Uh, never heard of ULA? Vulcan anyone? Why would SES and Eutelsat want to fund the Chinese to compete against Arianespace?
Delta IV is being phased out and Atlas V has the RD-180 supply issues. The cost is also higher than what these guys would prefer.
Also Boeing and Lockheed Martin put THEMSELVES out of the commercial launch market. They were not price competitive and eventually they just exited the market altogether. At one point Atlas V and Proton launches were available via ILS but I think they aren’t anymore.
s/I think they aren’t/I think Atlas V isn’t/
True, but Vulcan is next gen Atlas V, to use Blue Origin engines and that fancy reciprocating Centaur upper stage. Haven’t seen the pricing yet but I’d think it’d have to come in being competitive with F9 and F9H. Isn’t that the whole point of Vulcan?
I’m similarly confused.
Other than pledging to buy services from a third provider, how does a customer force their supplier to stay in business, even WITH legislation reform?
This seems akin to saying, “we pledge to avoid allowing Apple and Google to become a cell phone duopoly” by promising to buy Blackberries. I mean, sure, it’s great to have competition, but even with one big contract to RIM, Blackberry doesn’t exactly remain that viable of a competitor unless they improve their own products. Having a single large customer isn’t exactly the path to innovation, more like a path to doing exactly and only what that one customer wants you to do, which may or may not actually be competitive or innovative.
Other than pledging to buy services from a third provider, how does a customer force their supplier to stay in business
That’s what they are doing.
even WITH legislation reform?
What these guys would prefer would be to drop Arianespace altogether. Their flights are expensive. If ITAR was killed they could use Falcon 9, Proton, and Long March 5 as launch vehicles.
But of course they can’t well say this out loud can they?
What? The EU would sanction it’s own? Perish the thought! 😉
Sounds like a good plan. No one is immune to failure or to the temptations of monopoly pricing.
Gotta play the game by the rules that exist at the time. Satellite companies have to navigate a regulatory environment almost unlike any other industry. When it comes to being able to do business, they can’t without the support of governments. To get that support, they have to lobby governments around the world and hire ex-government workers.
It makes sense to encourage Russia and China as government run launch competitors because satellite companies need to curry favor with both countries.
Uh, never heard of ULA? Vulcan anyone? Why would SES and Eutelsat want to fund the Chinese to compete against Arianespace?
Delta IV is being phased out and Atlas V has the RD-180 supply issues. The cost is also higher than what these guys would prefer.
Also Boeing and Lockheed Martin put THEMSELVES out of the commercial launch market. They were not price competitive and eventually they just exited the market altogether. At one point Atlas V and Proton launches were available via ILS but I think they aren’t anymore.
s/I think they aren’t/I think Atlas V isn’t/
True, but Vulcan is next gen Atlas V, to use Blue Origin engines and that fancy reciprocating Centaur upper stage. Haven’t seen the pricing yet but I’d think it’d have to come in being competitive with F9 and F9H. Isn’t that the whole point of Vulcan?
I’m similarly confused.
Other than pledging to buy services from a third provider, how does a customer force their supplier to stay in business, even WITH legislation reform?
This seems akin to saying, “we pledge to avoid allowing Apple and Google to become a cell phone duopoly” by promising to buy Blackberries. I mean, sure, it’s great to have competition, but even with one big contract to RIM, Blackberry doesn’t exactly remain that viable of a competitor unless they improve their own products. Having a single large customer isn’t exactly the path to innovation, more like a path to doing exactly and only what that one customer wants you to do, which may or may not actually be competitive or innovative.
Other than pledging to buy services from a third provider, how does a customer force their supplier to stay in business
That’s what they are doing.
even WITH legislation reform?
What these guys would prefer would be to drop Arianespace altogether. Their flights are expensive. If ITAR was killed they could use Falcon 9, Proton, and Long March 5 as launch vehicles.
But of course they can’t well say this out loud can they?
What? The EU would sanction it’s own? Perish the thought! 😉
Sounds like a good plan. No one is immune to failure or to the temptations of monopoly pricing.
Gotta play the game by the rules that exist at the time. Satellite companies have to navigate a regulatory environment almost unlike any other industry. When it comes to being able to do business, they can’t without the support of governments. To get that support, they have to lobby governments around the world and hire ex-government workers.
It makes sense to encourage Russia and China as government run launch competitors because satellite companies need to curry favor with both countries.