Comparing the price of Falcon 9 with the Atlas 4.
Comparing the price of the Falcon 9 with the Atlas 4.
Today’s launch was conducted aboard the “plain Jane” version of the Atlas V, the 401, which has no strap on boosters, a single upper stage engine and a 4 meter fairing. It was originally awarded to Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services in 2007 for a $124 million fixed fee contract. By contrast the first NASA science launch awarded to the SpaceX Falcon 9, that of the Jason -3 satellite for 2014, was for $82 million. With current pricing for similarly equipped Atlas V 401 vehicles for NASA launches at roughly $150 million, based on awards from 2011, the difference is hardly trivial.
In other words, Falcon 9 is almost half the price. No wonder satellite companies are flocking to buy a launch on it.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Comparing the price of the Falcon 9 with the Atlas 4.
Today’s launch was conducted aboard the “plain Jane” version of the Atlas V, the 401, which has no strap on boosters, a single upper stage engine and a 4 meter fairing. It was originally awarded to Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services in 2007 for a $124 million fixed fee contract. By contrast the first NASA science launch awarded to the SpaceX Falcon 9, that of the Jason -3 satellite for 2014, was for $82 million. With current pricing for similarly equipped Atlas V 401 vehicles for NASA launches at roughly $150 million, based on awards from 2011, the difference is hardly trivial.
In other words, Falcon 9 is almost half the price. No wonder satellite companies are flocking to buy a launch on it.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
This is obviously a form of flocking that doesn’t involve a lot of contracts. ;)
Atlas V paid launches 2010-2019 49 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_%282010-2019%29
Falcons paid launches 43 (13 for NASA) http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
Opps scratch that, 2 of the 43 were before 2010 – and orbitcom, had multiple flights.
There is room for more than one launch provider and it looks like they both have customers, isn’t this a good thing? And SpaceX is a young company and already are scheduling a comparable number of launches as the established companies.
There are probably penalties for pulling out of a contract, so companies are less likely to pull out of their current contracts to launch on a Falcon 9 but who knows about their launches after that?
Also, there are significant differences in second stage performance. If SpaceX were to upgrade their second stage, they might get more business but maybe that doesn’t even matter. It all depends on the average mass of GEO satellites.
On the subject of Space x, have you seen the tv ad that Siemens has been running showing a Falcon 9 launch?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=U1EJinxpx4Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU1EJinxpx4Y%26feature%3Dyoutu.be
>..There is room for more than one launch provider ..
With the market in decline, were losing launch providers as they starve out. So there really isn’t enough to go around unless the market can be grown.
And yet the two companies discussed here have a backlog of launches stretching past the foreseeable future.
Which companies are being starved out and is it because of a lack of demand or because of costs?
The one way the market wont grow is with NASA as the sole means of access to space. NASA needs to give up some of its control, like they did with those expandable habs that Bigelow is using. If NASA thinks they need a SHLV, they should use a COTS/CCDEV type of program that would allow other people besides NASA to use the SHLV.
>.. And yet the two companies discussed here have a backlog of launches stretching past
> the foreseeable future.
There used to be more companies, but were down to 2. SpaceX has pretty much been funded by NASA who more then covered all their R&D and about 3/4ths all their expenses since day one, and until recently over half their bookings.
Fewer and fewer launches, driving up costs, driving out competitors – especially ones without such heavy gov funding.