As 'Falcon Heavy' Launches, SpaceX Plans Dragon and Falcon 9 Phase Out As Starship Ramps Up (spaceflightnow.com) 50
Spaceflight Now reports:
"A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launched from Florida Thursday night on a classified mission for the National Reconnaissance Office, America's spy satellite agency... The NRO has previously flown payloads on 22 Falcon 9 rockets but this is the first time it has used the heavy-lift Falcon Heavy, which consists of three Falcon 9 boosters and an upper stage, topped by a payload fairing.
The powerful rocket, which lifts off under the power of 27 Merlin 1D engines, was introduced to great fanfare in 2018 and made its 14th flight Thursday night... NROL-97 was SpaceX's third Falcon launch of the day. In addition to the Crew 13 mission, the company launched 130 payloads on the Transporter 13 rideshare mission from its West Coast pad at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. It was the first time the company has landed four boosters in a single day.
CNN reports: As Starship flights ramp up, SpaceX has made clear that the company will phase out the use of two of its most iconic creations: the Dragon spacecraft, which ferries astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station, and the Falcon 9 rocket, which for a decade has dominated the global launch market.
These vehicles not only revolutionized the space industry in their own way, they're also still very much essential to ongoing work in Earth orbit, without clear backup options in place. The prospect of this loss is already spurring panic among some satellite operators, said Caleb Henry, director of research at analytics firm Quilty Space... Henry said he expects that most of the remaining space on board Falcon 9 rockets has already been sold and — beyond early 2029 — such flights may be reserved solely for the US government. Even NASA, which currently counts the Dragon capsule as the only US-made spacecraft capable of getting its astronauts to and from the ISS, has also acknowledged the looming retirement of SpaceX's workhorse vehicles....
Despite the success of Falcon and Dragon, a peek at SpaceX's business book may hint at financial reasons for retiring the vehicles. In its first quarterly earnings report, SpaceX revealed its space segment — which includes Falcon, Dragon and Starship — lost $542 million. By comparison, its Starlink internet and connectivity business made nearly $1.7 billion. Starship is expected to continue to cost SpaceX untold millions as it moves out of the prototyping phase. But one reason SpaceX is willing to bet big on Starship is that it's simply "much better" for achieving the company's own long-term goals, said SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell at a recent conference. So it makes sense to shift resources toward the megarocket's future....
This rocket supply crunch has been looming since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine — which immediately removed Russia's Soyuz and Proton rockets from the commercial market, Henry noted. On top of that, Amazon — which is deploying a space-based internet constellation to rival SpaceX's Starlink — stepped in to buy more than 100 launches from various rocket makers.... Though some satellite manufacturers are hopeful that space onboard future Starship launches will be offered to satellite operators, it's not clear when or if that will happen.... It is possible that a launch supply crunch could be averted, noted Micah Walter-Range, a space analyst and contributor to the VettaFi Space Index. But satellite operators may be wary because newer rockets that have for years promised to step up to compete with the Falcon 9 have not yet begun flying with any regularity.
"The space industry hates uncertainty, particularly when it comes to planning of launches," Walter-Range said.
The article notes that Rocket Lab, Firefly Aerospace, United Launch Alliance, and the Jeff Bezos-founded Blue Origin "have not yet reached the scale or launch cadence that the industry is demanding."
The powerful rocket, which lifts off under the power of 27 Merlin 1D engines, was introduced to great fanfare in 2018 and made its 14th flight Thursday night... NROL-97 was SpaceX's third Falcon launch of the day. In addition to the Crew 13 mission, the company launched 130 payloads on the Transporter 13 rideshare mission from its West Coast pad at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. It was the first time the company has landed four boosters in a single day.
CNN reports: As Starship flights ramp up, SpaceX has made clear that the company will phase out the use of two of its most iconic creations: the Dragon spacecraft, which ferries astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station, and the Falcon 9 rocket, which for a decade has dominated the global launch market.
These vehicles not only revolutionized the space industry in their own way, they're also still very much essential to ongoing work in Earth orbit, without clear backup options in place. The prospect of this loss is already spurring panic among some satellite operators, said Caleb Henry, director of research at analytics firm Quilty Space... Henry said he expects that most of the remaining space on board Falcon 9 rockets has already been sold and — beyond early 2029 — such flights may be reserved solely for the US government. Even NASA, which currently counts the Dragon capsule as the only US-made spacecraft capable of getting its astronauts to and from the ISS, has also acknowledged the looming retirement of SpaceX's workhorse vehicles....
Despite the success of Falcon and Dragon, a peek at SpaceX's business book may hint at financial reasons for retiring the vehicles. In its first quarterly earnings report, SpaceX revealed its space segment — which includes Falcon, Dragon and Starship — lost $542 million. By comparison, its Starlink internet and connectivity business made nearly $1.7 billion. Starship is expected to continue to cost SpaceX untold millions as it moves out of the prototyping phase. But one reason SpaceX is willing to bet big on Starship is that it's simply "much better" for achieving the company's own long-term goals, said SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell at a recent conference. So it makes sense to shift resources toward the megarocket's future....
This rocket supply crunch has been looming since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine — which immediately removed Russia's Soyuz and Proton rockets from the commercial market, Henry noted. On top of that, Amazon — which is deploying a space-based internet constellation to rival SpaceX's Starlink — stepped in to buy more than 100 launches from various rocket makers.... Though some satellite manufacturers are hopeful that space onboard future Starship launches will be offered to satellite operators, it's not clear when or if that will happen.... It is possible that a launch supply crunch could be averted, noted Micah Walter-Range, a space analyst and contributor to the VettaFi Space Index. But satellite operators may be wary because newer rockets that have for years promised to step up to compete with the Falcon 9 have not yet begun flying with any regularity.
"The space industry hates uncertainty, particularly when it comes to planning of launches," Walter-Range said.
The article notes that Rocket Lab, Firefly Aerospace, United Launch Alliance, and the Jeff Bezos-founded Blue Origin "have not yet reached the scale or launch cadence that the industry is demanding."
impressive progress (Score:2)
NROL-97 was SpaceX's third Falcon launch of the day
I am impressed that SpaceX has made rocketry so commonplace.
Re: (Score:3)
In the same week, SpaceX launched every rocket in their lineup, 3 different vehicles, from 4 different pads, in 3 different states.
They also lifted basically every “category” of payload. Starlink, Crew, Commercial, and Military.
Re: (Score:2)
'several largely illegal installations in redneckland.'
citations, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I am impressed that SpaceX has made rocketry so commonplace.
As impressive as it is there is no abort capability for starship and the technology for seats that gimbal through the flip maneuver still don't exist. Falcon's retirement also retires the dragon which is the only proven functional human rated capsule in exchange for Boeing's Starliner and, well we all know just how good that is. Unless of course NASA wants to ask Russia to take American astronauts to ISS.
Then again the only realistically viable lunar lander is Alpaca [wikipedia.org] which by-passes many of the issue both
Starlink origin (Score:3, Insightful)
WorldVu went to SpaceX for launch services with their internet constellation idea, Starlink gets announced a short while later. Reference: https://spacenews.com/41755wor... [spacenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think it's shady you tell someone your idea, and they're like "hmm I could just do that myself" and they do it? That comes off as moral/ethical behavior to you?
Re:Starlink origin (Score:5, Informative)
Musk has no idea what moral or ethical behaviour is even supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you need to show us that the above is true for your point to be meaningful.
And "Put comms sats in LEO" was not an original idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take Things That Never Happened [slashdot.org] for $1000, Ken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in reality:
1) It was not a case of "WorldVu approached SpaceX looking to purchase rocket launches". Musk and Wyler had been working through all of 2014 on a joint venture. They explored building a joint satellite manufacturing facility and were scouting locations in Florida and Colorado. The talks broke down (Wyler thought Musk's Starlink plan was too ambitious, Musk thought Wyler's wasn't ambitious enough (too expensive satellites, too primitive/conservative tech, too small in number); SpaceX a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for them to start whining that the Chinese stole the idea that they rightfully stole first.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Starship, when finally fully reusable (likely within 2-5 launches) will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9. Not cheaper per kg launched, cheaper per launch. Why on earth would you continue to fly Falcon 9, even for medium lift? Just launch a whole starship, launch a few starlinks along with the contracted medium lift load, and land it again for less cash and more use of the rocket.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why on earth would you continue to fly Falcon 9, even for medium lift?
because Falcon has proven to be insanely reliable, and starship has not. If spaceX offers competitive insurance the early economics might be better, but still only for non-human payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the Starship prototype to a battle tested workhorse that's been in production a lot longer isn't particularly useful. When Starship proves that it is a safe platform for humans, great. Until then, why not use it to launch cargo/satellites if the economics are sound?
Re: (Score:2)
The only human payloads being sent up are going to ISS, which is scheduled to be decommissioned at about the same time as Dragon. I doubt Isaacman is losing any sleep over this.
NASA is moving it's focus from ISS to a moon base, SpaceX is moving its focus from Falcon to Starship. Starship is a lunar capable rocket, Falcon is not.
Isaacman will probably be glad to have one more reason to hasten the decommissioning of ISS so the resources can be moved to the lunar effort.
Re: (Score:2)
And SLS is delivering, what, what? And Starliner is delivering, what, what?
NASA cannot iterate as quickly as SpaceX. And the costs are so different it is unfortunate NASA pursues their own launch systems at a huge price penalty.
NASA should be pursuing reusable launch vehicles, but there is a COTS solution working, and another most likely coming online, and they cannot match any of it, not the engineering, not the costa, not the impetus. And they really do not have to. NASA just has to accept marginal perfor
Re: (Score:2)
How experimental was SLS? Not at all? A straightforward design based on known-good parts that they stuck together at the cost of many billions per launch.
How experimental was Starship? Almost entirely. A material that's basically never been used for rockets. A method of assembly that's never been used for rockets. An engine design that's entirely new. An engine concept that's never been used before. A fuel that's never been used before. A level of engine performance that's never been done before.
Re: (Score:3)
Starship is going to need at least 10 successful orbital launches before it is considered only marginally higher risk than Falcon from a customer perspective. It you get it for half the cost then maybe it is worth it, but it depends on how easily replaceable the cargo is.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, it needs to get safely to orbit to be seen as reliable for launches. It doesn't need to make it back safely.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment. Though I'm sure SpaceX will figure their engine issues out.
Honestly, I'd put starship as approaching the reliability of Falcon 9 at this point anyway. Falcon 9 has the occasional failure (rare, but not none). Starship is getting to the point that it fairly reliably gets up there and gets back. It has some engine outs still, but it also has the redundancy to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it? I mean, they've landed boosters, they "landed" the block 3 in the last launch. They've been consistently landing ships for quite a while. Reusing the ships without any refurb still seems a way off, but them making it back safely seems like they have some healthy margins just now.
Re: (Score:2)
Starship is like the Airbus A380, theoreitcally more efficient per unit volume, economically impractical due to difficulties aggregating enough volume per launch.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Starship is like the Airbus A330. More efficient per unit volume, *and* more efficient per flight than a plane that explodes when it reaches the gate.
Re: (Score:3)
Actual commercial launches are minting money.
Hardly. You can read their actual reports:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... [sec.gov]
The only part of their space business that is "making money"' is the starlink thing, and it is only "making money" because Space X isn't charging them for the most expensive part - the constant launches.
Everything else is a heavy money loser, even with the huge amounts of government grift and the business model is the classical "build it and they will come". Which usually doesn't happen.
"Space X-AI" is a lot of blablabla and wishful
Re: (Score:2)
The GP is correct, and you're misinterpreting the financial filing.
The industry widely acknowledges that SpaceX's economics are lucrative. Their marginal cost is an est. $15-25m/flight, vs. a typical commercial contract price of ~$65M and a NASA contract price of ~$100-150M. The small (as a percentage) GAAP operating loss on the launch segment is driven by two factors:
1) Starship development. That falls under the launch segment. Starship development is draining an insane amount of money (~$3B/yr), while ea
Re: sounds like bad accounting... (Score:3)
Their launch costs might be great, but there just isn't any demand. Without the starlink launches, the business would not be able to sustain itself. Reusable rockets is a catch-22 because the demand isn't high enough to keep a fleet of rockets with a replacement rate that makes maintaining the complexmanufacturing pipeline viable.
So without starlink, spacex is a dead end. And without spacex, starlink is a dead end. It's a very circular dependency, and they aren't profitable. Starlink will plateau in users -
Re: (Score:2)
I'll repeat: sum Launch and Starlink, and they're deeply profitable. You can't change that basic equation. Falcon launches run just under breakeven in order so that SpaceX gets a cash printer launched into the sky. You can say "they aren't profitable" all you want, but meanwhile in the reality we live in, Launch + Starlink is not only profitable, it's very profitable.
Also, if they weren't launching Starlink, others would be anyway. There's a massive rush on for LEO constellations. Nobody in the indust
Why do headlines nowadays use "As" so much ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see it a lot in financial news.
It usually looks like an attempt to imply a causal link between events without actually committing to saying it explicitly because it's impossible to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempting to draw causal connections from simultaneity, without making actual assertions.
Where are the Starship payloads ? (Score:3)
But now we have heavy lift, and all we are going to launch is comms sats ?
Seriously, where are all the exciting plans for using Starship's mass and volume capacity ?
Are the being developed in secret ?
Or have we given up ?
Insert Musk snark (Score:1)
Starship booster? (Score:3)
This doesn't make sense on the surface for a number of reasons. The Starship second phase cannot launch most of the things that Falcon 9 launches. I'm assuming they are going to have two large shuttle-like doors on a Starship eventually that can release larger payloads?
The next thing that doesn't make sense is simply payload size. Certainly it is not more economical to use the Starship stack to put something into orbit that is only a small fraction of its cargo capacity? And yes, I know it could carry multiple satellites / spacecraft at once, but it is very rare those things all need to be in the exact same orbit at the same time. So it seems Falcon 9 would be more economical for launching a single smaller thing?
Maybe the economics of the Falcon 9 second stage not being usable totally makes the case for Starship? It's estimated a second stage costs between $7 and $10 million. So perhaps right there economically it makes more sense to fly a 100% reusable Starship even for a small payload. I guess the liquid methane Starship burns is a relatively cheap, being derived from natural gas that the USA already has in abundant supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are anticipating rivals entering that space and want to move on to something where they have more temporary exclusivity. One or more of the US ones will get there sooner or later, and Chinese companies are well on the way too.
It may also be some pressure from the US government, with the goal of getting back to the moon before China does. More resources for Starship, which is supposed to be able to do the whole mission (take off from Earth, fly to the moon, land, take off again, return to Earth, l
Re: (Score:2)
The real money is in starlink replacing terrestrial cell phone operators.
That means starship. Everything else is a time waster or competition to that goal.
Vertically integrated. Can write their own story (Score:2)
Unless they get some serious competition they can just up the price of their launches and close that revenue hole at their own leisure.
Alternatively they can shut down their production line tomorrow and reconstitute it next year. Because they own almlst all of it.
I wouldn't pit too much stock in prognosticating either way.