sense.
Starship won't just drive to work - it'll drive to the Moon and Mars. It can do more than just drive the kids, it can carry homes (ie. hab modules). My point is that Starship is capable of expanding the envelope for space travel, helping to build out all sorts of infrastructure for space. This will help to spur demand for more launches, which other launch providers can also benefit from.
I am very optimistic that the market for delivering payloads to space will far outstrip launch vehicles. We are about to enter a new phase of private company demand that can hardly be imagined.
Fuck yeah, Dave. F9's will get cheap, but Rocket Lab isn't exactly pumping a ton of Neutrons out in the next 3 years. They'll sell those next 8 launches according to their scale, or 7 sold launches, in the next 3 years and 2029 some of those cheap F9's will be retired. Nothing wrong with being the number 2 launch provider in the US when its in the number 1 growing infrastructure in the world.
I think Peter beck & co are very smart & keep up to date with what's going on & can pivot very quickly to take advantage of the industry & if they come up with their own unique constilation they will be making a lot more money...
Is there a list of the potential applications that Rocket Lab could go after with Neutron? It would be interesting to see an analysis of this list with a view to providing insights as to which they will likely choose.
Some thoughts... more countries will want their own launch bases and won't need giant payloads... many satellite owners want their hardware placed in a non-standard orbit, much easier if you're the only payload on board... you can buy launchdate flexibility with Neutron but not with Starship. Looking at other transport industries, there are plenty of sizes of aeroplanes and goods vehicles out there.
I have been thinking about this very issue for the last few weeks, and was wondering why no one was talking about it. Falcon 9 is going to have a ton of excess capacity, allowing them to compete with all these new startups. I agree with your conclusions that Neutron should still have enough payloads to keep it busy. The launch business is way under serviced right now, and there is room for a lot more launches than what we are currently seeing.
Rocket Lab will get a nice place if Peter don't mess with the MARS sample and just focus the recover and better engine at the small size rocket. because the MARS sample is basically the pre-exercise of Landing mission, bring human on and bring them back, RocketLab is lack of everything similar and even suceess will not mean much as time go.
Thanks Dave, I never thought about it that way but you make a really good point! Space X could easily discount f9. But like u say there should be enough customers and also it helps a lot that Neutron is costing so little so should be portable very quickly
Elon and Trump's predatory behavior scares me. Although Trump doesn't get along with people easily...maybe Elon will tick him off and monopolistic behavior will be prevented that way.
@@69tthompsonIt’s called work. Remember, the Falcon 9 that has concurred and taken over the space world, is Falcon 9 version FIVE, ok? And to get that fully ensconced and running at speed took a total of 12 years. They’ll get there. - Dave Huntsman
Given geopolitics, Elon's predatory behavior re competing constellations (to Starship) and finally Neutron's modest cadence, even if the dumping F9 scenario would happen there will not be shortage of well-paying Neutron customers IMO. And given today's IFT7 there is still surprisingly long time before Starship starts to deploy Starlink.
Not mentioned, tho, is Neutron’s greatest weakness as a launch vehicle currently: it can’t launch full constellations- including RocketLab’s own internal constellation- because it can’t launch to all needed orbital inclinations. To do so it needs to add at least one whole new major launch site- and all the unplanned capex and infrastructure that goes along with it. Not a bad thing- but ‘trivial’ is not the word I’d use to describe it. - Dave Huntsman
If France/ESA wants strategic autonomy it would be cheap for them to refurbish the Kourou Roscosmos pad for RL, or RL to do it. Also, RL has the most sophisticated kick stage fleet in the industry fully capable of major orbital spread-out of constellation satellites to many orbits.
@@j.m.7715 So ‘cheap’, they haven’t done it…or talked of doing it; in spite of Kourou being vastly underused, and in spite of vast demand for launch services. - Dave Huntsman
@dphuntsman SPB is frugal and speaks of anything late (e.g. Neutron orders vs say Relativity or Astra orders), and this was just an example inspired by peer Firefly MLV which would supposedly launch from Kiruna spaceport in Sweden. And maybe SPB doesn't need it yet given cadence and kick stages.
These are all valid points to watch out for... Personaly I think Trumps and Elons personalities/egos are too big for them to get along for too much longer, both of them have a history of falling out with their allies very publicly and in a big way.... Their bromance won't last very long
First. Just watched New Glenn. RKLB has strength in precise orbit. The Rklb non launch department is best placed to benefit from New Glenn, Falcon and Starship. Will Elon license Falcon to another operator? Nice video.
Nah, Elon won't farm out F9. He wouldn't want anyone to poach his talent either. Starship will simply make F9 obsolete. What's also needed are for newer types of payloads to be built, to better take advantages of Starship's new capabilities.
You don't need a cybertruck to deliver a letter when a push bike is adequate..... so too with Starship to launch small satellites. It's Eelons's stroking that gets in the way.
Welll…you’re misunderstanding something: They also continued to “test” Falcon 9 for 12 years before fully transitioning to the version that’s now concurred the world, ok? They were still flying paying payloads the entire time before that. Starship is already essentially ‘booked’ for this entire decade. Dozens of things associated with what are primarily test flights. But on top of that, the two NASA HLS lunar landings between them might say take up to two dozen flights of Starship; then there’s Elon almost certainly wanting to throw on the dice THIS DECADE on a Mars uncrewed Starship landing- which, again, needs to be supported by lots of other Starship flights. But the PRIMARY driver for Elon and Gwynne on Starship is clearly….to deploy full-sized Starlinks ASAP, and that’s a LOT of flights- basically, ANY time they don’t have another paying customer or commitment, they’ll be flying full-sized Starlinks ASAP deployments- and those will include Starship flights that the Starship VEHICLE engineers will still consider: Flight test versions! I.e, the equivalent for Starship of Falcon 9 versions 1/ 2/ 3/ 4 before they got to the REAL Falcon 9 version now, version 5. - Dave Huntsman
OOPS #7 just happened. Also don't forget Starship is miles behind it's launch commitments to NASA with the Artemis programme. With no successful launch to Earth orbit, then Starship is a complete failure so far. The so called rapid turn around of Starship is very questionable. I contend Rocket Lab is more viable for the general satellite market , especially if Neutron is workable.
Sorry, Thumbs Down. Starship is farther along than NASA itself for the lunar landing missions- and it has more incentive to succeed: since the PRIME incentive for Starship operational success is NOT NASA’s lunar mission, but before that, to launch full-sized, revenue-producing Starlinks. No one in their right mind calls Starship - the leading space transportation program on this planet (and a privately developed one, at that) “a complete failure so far”. Frankly, you don’t know what your’e talking about. - Dave Huntsman
@@Oznz-m5c It will definitely be a good StarLink launch vehicle very quickly, the issue is how long will it take SpaceX to get the refueling to work efficiently.
Dave, SpaceX can launch Starlink at cost but for external customers the price has to be above cost. So more like $40-45 million per launch. Neutron can easily match that. The biggest problem is perception. Everyone is chanting "fully reusable!.. fully reusable!" But the reality is that a 90% reusable vehicle (Neutron) can easily be more cost effective than a 100% reusable vehicle (Starship) that suffers from the costs of repair/refurbishment and struggles with its cadence. Also, Peter Beck stated during the initial Neutron announcement that in fact most of he cost of a launch is operations. Not the vehicle. Cadence is everything and Neutron is a far better design than Starship for rapid reusability.
With respect, your attitude needs adjusting (IMO). Peter Beck has said he wants (needs, is more like it) to charge over $50m per Neutron launch; Neutron, especially since it can’t match SpaceX on launch rate- for either Falcon 9 or Starship (I’m fairly certain) - will NOT ‘easily match that’ at its low flight rate in this decade, ok? Especially with only the one launch pad they have planned and budgeted for, and not being able to even reach all orbital inclinations for all customers. Plus, they aren’t going to try to discount- they are going to try to charge the “I’m not SpaceX” premium they know governments, Amazons, etc. are willing to pay. They just are not as operationally efficient as SpaceX is; not in production, not in operations. And then there’s Starship- which takes production and operation for launch vehicles to an entirely new scale. And keep in mind: SpaceX has now demonstrated- TWICE- with Booster’s stage that it is farther along NOW in full and rapid reusability - at an even larger scale- than Neutron will likely be at a smaller scale in a year or so, at best. - Dave Huntsman
@dphuntsman A dozen untested assumptions doesn't make an argument. "Fully reusable" has become a meaningless mantra. For one thing it assumes that your largest cost is the vehicle, which isn't so. For another, "full reuse" comes at a cost. It doubles the size of your overall vehicle. It adds complexity, mass, reliability issues. It gets in the way of rapid reuse (what was the Shuttle's record on this?) Oh and I bet you've swallowed Elon's hype about Mars, giant fleets of Starships and similar BS.
@ Hardly a meaningless mantra; it’s a requirement for humanity to became a spacefaring civilization- starting with humanity’s expansion into the solar system with Luna, NEOs, Mars, the asteroids……. By your argument, there’s no full reuse of aircraft on Earth, either. And it’s not just SpaceX zeroing in on this: Stokes is as well- and is getting serious funding to do something about it. You’re completely wrong about ‘reliability issues’; it’s the reverse: who the hell, in the end, wants to ride in something that’s never before flown, in terms of being a passenger going somewhere? Reliability comes from designing the right aware, testing the bejesus out of it-including like they are doing on Starship- making it resilient as hell as a result, just like airliners are now, and by flying and flying and flying, knowing EXACTLY what you’ve got. Again, according to your thinking, there are no airliners reliably flying today- much less the 5000 in the US alone. Simply implying rapid reuse can’t be done- by citing the 1970s design shuttle (my program, by the way- design thru operations)- from the 70s/80s- is silly on the face of it. I like SpaceX’s approach- and their willingness to bet the company on it. - Dave Huntsman
The 2032 day for the end of flacon 9 has been mentioned by spacex a few times, so I think that they will likely stick with that number. It is gong to take them awhile to ramp up starship production and they already have so many payloads for it that they will need to keep Falcon 9 in production for several years.
Nope. This decade, Starship basically is already filled up: lots and lots and lots of tanker/refilling missions, at least two lunar missions, Mars missions and associated, other flights that will be added on……..F9s will be dumped on the market, as I’ve been talking about the past year 😊, starting by the end of next year, and prices will drop and competition will be brutal. Peter is Not worried about demand for Neutron; he IS worried about the price he’ll be able to charge for it, tho, because it ain’t going to be the >$50m he wants/needs.- Dave Huntsman
Dave, I feel you need to consider market elasticity. As new vehicles like Starship start offering newer lift capabilities, then newer payloads will start appearing too -- not just satellite constellations, but large single-unit payloads like space station modules, lunar habs, Mars habs, etc. Hell, I bet Starship will be taking bulldozers to the Moon & Mars too. With the arrival Starship and its vastly greater lift capacities, then the size and scope of payloads will also expand in major ways.
Dave, you need some awesome space art on the big blank wall😂
@@jonesienz I agree, how’s the Reno going?."
I liken Starship to driving a school bus to work. If you work at taking bus load of kids to school it makes sense. But if you are only driving 3 or 4 people to work, maybe a 4 door sedan makes more sense.
Starship won't just drive to work - it'll drive to the Moon and Mars. It can do more than just drive the kids, it can carry homes (ie. hab modules). My point is that Starship is capable of expanding the envelope for space travel, helping to build out all sorts of infrastructure for space. This will help to spur demand for more launches, which other launch providers can also benefit from.
I am very optimistic that the market for delivering payloads to space will far outstrip launch vehicles. We are about to enter a new phase of private company demand that can hardly be imagined.
Love your videos.. also like the "mini documentary" style into to this video.
Fuck yeah, Dave. F9's will get cheap, but Rocket Lab isn't exactly pumping a ton of Neutrons out in the next 3 years. They'll sell those next 8 launches according to their scale, or 7 sold launches, in the next 3 years and 2029 some of those cheap F9's will be retired. Nothing wrong with being the number 2 launch provider in the US when its in the number 1 growing infrastructure in the world.
Rocketlab neutron will be the iphone moment that will destroy spacex
I think Peter beck & co are very smart & keep up to date with what's going on & can pivot very quickly to take advantage of the industry & if they come up with their own unique constilation they will be making a lot more money...
Is there a list of the potential applications that Rocket Lab could go after with Neutron? It would be interesting to see an analysis of this list with a view to providing insights as to which they will likely choose.
I think Rocket Lab will do very well especially since they have their own satellites to launch .
So short sighted - There will be no shortage of demand for launch in the foreseeable future
Some thoughts... more countries will want their own launch bases and won't need giant payloads... many satellite owners want their hardware placed in a non-standard orbit, much easier if you're the only payload on board... you can buy launchdate flexibility with Neutron but not with Starship. Looking at other transport industries, there are plenty of sizes of aeroplanes and goods vehicles out there.
I have been thinking about this very issue for the last few weeks, and was wondering why no one was talking about it. Falcon 9 is going to have a ton of excess capacity, allowing them to compete with all these new startups. I agree with your conclusions that Neutron should still have enough payloads to keep it busy. The launch business is way under serviced right now, and there is room for a lot more launches than what we are currently seeing.
Rocket Lab will get a nice place if Peter don't mess with the MARS sample and just focus the recover and better engine at the small size rocket.
because the MARS sample is basically the pre-exercise of Landing mission, bring human on and bring them back, RocketLab is lack of everything similar and even suceess will not mean much as time go.
Starship will be busy for the next 4 years; StarLink, testing refueling, lunar launches, lunar refueling, Mars launches, Mars refueling…
Just imagine - 25 launches of Starship are planned for this year of 2025 alone - that's one launch every 2 weeks.
Exploding..
Eelons's Starship business is literally and physically EXPLODING!
@@manofsan I doubt it is going to happen. Maybe 10 launches.
Thanks Dave, I never thought about it that way but you make a really good point! Space X could easily discount f9. But like u say there should be enough customers and also it helps a lot that Neutron is costing so little so should be portable very quickly
Everything is dependant on Neutron knocking it out of the park first launch - if it does then the universe is their oyster including MSR.
Elon and Trump's predatory behavior scares me. Although Trump doesn't get along with people easily...maybe Elon will tick him off and monopolistic behavior will be prevented that way.
“Nobody likes a monopoly”. Well Elon Musk does - the guy who just bought the Executive Branch of the US Govt.
Starship will be fully reusable and that is another game changer
I think they are going to have some difficulty with this one.
I think it is clear they will not have trouble with stage 1 re-use, but they still have a long ways to go to get stage 2 re-use.
Fully explodable so far.
Not just fully reusable; the (achievable) goal, is: full and rapid reusability. - Dave Huntsman
@@69tthompsonIt’s called work. Remember, the Falcon 9 that has concurred and taken over the space world, is Falcon 9 version FIVE, ok? And to get that fully ensconced and running at speed took a total of 12 years. They’ll get there. - Dave Huntsman
Given geopolitics, Elon's predatory behavior re competing constellations (to Starship) and finally Neutron's modest cadence, even if the dumping F9 scenario would happen there will not be shortage of well-paying Neutron customers IMO. And given today's IFT7 there is still surprisingly long time before Starship starts to deploy Starlink.
100% agree with this. Should be easy to fill up the Neutron manifest for a long time
Not mentioned, tho, is Neutron’s greatest weakness as a launch vehicle currently: it can’t launch full constellations- including RocketLab’s own internal constellation- because it can’t launch to all needed orbital inclinations. To do so it needs to add at least one whole new major launch site- and all the unplanned capex and infrastructure that goes along with it. Not a bad thing- but ‘trivial’ is not the word I’d use to describe it. - Dave Huntsman
If France/ESA wants strategic autonomy it would be cheap for them to refurbish the Kourou Roscosmos pad for RL, or RL to do it. Also, RL has the most sophisticated kick stage fleet in the industry fully capable of major orbital spread-out of constellation satellites to many orbits.
@@j.m.7715 So ‘cheap’, they haven’t done it…or talked of doing it; in spite of Kourou being vastly underused, and in spite of vast demand for launch services. - Dave Huntsman
@dphuntsman SPB is frugal and speaks of anything late (e.g. Neutron orders vs say Relativity or Astra orders), and this was just an example inspired by peer Firefly MLV which would supposedly launch from Kiruna spaceport in Sweden. And maybe SPB doesn't need it yet given cadence and kick stages.
These are all valid points to watch out for... Personaly I think Trumps and Elons personalities/egos are too big for them to get along for too much longer, both of them have a history of falling out with their allies very publicly and in a big way.... Their bromance won't last very long
First. Just watched New Glenn.
RKLB has strength in precise orbit.
The Rklb non launch department is best placed to benefit from New Glenn, Falcon and Starship.
Will Elon license Falcon to another operator?
Nice video.
Nah, Elon won't farm out F9. He wouldn't want anyone to poach his talent either.
Starship will simply make F9 obsolete.
What's also needed are for newer types of payloads to be built, to better take advantages of Starship's new capabilities.
@@manofsanAlready being built.
It will be easy for RL to get 5-50 paid flights a year Plenty of customers out there No worries
Where do you get 50?
Sorry, watching SpaceX launch
In Curacao, was hoping to see Starship fly over.
Load up
Compared to SpaceX, Rocket Labs is kaput .
🤣🤣
They will continue to test Star Ship for another 3 to 4 years. Remember to is called " On Elon time" for a reason.
You don't need a cybertruck to deliver a letter when a push bike is adequate..... so too with Starship to launch small satellites. It's Eelons's stroking that gets in the way.
Welll…you’re misunderstanding something: They also continued to “test” Falcon 9 for 12 years before fully transitioning to the version that’s now concurred the world, ok? They were still flying paying payloads the entire time before that. Starship is already essentially ‘booked’ for this entire decade. Dozens of things associated with what are primarily test flights. But on top of that, the two NASA HLS lunar landings between them might say take up to two dozen flights of Starship; then there’s Elon almost certainly wanting to throw on the dice THIS DECADE on a Mars uncrewed Starship landing- which, again, needs to be supported by lots of other Starship flights. But the PRIMARY driver for Elon and Gwynne on Starship is clearly….to deploy full-sized Starlinks ASAP, and that’s a LOT of flights- basically, ANY time they don’t have another paying customer or commitment, they’ll be flying full-sized Starlinks ASAP deployments- and those will include Starship flights that the Starship VEHICLE engineers will still consider: Flight test versions! I.e, the equivalent for Starship of Falcon 9 versions 1/ 2/ 3/ 4 before they got to the REAL Falcon 9 version now, version 5. - Dave Huntsman
OOPS #7 just happened. Also don't forget Starship is miles behind it's launch commitments to NASA with the Artemis programme. With no successful launch to Earth orbit, then Starship is a complete failure so far. The so called rapid turn around of Starship is very questionable. I contend Rocket Lab is more viable for the general satellite market , especially if Neutron is workable.
Sorry, Thumbs Down. Starship is farther along than NASA itself for the lunar landing missions- and it has more incentive to succeed: since the PRIME incentive for Starship operational success is NOT NASA’s lunar mission, but before that, to launch full-sized, revenue-producing Starlinks. No one in their right mind calls Starship - the leading space transportation program on this planet (and a privately developed one, at that) “a complete failure so far”. Frankly, you don’t know what your’e talking about. - Dave Huntsman
@@Oznz-m5c It will definitely be a good StarLink launch vehicle very quickly, the issue is how long will it take SpaceX to get the refueling to work efficiently.
Starship exploded..
I'll bet $10 the root cause is Raptor.
Dave, SpaceX can launch Starlink at cost but for external customers the price has to be above cost. So more like $40-45 million per launch.
Neutron can easily match that.
The biggest problem is perception. Everyone is chanting "fully reusable!.. fully reusable!" But the reality is that a 90% reusable vehicle (Neutron) can easily be more cost effective than a 100% reusable vehicle (Starship) that suffers from the costs of repair/refurbishment and struggles with its cadence.
Also, Peter Beck stated during the initial Neutron announcement that in fact most of he cost of a launch is operations. Not the vehicle. Cadence is everything and Neutron is a far better design than Starship for rapid reusability.
Peter Beck definitely has his head screwed on being an ex toolmaker...... no bullshit and all delivery.
With respect, your attitude needs adjusting (IMO). Peter Beck has said he wants (needs, is more like it) to charge over $50m per Neutron launch; Neutron, especially since it can’t match SpaceX on launch rate- for either Falcon 9 or Starship (I’m fairly certain) - will NOT ‘easily match that’ at its low flight rate in this decade, ok? Especially with only the one launch pad they have planned and budgeted for, and not being able to even reach all orbital inclinations for all customers. Plus, they aren’t going to try to discount- they are going to try to charge the “I’m not SpaceX” premium they know governments, Amazons, etc. are willing to pay. They just are not as operationally efficient as SpaceX is; not in production, not in operations. And then there’s Starship- which takes production and operation for launch vehicles to an entirely new scale. And keep in mind: SpaceX has now demonstrated- TWICE- with Booster’s stage that it is farther along NOW in full and rapid reusability - at an even larger scale- than Neutron will likely be at a smaller scale in a year or so, at best. - Dave Huntsman
@dphuntsman A dozen untested assumptions doesn't make an argument. "Fully reusable" has become a meaningless mantra. For one thing it assumes that your largest cost is the vehicle, which isn't so. For another, "full reuse" comes at a cost. It doubles the size of your overall vehicle. It adds complexity, mass, reliability issues. It gets in the way of rapid reuse (what was the Shuttle's record on this?) Oh and I bet you've swallowed Elon's hype about Mars, giant fleets of Starships and similar BS.
@ Hardly a meaningless mantra; it’s a requirement for humanity to became a spacefaring civilization- starting with humanity’s expansion into the solar system with Luna, NEOs, Mars, the asteroids……. By your argument, there’s no full reuse of aircraft on Earth, either. And it’s not just SpaceX zeroing in on this: Stokes is as well- and is getting serious funding to do something about it. You’re completely wrong about ‘reliability issues’; it’s the reverse: who the hell, in the end, wants to ride in something that’s never before flown, in terms of being a passenger going somewhere? Reliability comes from designing the right aware, testing the bejesus out of it-including like they are doing on Starship- making it resilient as hell as a result, just like airliners are now, and by flying and flying and flying, knowing EXACTLY what you’ve got. Again, according to your thinking, there are no airliners reliably flying today- much less the 5000 in the US alone. Simply implying rapid reuse can’t be done- by citing the 1970s design shuttle (my program, by the way- design thru operations)- from the 70s/80s- is silly on the face of it. I like SpaceX’s approach- and their willingness to bet the company on it. - Dave Huntsman
imo is more probable that Elon will rush to retire falcon 9 going all-in on starship, it wouldn't be strange knowing the character.
The 2032 day for the end of flacon 9 has been mentioned by spacex a few times, so I think that they will likely stick with that number. It is gong to take them awhile to ramp up starship production and they already have so many payloads for it that they will need to keep Falcon 9 in production for several years.
Nope. This decade, Starship basically is already filled up: lots and lots and lots of tanker/refilling missions, at least two lunar missions, Mars missions and associated, other flights that will be added on……..F9s will be dumped on the market, as I’ve been talking about the past year 😊, starting by the end of next year, and prices will drop and competition will be brutal. Peter is Not worried about demand for Neutron; he IS worried about the price he’ll be able to charge for it, tho, because it ain’t going to be the >$50m he wants/needs.- Dave Huntsman
It wont be a risk because the Nurallink staff are fleeing th company and burning threw cash on failed prototypes 😂