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 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
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 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
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
3 hours ago
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 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
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 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
asked 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
edited 5 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
asked 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
asked 5 hours ago
Amar
1,014527
1,014527
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
3 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
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 could never compete with, starting at $300. No, there are no missing zeros or missing "K"s in that figure.
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
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 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
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 $1 billion launch cost of total launches per year. They could do it, but there is a limit to how much engineering they can do, and it is more worth their while to go after the bigger fishes of Starlink and Starship.
answered 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "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 could never compete with, starting at $300. No, there are no missing zeros or missing "K"s in that figure.
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
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 could never compete with, starting at $300. No, there are no missing zeros or missing "K"s in that figure.
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
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 could never compete with, starting at $300. No, there are no missing zeros or missing "K"s in that figure.
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
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 could never compete with, starting at $300. No, there are no missing zeros or missing "K"s in that figure.
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
answered 1 hour ago
Mark Adler
47.9k3122201
47.9k3122201
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
add a comment |
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
use backslash-$ to prevent two $ from converting everything in between to Mathjax
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
I think those 64 smallsats were not the only payload, 19,200 $ for those 64,that would be incredible. Or is 300 $ the price for a tinysat?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
The 64 smallsats were the only payload. I said starting at $300. You need to click on the link to see the range of prices.
– Mark Adler
1 hour ago
11
11
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
Look very carefully, and you will notice "Pricing in thousands (USD)". So there really should be a K in front of that. I would edit that in, but I think it really changes your argument quite a bit.
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
54 mins ago
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 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
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 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
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 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
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 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
answered 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
answered 4 hours ago
Hobbes
85.5k2241386
85.5k2241386
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 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
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 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
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 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
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 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
answered 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
answered 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
answered 51 mins ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
79.5k16226436
79.5k16226436
add a comment |
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
3 hours ago