IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2607.10385.html

Prices and Competition in Vertically Integrated Launch Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Akhil Rao

Abstract

Over the last 15 years the number of U.S. orbital launches has grown by roughly an order of magnitude. About three-quarters of those launches were on SpaceX's Falcon 9 vehicle, and roughly three-fifths of those Falcon launches deployed SpaceX's own Starlink constellation. A back-of-envelope Wright's law calculation suggests this increase in experience should have driven the Falcon 9's real launch cost down by roughly 70\% over 2012--2026. Yet over the same period the advertised price fell by less than 6\% in real terms. Why? I develop a simple model of competition and vertical integration between launchers and constellations. The launch market is Bertrand; the constellation services market is Cournot; one launcher is integrated with its captive constellation. Three results follow. First, the removal of double marginalization raises the captive constellation's equilibrium size. If the integrated launcher obtains cost reductions from this experience, they are captured as capacity rent rather than passed through to external buyers. Second, the integrated launcher prices launches to be indifferent between serving internal and external demand, leaving more residual demand for a competing launcher to monopolize and pushing the equilibrium launch price up. Third, the same capacity rent that holds the equilibrium launch price up can attract entry to the launch segment, while the expansion of the captive constellation deters entry on the constellation side.

Suggested Citation

  • Akhil Rao, 2026. "Prices and Competition in Vertically Integrated Launch Markets," Papers 2607.10385, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.10385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.10385
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julien Guyot & Akhil Rao & Sébastien Rouillon, 2023. "Oligopoly competition between satellite constellations will reduce economic welfare from orbit use," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120(43), pages 2221343120-, October.
    2. Hung-po Chao, 1983. "Peak Load Pricing and Capacity Planning with Demand and Supply Uncertainty," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 179-190, Spring.
    3. Doyle, Chris, 2026. "Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 137755, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    5. Paul A. Samuelson, 1956. "Social Indifference Curves," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 1-22.
    6. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Matthew Weinzierl, 2018. "Space, the Final Economic Frontier," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 173-192, Spring.
    8. Michael A. Salinger, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(2), pages 345-356.
    9. Doyle, Chris, 2026. "Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: Oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    2. Xiding Chen & Qinghua Huang & Weilun Huang & Xue Li, 2018. "The Impact of Sustainable Development Technology on a Small Economy—The Case of Energy-Saving Technology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Tuomas Takalo, 2012. "Rationales and Instruments for Public Innovation Policies," Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Lifescience Global, vol. 1, pages 157-167.
    4. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    5. Cristiano, Antonelli & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2007. "Complexity and Innovation: Social Interactions and Firm Level Total Factor Productivity," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200709, University of Turin.
    6. Claude D'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis‐André Gérard‐Varet, 2010. "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 273-295, September.
    7. Olga Slivko & Bernd Theilen, 2014. "Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 253-282, July.
    8. Zoltán J. Ács & Mark W. J. L. Sanders, 2015. "Knowledge spillover entrepreneurship in an endogenous growth model," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 10, pages 174-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Peter Howitt, 2007. "Innovation, Competition and Growth: A Schumpeterian Perspective on Canada’s Economy," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 246, February.
    10. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    11. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    12. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Bessonova, Evguenia & Gonchar, Ksenia, 2019. "How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 15-32.
    14. Lee, Young Hoon & Kim, YoungJun, 2016. "Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 93-105.
    15. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2006. "State-Dependent Intellectual Property Rights Policy," NBER Working Papers 12775, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Aneli Bongers & Benedetto Molinari & Sebastien Rouillon & Jose L. Torres, 2024. "The foundations of the economics of the outer space: A premier overview," Space Economics Working Papers 01-2024, Institute for Space Economics, revised Aug 2024.
    17. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Montobbio, Fabio & Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants of International Patent Collaborations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 281-299.
    19. Damijan, Jože P. & Kostevc, Crt, 2007. "Knowledge Transfer, Innovation and Growth," Papers DYNREG06, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    20. Prajit K. Dutta & Saul Lach & Aldo Rustichini, 1995. "Better Late than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adoption of a New Technology," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 563-589, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.10385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.