Falcon 1e, that is:
SpaceX plans to launch the second-generation satellites on multiple Falcon 1e launch vehicles, an enhanced version of SpaceX’s Falcon 1 launch vehicle. Most recently, Falcon 1 successfully delivered the RazakSAT satellite to orbit for ATSB of Malaysia. Designed from the ground up by SpaceX, the Falcon 1e has upgraded propulsion, structures and avionics systems in order to further improve reliability and mass-to-orbit capability.
There’s been an assumption that the Falcon 1 was kind of a learning experience, and that the focus would shift to Falcon 9, but it looks like they’re going to continue with both for quite a while. Also, I’ve been having an argument with someone over in comments at NASA Watch who thinks that SpaceX can’t survive without NASA. That’s always been nonsense, and remains so.
Of course, Falcon 1e has never flown. Considering what happened when they switched engines from Flight 3 to Flight 4, it would behoove them to not use one of Orbcomm’s birds for a guinea pig.
[Update a few minutes later]
If this page is right (it seems a little tentative, with the question mark — it’s probably a guess based on satellite weight and vehicle performance), they will go up three at a time, so that’s six flights.
[Update a while later]
Some commenters here think that it might be six birds per launch, so that would be only three additional flights to the manifest. Seems like a lot of eggs in each basket. I wonder what the cost of the satellites is versus launch cost? It would be an interesting sales job for SpaceX, because if they tried to get more launches by putting fewer satellites up per launch, they’d be implying that their vehicle wasn’t reliable…
But there really is a trade, if the satellites cost a lot more than the launch, and you have to have a good idea of vehicle reliability to perform it properly.
I should add that this is one of the key arguments for propellant as a payload. The vehicle reliability becomes almost irrelevant.
> I wonder what the cost of the satellites is versus launch cost?
I did some searching, and found the following info on Orbcomm’s last quarterly financial report (I’m assuming the dollar figures are in thousands):
http://www.orbcomm.com/investorRelations/secFilings.htm
“On May 5, 2008, the Company entered into a procurement agreement with Sierra Nevada Corporation (“SNC”) pursuant to which SNC will construct eighteen low-earth-orbit satellites in three sets of six satellites (“shipsets”) for the Company’s next-generation satellites (the “Initial Satellites”). … Under the agreement, the Company may elect to use the launch option to be offered by SNC or it may contract separately with other providers for launch services and launch insurance for the satellites. … Under the agreement, the Company has the option, exercisable at any time until the third anniversary of the execution of the agreement, to order up to thirty additional satellites substantially identical to the Initial Satellites (the “Optional Satellites”). … The total contract price for the Initial Satellites is $117,000, subject to reduction upon failure to achieve certain in-orbit operational milestones or if the pre-ship reviews of each shipset are delayed more than 60 days after the specified time periods described below. The Company has agreed to pay SNC up to $1,500 in incentive payments for the successful operation of the Initial Satellites five years following the successful completion of in-orbit testing for the third shipset of six satellites. The price for the Optional Satellites ranges from $5,000 to $7,700 per satellite depending on the number of satellites ordered and the timing of the exercise of the option.”
It seems like those numbers have to be off by (at least) three orders of magnitude. Do they mean a million when they say a thousand? If so, then it does make sense to bundle them — they’re pretty cheap, relative to launch cost. And that’s unusual for comsats, but of course, these are LEO comsats.
Sorry, didn’t notice your parenthetical in skimming. So we both assume that they’re millions, not thousands, and my comment stands.
Just to be clear, the engine to be used on Falcon 1e is a ‘beefed up’ version (i.e. greater thrust using upgraded turbomachinery,etc.) of the Merlin used on the Falcon 1.
I believe that they were originally going to use the ablative engine for the Falcon 1, then switch to regenerative cooling for the 1e Merlin. That obviously changed some time ago.
None of this means that initial problems won’t emerge with the 1e.
“Considering what happened when they switched engines from Flight 3 to Flight 4…”
Actually, the engine change (from ablative to regen) was between Flights 2 & 3. That’s why Flight 3 was unsuccessful.
Falcon 1 have had the regeneratively cooled merlin since flight 3. It was “de-tuned” to reduce the performance to the level of the ablatively cooled one.
So no beefing up with significant improvements for Falcon 1e initially. Just running it at max performance with a heavier rocket.
A merlin upgrade is planned in the future for falcon 9 block 2 and falcon 1e will presumably get this upgraded version — maybe ahead of falcon 9.
(All from SpaceX updates and other open sources).
Falcon 1e has a modified engine and the vehicle itself has been redesigned. I remember Ariane 5 ECA was not supposed to be a big change either, but they had issues with the new engine nozzle that caused the first flight to fail. Hopefully SpaceX will not have issues, but…
That uprated engine (call it Merlin 1d) is also slated for Falcon 9 Block II. If it must show problems, I’d rather it does so on a Falcon 1e flight than Falcon 9 – even though it appears the Falcon 1e engine variant will again be downrated from maximum thrust. Similar to how Merlin 1c was running for the past 3 Falcon 1 flights.
Not necessarily. The Falcon 9 can stand to lone an engine – the 1e can’t.
Another player in the ‘number of satellites per launch’ argument is the constellation design. If there are three orbital planes, then three launches make sense. Otherwise, there’ll be some other number. The Wikipedia entry for the system shows 8 getting stacked on a Pegasus.
Another player in the ‘number of satellites per launch’ argument is the constellation design. If there are three orbital planes, then three launches make sense.
It’s a factor, but not necessarily a decisive one for LEO constellation. The satellites can be moved to different planes (though not inclinations) after launch via nodal regression.
The launch manifest on the SpaceX web site already lists a “Falcon 1e Inaugural Flight” for 2010 so it appears to me that the Falcon 1e will have at least one flight under its belt before Orbcomm uses its services.
I speculated in comments over at Clark’s site that the ORBCOMM contract might be responsible for the “rush” to the Falcon 1e. The difference in performance means 3 Falcon 1e launches, where it would have taken 6 Falcon 1c launches. In computing mission risk, the decreased number of flights probably more than compensates for flying on the “untested” 1e.