CORRECTION: I totally misread the information about H3. They have already launched twice in 2024 and have a significant manifest lined up for the next few years.
No one can currently touch SpaceX. For western companies, Rocket lab has seems to be well positioned to increase the cadence (as you mentioned) and I find Stoke Space to be an interesting company. Globally? China... Landspace seems to be on the cusp.
@Harald- do not dismiss China. They have a strong private rocket development sector. It doesn't matter if they are copying SpaceX because Elon Musk said that he wanted competitors to copy SpaceX's efforts. He said this because he firmly believes in competition. However, any company could steal SpaceX's drawings but they will not do a competitor any good because a SpaceX drawing is outdated within a year. Regardless, China's private rocket companies are very aggressive risk takers and that is exactly what is required to be successful in this business.
@@clay-tw5gc I am familiar with China cutting corners on their projects. The risk China took with that rocket flaming down before it crashed and exploded right next to a populated area is a prime example. The biggest surprise is that this news with a clear video managed to get out at all! I believe your observation that SpaceX's design plans become obsolete in a year to be incorrect: According to Musk, his designs are in a constant state of flux, changing, based on his premise: "All designs are wrong!"
Interesting thing about SpaceX F9/FH... the fairing recovery. At $6M per pair, even if you spend $1M recovery / refurbish, that's a $5M savings per launch. That's about a 7 ~ 8% cost reduction... airlines would kill for those kinds of savings. The odd thing is that high launch cadence allows them to justify the effort. If you only fly a couple times a year, doesn't make sense to maintain the capability. The other things not mentioned are how SpaceX is able to build a F9/FH upper stage + M1V engine every couple days... that's airliner like production pace. Also, with that cadence, their ground hardware, drone ships and recovery fleet all have to get maintenance done in the flow... impressive.
Great analysis Laura. I agree that reusability, risk taking, company culture and access to funding all contribute to launch cadence. Another factor that differentiates SpaceX is their willingness to invest in their own new capabilities. Starlink, Starship and the Dragon EVA suits are all examples that drive an incentive to get to market as fast as possible.
Well SpaceX is quickly approaching 400 total F9 launches, & around 350 successful Booster recoveries. And Counting! So it sure doesn't look like anyone else will come close to competing with them for a long time. The "copy-cats" that typically arise when any new technology emerges (like 1st stage & fairing reuse), haven't shown much effort or even much interest in stepping up their game to become serious competitors. Furthermore, SpaceX hasn't slowed their development or ops pace. They continue to increase flight rates, produce hardware faster, and improve ops efficiency. SpaceX builds more Raptor cryo engines for ONE Starship launch than SLS will need for the next decade. It's like SpaceX is in the early jet age while everyone else is still building and flying new bi-planes. If anything, it seems the production/performance gap between SpaceX and everyone else will grow wider, not shrink.
SpaceX is out here launching like it’s a Netflix binge, but it’s cool to see some new players trying to shake things up. The future of space is looking wild!
1. reusability, which increases the number of available launchers 2. mass production techniques, which increases the number of available launchers 3. access to capital, which is needed to ramp up production Blue Origin would be the logical competitor, but they seemingly don't have the mass production techniques needed. ULA aren't interested in being a launch volume competitor. Neither are Arianespace. I would bet on Rocket Lab and the Chinese to have competitive launchers within 5 years or so. However, the emergence of Starship will likely move the goal posts, with respect to the meaning of 'competitive launcher'.
@@lauraforczyk I think they're up to almost 2 thousand per year. SpaceX's mass production of both launchers and satellites is leaving others in the dust. Their mass production of Starship will likely further increase the lead. But Rocket Lab and Chinese will at least be able to close the gap with the old technology, Falcon 9. 😀
You should run a Philip Tetlock type space launch forecast market here. For all the launch companies, e.g. BO, Relativity, ABL, Firefly, Rocket Lab, etc. 1. will they launch + reach orbit by date X? 2. Will they become operational within X months of first launch and sustain a launch cadence? 3. Will they become financially successful, i.e. still in business by year X. You can throw in the various international launch vehicles too. Another forecast question would be whether upper stage reusability becomes the norm, or whether companies revert to a disposable upper stage, but minimize production cost so expending becomes the cheaper option? (Jeff Bezos mentioned this business case question).
Two of the major players depend on the same engine - Blue Origin's BE-4. ULA's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket use that engine. If Blue Origin is unable to ramp up production of the BE-4, the two closest rivals to SpaceX will be severely limited. Blue Origin has yet to launch an orbital rocket and ULA is committed to a rocket that has yet to be certified for DOD launches. Neither is anywhere close to competing with the Falcon Heavy.
I can't believe nobody is just pointing at SpaceX and go "look! that works, it disrupted the market, let's copy that first" outside of China. While this is skating to where the puck was, but at least it gives whoever can copy Falcon 9 something of a revenue stream while making improvements or do whatever pet project they want to do. But no, everyone has to be different and all the struggle that comes with new rocket technology. I wish them good luck but sometimes it really feel like some of them were too ambitious.
I wonder if IP laws discourage non-Chinese companies from copying SpaceX, whereas China has a history of doing so. I also don't know why more people don't learn from SpaceX's successes.
@@lauraforczykA fully and rapidly reusable Starship is going to disrupt the market so fundamentally that small launchers will become obsolete. Payloads will get bigger and more cost effective to take advantage of the huge capability. No one will continue building small aerospace grade overengineered expensive satellites when for the same cost they can build and launch big and heavy ones out of cheap COTS parts. Small launchers will become as relevant as small ships in the ocean dominated by enormous container ships.
@@lauraforczyk not likely......spacex isn't quite that stupid.....clearly spacex will have rideshare programs with starship that will be 10 time less expensive than rocket labs electron rocket can do it for.....and due to the unbelievable tonnage capacity with starship it will likely be that mass will be more expensive than weight...which means that rideshare customers could economically utilize impulse space's Helios kick stage to accomplish their mission for less than rocket labs electron whilst having more delta v allowing for more options that may not otherwise be available with such a small lift rocket like electron......once the kinks are worked out starship will actually cost less than an electron to launch as the only cost will be fuel and maintenance....this may seem overly optimistic but all you have to do is look at the airline industry and how its costs per pound mile has dropped over the last century...and we are only years away not decades from seeing this to fruition...
I don't believe anyone can. SpaceX is well in the lead and more advanced than most and thus though new Glenn has never launched a successful test flight and never flown an orbital mission I have my doubts.. SpaceX and a few smaller test flights were conducted before the real flight was Astra but had a rough go at it firefly another one but I believe that noone can if lucky that new Glenn does go blue origin will never catch up regardless even if it's successful or not the cadence of launches conducted by SpaceX will never break as long as things go smoothly despite a few mishaps here and there.. SpaceX is far more advanced than most
@@lauraforczyk right! And I think that bo should conduct flight test first before conducting a real mission because if they launch a payload for a customer whose going to fork out the bill for the loss of payload they paid em for if something goes wrong will there be a lawsuit? And though never flown before I expect stoke space (SpaceX) lol brother will launch their first test rocket soon..
There are so many Chinese launch startups, and yes, they would launch private contracts too. But they don't have market share in the western world yet, although that could change over time.
I agree that some companies are doing very cool things, including rocket reusability. But I do not see Chinese companies as major competition against SpaceX at this time. China seems well isolated with few non-Chinese customers on their rockets. This may change, but it will take time.
Launch is a tough business. SpaceX will not pursue tiny payloads that are not compatible with their shared payload missions. For heavy launch: Falcon Heavy is the surprise top rocket Ariane 6 did well, but too low a production rate (forfeiting even classified launches to Falcon Heavy) Vulcan: SpaceX took a bunch of their market Blue Origin New Glenn is an unknown, but I agree, their planned schedule is untenable. When will they achieve Orbit? Relativity Space Terran R. Interesting, but a few years away. Starship is still in development, but brings huge cost savings For mid size Falcon 9 owns the market today, with Chinese rockets the main competition Rocket Lab"s Neutron has great potential. Firefly: MLV doesn't seem defined enough for the schedule. I predict delays H3 (Japan, but really on the small side of the mid-sized) PSLV (India, barely high lift than H3) GSLV (India, about 6 tons to LEO) The small rocket market has become massive Rocket Lab's Electron Firefly Alpha Northrop Minotar Ariane Vega Plus India, Japan, With many other potential contenders. There will be competition. That said, I do not see anything that will knock SpaceX out of the top spot. A reduced market share? Definitely. Note: I excluded Chinese and Russian as EU and US satellites need not apply.
Great vid again, lots of good info on other players who are hidden in the dark a bit by SpaceX. How much FAA scrutiny will these companies suffer as they attempt successful launch scheduling? Isn't the cork in the bottle worthy of mention especially now, today, when we find out just how much the FAA is trying to manipulate situations not related to safety?
Thanks! The FAA process is supposed to be the same for all US launch companies. But clearly SpaceX launches so very much that they probably do treat SpaceX differently.
I'll be very interested to see how Rocket Lab's booster reuse goes later this year (I think). Not a fast turn-around since they recovered it back in January, but a good proof of concept. Even though they launch from Virginia and New Zealand, they are a US company and fall under FAA jurisdiction wherever they launch in the world.
I’m giving you a Thumbs Down because of the automatic assumption that the FAA is trying to manipulate things not related to safety- you’re (if you’ll forgive me) just parroting Elon in saying that, and it’s inaccurate, at least as so far demonstrated. Keep in mind that in terms of regulation the FAA essentially has TWO jobs: the safety of the uninvolved public- which it, THE FAA ITSELF - regulates about (& which Elon implies is its ONLY job); but its SECOND legal job is to be the entire US Government’s point agency representative in the overall licensing process- representing all the other agencies’ concerns (except for two: FCC/communications, and NOAA/Earth observations, which have had long-standing regulatory authority in their areas which hasn’t changed). Thus, if late in a process, for example, a launch provider sends in a data package that changes things - and it might not affect the ‘safety of the uninvolved public’ (the FAA/AST’s own official purview) but DOES impact another agencies area of concern (like EPA’s), EPA can - and will - flag that to FAA- saying, we need more time to evaluate- and FAA is required to give them that night- NOT, as Elon would want the FAA to do, tell EPA to go pound sand. I’ve worked with the FAA/AST folks; they are pretty serious about their jobs- AND, they are underfunded (SpaceX has officially lobbied Congress to have their budget DOUBLED), and overworked. If you’re going to make an aspersion about their loyalty to their duty, please have the courage to have data to back it up when you do. - Dave Huntsman
Why has only one western company & one chinese "private" company just flat out copied the Falcon 9 booster? Elon has never been a big patent type businessman, so all of the designs are available?! When the head of the ESA mocked SpaceX in ~2014, laughing that SpaceX was going to land boosters, he proved he is/was a shortsighted can't do moron! The rest of the industry just set back & watched as SpaceX gathered the flight data, perfected their SW to fly the booster back with enough fuel to land it! Almost all others are still wasting money with bad old business models & practices! While Blue Origin is trying to do this, until they launch something into orbit, they are still an unknown!
CORRECTION: I totally misread the information about H3. They have already launched twice in 2024 and have a significant manifest lined up for the next few years.
It's only 50 million for 10 tonnes to LEO. for expendable that's extremely competitive but I don't think Mitsubishi can produce them quickly enough.
Everyone keeps canceling or throwing away their rockets per mission while SpaceX uses the same ones repeatedly, so there is the math.
That is a major disadvantage, for sure!
So how about LandSpace?
No they dont.
No one can currently touch SpaceX. For western companies, Rocket lab has seems to be well positioned to increase the cadence (as you mentioned) and I find Stoke Space to be an interesting company. Globally? China... Landspace seems to be on the cusp.
I admit to not knowing a lot about all the various Chinese launchers and launch companies. Some of them do look promising!
@@lauraforczyk promising because it all looks like SpaceX: Part Deux
@Harald- do not dismiss China.
They have a strong private rocket development sector. It doesn't matter if they are copying SpaceX because Elon Musk said that he wanted competitors to copy SpaceX's efforts. He said this because he firmly believes in competition.
However, any company could steal SpaceX's drawings but they will not do a competitor any good because a SpaceX drawing is outdated within a year.
Regardless, China's private rocket companies are very aggressive risk takers and that is exactly what is required to be successful in this business.
@@clay-tw5gc I am familiar with China cutting corners on their projects. The risk China took with that rocket flaming down before it crashed and exploded right next to a populated area is a prime example. The biggest surprise is that this news with a clear video managed to get out at all!
I believe your observation that SpaceX's design plans become obsolete in a year to be incorrect: According to Musk, his designs are in a constant state of flux, changing, based on his premise: "All designs are wrong!"
Interesting thing about SpaceX F9/FH... the fairing recovery. At $6M per pair, even if you spend $1M recovery / refurbish, that's a $5M savings per launch. That's about a 7 ~ 8% cost reduction... airlines would kill for those kinds of savings. The odd thing is that high launch cadence allows them to justify the effort. If you only fly a couple times a year, doesn't make sense to maintain the capability. The other things not mentioned are how SpaceX is able to build a F9/FH upper stage + M1V engine every couple days... that's airliner like production pace. Also, with that cadence, their ground hardware, drone ships and recovery fleet all have to get maintenance done in the flow... impressive.
Great analysis Laura. I agree that reusability, risk taking, company culture and access to funding all contribute to launch cadence. Another factor that differentiates SpaceX is their willingness to invest in their own new capabilities. Starlink, Starship and the Dragon EVA suits are all examples that drive an incentive to get to market as fast as possible.
So true, that's a good point. I'd say Blue Origin is similar in this regard.
Love your content.
Thanks so much!
Interesting and informative. Thank you 🙏
Thank you!
Well SpaceX is quickly approaching 400 total F9 launches, & around 350 successful Booster recoveries. And Counting! So it sure doesn't look like anyone else will come close to competing with them for a long time. The "copy-cats" that typically arise when any new technology emerges (like 1st stage & fairing reuse), haven't shown much effort or even much interest in stepping up their game to become serious competitors.
Furthermore, SpaceX hasn't slowed their development or ops pace. They continue to increase flight rates, produce hardware faster, and improve ops efficiency. SpaceX builds more Raptor cryo engines for ONE Starship launch than SLS will need for the next decade.
It's like SpaceX is in the early jet age while everyone else is still building and flying new bi-planes.
If anything, it seems the production/performance gap between SpaceX and everyone else will grow wider, not shrink.
It does appear that way! I'll be curious to see if anyone accelerates their efforts in an attempt to catch up.
SpaceX is out here launching like it’s a Netflix binge, but it’s cool to see some new players trying to shake things up. The future of space is looking wild!
1. reusability, which increases the number of available launchers
2. mass production techniques, which increases the number of available launchers
3. access to capital, which is needed to ramp up production
Blue Origin would be the logical competitor, but they seemingly don't have the mass production techniques needed.
ULA aren't interested in being a launch volume competitor.
Neither are Arianespace.
I would bet on Rocket Lab and the Chinese to have competitive launchers within 5 years or so. However, the emergence of Starship will likely move the goal posts, with respect to the meaning of 'competitive launcher'.
You make a great point about mass production. How many Starlink satellites can they make a day now?
@@lauraforczyk I think they're up to almost 2 thousand per year. SpaceX's mass production of both launchers and satellites is leaving others in the dust. Their mass production of Starship will likely further increase the lead. But Rocket Lab and Chinese will at least be able to close the gap with the old technology, Falcon 9. 😀
You should run a Philip Tetlock type space launch forecast market here. For all the launch companies, e.g. BO, Relativity, ABL, Firefly, Rocket Lab, etc. 1. will they launch + reach orbit by date X? 2. Will they become operational within X months of first launch and sustain a launch cadence? 3. Will they become financially successful, i.e. still in business by year X. You can throw in the various international launch vehicles too. Another forecast question would be whether upper stage reusability becomes the norm, or whether companies revert to a disposable upper stage, but minimize production cost so expending becomes the cheaper option? (Jeff Bezos mentioned this business case question).
I've learned that predicting the future is pretty much impossible. It would be very difficult to address those questions accurately.
Two of the major players depend on the same engine - Blue Origin's BE-4. ULA's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket use that engine. If Blue Origin is unable to ramp up production of the BE-4, the two closest rivals to SpaceX will be severely limited. Blue Origin has yet to launch an orbital rocket and ULA is committed to a rocket that has yet to be certified for DOD launches. Neither is anywhere close to competing with the Falcon Heavy.
The competition is really Spacex vs. the World at this point in history…
Hermeus are the only ones close.
Apparently they're converting their Chimera ramjet engine, into a rotating detonation engine.
I can't believe nobody is just pointing at SpaceX and go "look! that works, it disrupted the market, let's copy that first" outside of China. While this is skating to where the puck was, but at least it gives whoever can copy Falcon 9 something of a revenue stream while making improvements or do whatever pet project they want to do. But no, everyone has to be different and all the struggle that comes with new rocket technology. I wish them good luck but sometimes it really feel like some of them were too ambitious.
I wonder if IP laws discourage non-Chinese companies from copying SpaceX, whereas China has a history of doing so. I also don't know why more people don't learn from SpaceX's successes.
@@lauraforczyk Musk has made much of the fact that his companies don’t generate patents.
Because no CEO pushes their employees like Elon does and he's so in touch with all his engineering teams because the dude is a genius! 🚀
They do it to increase cost per launch as some customers is not in a position to make use of Spacex
I think that when Starship goes into production, any pretense of competition will go flying off the pad in an nonoptimal trajectory.
Starship may dominate, but there may still be a market for smaller launchers, especially for dedicated small launch.
@@lauraforczykA fully and rapidly reusable Starship is going to disrupt the market so fundamentally that small launchers will become obsolete. Payloads will get bigger and more cost effective to take advantage of the huge capability. No one will continue building small aerospace grade overengineered expensive satellites when for the same cost they can build and launch big and heavy ones out of cheap COTS parts. Small launchers will become as relevant as small ships in the ocean dominated by enormous container ships.
@@lauraforczyk not likely......spacex isn't quite that stupid.....clearly spacex will have rideshare programs with starship that will be 10 time less expensive than rocket labs electron rocket can do it for.....and due to the unbelievable tonnage capacity with starship it will likely be that mass will be more expensive than weight...which means that rideshare customers could economically utilize impulse space's Helios kick stage to accomplish their mission for less than rocket labs electron whilst having more delta v allowing for more options that may not otherwise be available with such a small lift rocket like electron......once the kinks are worked out starship will actually cost less than an electron to launch as the only cost will be fuel and maintenance....this may seem overly optimistic but all you have to do is look at the airline industry and how its costs per pound mile has dropped over the last century...and we are only years away not decades from seeing this to fruition...
I don't believe anyone can. SpaceX is well in the lead and more advanced than most and thus though new Glenn has never launched a successful test flight and never flown an orbital mission I have my doubts.. SpaceX and a few smaller test flights were conducted before the real flight was Astra but had a rough go at it firefly another one but I believe that noone can if lucky that new Glenn does go blue origin will never catch up regardless even if it's successful or not the cadence of launches conducted by SpaceX will never break as long as things go smoothly despite a few mishaps here and there.. SpaceX is far more advanced than most
More advanced than any of them, right.
@@lauraforczyk right! And I think that bo should conduct flight test first before conducting a real mission because if they launch a payload for a customer whose going to fork out the bill for the loss of payload they paid em for if something goes wrong will there be a lawsuit? And though never flown before I expect stoke space (SpaceX) lol brother will launch their first test rocket soon..
To keep things into perspective, SpaceX launches in one rideshare mission more payload than Rocket labs has launched in its entire history.
@@admarsandbeyond Wow!
Do you think SpaceX will acquire any of the other companies or do you see any mergers in these companies?
@@Lynxdoc I don’t think SpaceX has a need to acquire any other launch company. Do you?
What about "the Chinese"?
I keep hearing it said, in terms of NASA vs. China, but wouldn't they launch private contracts too?
There are so many Chinese launch startups, and yes, they would launch private contracts too. But they don't have market share in the western world yet, although that could change over time.
The Chinese will soon have reuse and when they do I expect competition to heat up.
I agree that some companies are doing very cool things, including rocket reusability. But I do not see Chinese companies as major competition against SpaceX at this time. China seems well isolated with few non-Chinese customers on their rockets. This may change, but it will take time.
Depends on how much the FAA hobbles Space X.
This was SSpaceX's mistake
It actually seems spaceX will win that in appeal even if its a tiny fine@@GowthamNatarajanAI
Launch is a tough business.
SpaceX will not pursue tiny payloads that are not compatible with their shared payload missions.
For heavy launch:
Falcon Heavy is the surprise top rocket
Ariane 6 did well, but too low a production rate (forfeiting even classified launches to Falcon Heavy)
Vulcan: SpaceX took a bunch of their market
Blue Origin New Glenn is an unknown, but I agree, their planned schedule is untenable. When will they achieve Orbit?
Relativity Space Terran R. Interesting, but a few years away.
Starship is still in development, but brings huge cost savings
For mid size
Falcon 9 owns the market today, with Chinese rockets the main competition
Rocket Lab"s Neutron has great potential.
Firefly: MLV doesn't seem defined enough for the schedule. I predict delays
H3 (Japan, but really on the small side of the mid-sized)
PSLV (India, barely high lift than H3)
GSLV (India, about 6 tons to LEO)
The small rocket market has become massive
Rocket Lab's Electron
Firefly Alpha
Northrop Minotar
Ariane Vega
Plus India, Japan,
With many other potential contenders. There will be competition. That said, I do not see anything that will knock SpaceX out of the top spot. A reduced market share? Definitely.
Note: I excluded Chinese and Russian as EU and US satellites need not apply.
Great vid again, lots of good info on other players who are hidden in the dark a bit by SpaceX.
How much FAA scrutiny will these companies suffer as they attempt successful launch scheduling? Isn't the cork in the bottle worthy of mention especially now, today, when we find out just how much the FAA is trying to manipulate situations not related to safety?
Thanks! The FAA process is supposed to be the same for all US launch companies. But clearly SpaceX launches so very much that they probably do treat SpaceX differently.
Don't forget Rocketlab which has an emerging reuse for Electron and F9-style reuse with cheaper 2nd stage for Neutron 2025.
Rocketlab partially launches from their 2-pad complex in NZ outside FAA jurisdiction.
I'll be very interested to see how Rocket Lab's booster reuse goes later this year (I think). Not a fast turn-around since they recovered it back in January, but a good proof of concept.
Even though they launch from Virginia and New Zealand, they are a US company and fall under FAA jurisdiction wherever they launch in the world.
I’m giving you a Thumbs Down because of the automatic assumption that the FAA is trying to manipulate things not related to safety- you’re (if you’ll forgive me) just parroting Elon in saying that, and it’s inaccurate, at least as so far demonstrated. Keep in mind that in terms of regulation the FAA essentially has TWO jobs: the safety of the uninvolved public- which it, THE FAA ITSELF - regulates about (& which Elon implies is its ONLY job); but its SECOND legal job is to be the entire US Government’s point agency representative in the overall licensing process- representing all the other agencies’ concerns (except for two: FCC/communications, and NOAA/Earth observations, which have had long-standing regulatory authority in their areas which hasn’t changed). Thus, if late in a process, for example, a launch provider sends in a data package that changes things - and it might not affect the ‘safety of the uninvolved public’ (the FAA/AST’s own official purview) but DOES impact another agencies area of concern (like EPA’s), EPA can - and will - flag that to FAA- saying, we need more time to evaluate- and FAA is required to give them that night- NOT, as Elon would want the FAA to do, tell EPA to go pound sand. I’ve worked with the FAA/AST folks; they are pretty serious about their jobs- AND, they are underfunded (SpaceX has officially lobbied Congress to have their budget DOUBLED), and overworked. If you’re going to make an aspersion about their loyalty to their duty, please have the courage to have data to back it up when you do. - Dave Huntsman
Why has only one western company & one chinese "private" company just flat out copied the Falcon 9 booster? Elon has never been a big patent type businessman, so all of the designs are available?! When the head of the ESA mocked SpaceX in ~2014, laughing that SpaceX was going to land boosters, he proved he is/was a shortsighted can't do moron! The rest of the industry just set back & watched as SpaceX gathered the flight data, perfected their SW to fly the booster back with enough fuel to land it! Almost all others are still wasting money with bad old business models & practices! While Blue Origin is trying to do this, until they launch something into orbit, they are still an unknown!
I, too, wonder why the business case and/or technology hasn't been copied much.