28 thoughts on “One Small Launch Of A Rocket”

  1. it was the first satellite delivered by a privately funded liquid rocket.

    Why is the liquid an important qualifier here ? I mean, what precisely sets this apart from OSC ?

  2. Which is the privately funded OSC solid rocket? Are we talking about Pegasus? While that was an interesting rocket, it costs way too much, since it relies on traditional vendors to supply the parts, and air launch just don’t scale up to the size needed to compete in the commercial GEO satellite segment.

    SpaceX’s approach has allowed them to reuse the engines from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. This saves them a tremendous amount of money.

    SpaceX has done nothing short of amazing. For some $100 million they developed 3 whole new engines (Merlin, Kestrel, Draco), done several Merlin upgrades which could be considered new engines by traditional companies (new turbine, regenerative cooling), developed two or three new launchers (if you count Falcon 1e as a new launcher), develop launch infrastructure in three different sites. It just boggles the mind. This will certainly change the view of any future entrants in the field.

  3. It just boggles the mind. This will certainly change the view of any future entrants in the field.

    Current participants too. The folks at ULA have to know that they will not be able to compete on price if they continue to use their current “cost plus” models and mindsets. If they’re smart they’ll fund small teams of their best people in “in-house start ups” to innovate their way to the new cost structure SpaceX is proving. The bureaucracy built up to deal with NASA/DoD bullshit will have to be phased out.

  4. It just boggles the mind.
    Sure. Except that Falcon 1 (e) launch manifest does not seem to be filling up with orders, and current launch rate is around 1 per year ( Unless they arent telling for some reason )

    To a casual observer, its now just another launcher that flies now and then, nothing really fundamental has changed, yet anyway.

    Maybe reaching a rough price parity with Russian small launch services does constitute a change in industry, and there will be more small sats flying from US soil, without ITAR barring them from flying on Dnepr.

    Dont get me wrong, i fully understand the level of accomplishment here, but to a non-involved layperson its difficult to explain why SpaceX flying Falcon is any different from OSC flying Pegasus.

  5. Rand. In future, perhaps it would be a good idea to illustrate your pieces with pictures. The average guy reading that likely won’t know an Ares 1 from a Nike X. I know it costs some bandwidth, but surely PJM can afford it.

  7. I would think a side by side comparison of NASA and SpaceX development costs would go a long way toward killing other government run or proposed programs. I wonder if any congress critters could handle it (I’d like to see a Ross Perot one hour infomercial type of thing, but that’s just me.)

    Before he started beating himself up with the crazy bat he was quite effective reaching the public consciousness with those spots.

  8. Orbital did an excellent job as a startup to get the Pegasus flying. However, it should be noted that the solid rocket motors were supplied by Hercules (later ATK) and a number of other components also came from outside the company. SpaceX has made most of its own components to keep costs down.

    Elon’s whole purpose in starting SpaceX has been to lower space transport costs significantly with the goal of expanding access to space to people who want to go there. Orbital management, as far as I can tell from my limited interactions with one of the top people there, currently doesn’t expect launch markets to grow much beyond the current government and comsat users. For example, unlike the big plans SpaceX has for the Falcon 9 beyond ISS resupply, Orbital simply wants to see the Taurus II become the replacement for the Delta II.

    So I would express the major difference between Orbital/Pegaus and SpaceX/Falcon I as follows: The Pegasus set Orbital on the path to becoming a significant player in the mainstream space industry. The Falcon I launch is a big step for SpaceX on a path to go far beyond the mainstream and open access to space to a broad public market.

  9. Ken, I share your enthusiasm about SpaceX and about government wasteful spending, but lets wait and see where SpaceX is in 18 to 24 months. They are doing terrific, but they have enough pressure to get the Falcon 9 flying without the added burden of close public and political scrutiny at this point. By quietly and competently achieving their goals they seem to be getting the attention they need from the places that matter and can more easily weather the inevitable set backs that will occur along the way. Hopefully, SpaceX will soon have all their ducks in a row and success will speak volumes more than premature hand waving.

  10. I susbscribe Aviation week and get their daily e-mail news flashes.
    The Spacex Launch was not covered, they covered minor things like the gulf stream certification from transport Canada, but nothing on spacex.

    Why would the major industry publication ignore the launch?
    Does it really threaten the existing players so much that they would try to restrain a nominally independent news source?

    Very Strange….

  11. From scratch?

    It’s a minor point but important reminder that everything SpaceX does is built on the backs of the all aerospace contractors. Of course you’ll be issuing a correction and an apology to dozens of current and former employees at TRW that worked on that engine (including me) from the 1960s through the present.

    “Particularly the engine (also developed from scratch by SpaceX)”

    Quote from SpaceX web site:
    “The main engine, called Merlin 1C, was developed internally at SpaceX, drawing upon a long heritage of space proven engines. The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin 1C was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landing engine”

  12. I’ve personally built and fired a pintile engine using nothing more than the reference material in Sutton.
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GryfvPoRN5Q)

    Just because its pintle and TRW first built pintiles does not mean its a TRW engine. Should all liquid rocket motors be Goddard motors? Some where in time prior art becomes common fodder for all to build upon. Pintiles are more than 40 years old so that has to apply here.

  13. The Falcon I launch is a big step for SpaceX on a path to go far beyond the mainstream and open access to space to a broad public market.

    I understand the argument, but so far we havent seen any evidence of this happening, look at the launch manifests.

    When they match Russian small sat launcher prices, and Russian Soyuz human ticket to orbit prices, how is this going beyond “mainstream” ? ( If the term “mainstream” even can be used wrt space in this century )

  14. I understand the argument, but so far we havent seen any evidence of this happening, look at the launch manifests.

    The market isn’t for Falcon 1. As I wrote in the piece, that was mostly for learning how to build rockets. The market (and signed-up customers) is for Falcon 9 and Dragon.

  15. When they match Russian small sat launcher prices, and Russian Soyuz human ticket to orbit prices, how is this going beyond “mainstream” ?

    You’re looking at the wrong variable. SpaceX’s current prices are profit-maximizing to pay back development costs as quickly as possible and to fund economies of scale in production. What you should be looking at to determine market viability are costs.

    SpaceX’s costs are so much lower than NASA’s or the ULA’s that they’ll be able to price them out of the market any time they feel like it once the Falcon 9/Dragon is proven. But for now they’re raking in margins.

    And yes, we can use the term “mainstream” with respect to space this century. Probably within 20 years.

  16. Well, if the change in the market is with Falcon 9, then this flight ( while being a milestone ) isnt really a giant leap. Falcon 9 flying with paying commercial, not government, customers payloads, at disruptive prices would be a giant leap.

  17. But for now they’re raking in margins.
    I very much doubt that. In current economy, and while still not getting a hang of first stage recovery, they are doing well if they break even.
    Elon isnt stupid. They sold the first batch of Tesla Roadsters at loss as well, while gradually bringing production costs under control and are by the mans own words now making a slim margin.
    Why ? Because everything always ends up costing more than your initial estimates. But with strong financial control its possible to bring costs down, gradually.

  21. “I understand the argument, but so far we havent seen any evidence of this happening, look at the launch manifests.”

    This has to be a bootstrapping, step-by-step process. There is no flipping a switch and suddenly a line of customers starts banging at the door. It’s going to take years, and many successful flights of both the F1 and F9 to change perceptions and attitudes and to attract new customers with new types of payloads and applications.

    As Rand says, the primary purpose of the F1 was for technology development. There were major changes even between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and third vehicles.

    I expect that more customers for the F1 will start to appear now that it’s credibility has gotten a big boost. However, the F9 is the primary focus of the company and I doubt that SpaceX is beating the bushes for new F1 payloads.

  22. I don’t know the degree to which the SpaceX engines and other components have been built from “scratch”. I’ve not heard Elon claim that SpaceX has achieved any breakthrough innovations in propulsion or other component technologies. The important point is that by making components internally, they did not have to buy them from high price suppliers like ATK.

    I’ve heard many people claim that the big flaw in the Kistler K-1 program was the use of expensive mainstream aerospace suppliers for most all of its components.

  23. > Elon isnt stupid. They sold the first batch of Tesla Roadsters at loss as well, while gradually bringing production costs under control and are by the mans own words now making a slim margin.

    It’s worth noting that this wasn’t the original plan, though. Musk and the board thought they’d be making a profit on the initial batch until fairly late in the game, when they found out the President of the company had been lying to them about costs:

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/

    “We conducted a funding round in May 2007 that was intended to be the final round before Roadster production and profitability. In that business plan, Eberhard stated that the cost of the Roadster would be $65k after the first 25 units. When I questioned that number, based on piecing together what I’d heard from various people in the company, Eberhard told me that while the initial cost may be higher, he still felt confident of achieving $65k or lower after the first 100 units. … In July 2007, one of the new investors in Tesla sent in someone to help with supply chain issues. While he was doing that, he conducted a cost audit of the Roadster and discovered that the production cost after the first 100 cars would be about $120k – almost twice what Eberhard was claiming it cost. Several months later, that actually turned out to be an underestimate, as material cost alone was $140k. Given that we had been charging a price of $92k and had taken advance orders for hundreds of cars, this meant we had a life threatening problem.”

  24. Good point Mike. SpaceX is doing fine without getting it’s waters muddied. As for Tesla or any other discussion of costs, how it’s determined can depend on assumptions enough to vary greatly. Even the question of what’s a fixed cost and what’s a variable cost can often be argued one way or the other. This is one reason why an outside audit can be useful. It still subject to assumptions, but hopefully those assumptions would be more objective than an internal audit might be. A smart manager would seek such an objective view (but there are certainly reasons it doesn’t often happen.)

    I’m a big fan of Elon, but he’s human.

  25. From where comes the $100 million figure, Godzilla?

    IIRC, SpaceX has had an average employment of 300+ for what, 5 years now (more now, fewer 5 years ago). Figure $100k / employee-year (more for some, less for others) ==> $30M / year ==> $150M for aggregate payroll. Triple that to include facility, materials, etc.

    Perhaps the $100M is Elon’s cash, and the rest is from other investors, customer down payments, and COTS money?

  26. MG, I believe there’s considerable DoD and NASA money in that figure too. For example, SpaceX has been achieving goals in the COTS program. Those goals come with payouts.

    In any case, a second successful launch of the Falcon I is very promising. It implies to me that SpaceX may still have a low reliability rocket, but that they have reduced to a great degree the initial problems that lead them to lose three rockets in a row.

  28. It implies to me that SpaceX may still have a low reliability rocket

    As others have pointed out (and I take issue with) each launch is a new rocket. My issue is that the last two Falcon’s were substantially the same while the earlier ones were different. So the reliability issue is really only for those that are manufactured to be the same.

    I think it may be a mistake to refer to the F1 as a low reliability rocket. Time will tell of course. I think high reliability is probably job one at SpaceX and their approach is very likely to significantly achieve it.

Comments are closed.