Is Falcon 1E Dead?

[Lars_J]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TQ6tZtGrShg&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/TQ6tZtGrShg&rel=1</a>
In this video it is mentioned that SpaceX has customers for Falcon-1 plus the showed Falcon-1 under construction in the factory.
Is it outdated?

I'm pretty sure that video is a couple of years old. So yes, it would be outdated.

[e of pi]

In this video it is mentioned that SpaceX has customers for Falcon-1 plus the showed Falcon-1 under construction in the factory.
Is it outdated?

I'm pretty sure that video is a couple of years old. So yes, it would be outdated.

Definitely outdated--in it Elon shows where the Mission Control "will be." This being the control room from which they controlled COTS-2+ and I think COTS-1, though I can't recall specifically, so the video was probably recorded no later than 2010.

[sdsds]

Could SpaceX spin off a separate company to operate a launch system using a vehicle design with a single-Merlin-powered first stage? SpX could sell them Merlin-1D engines; license them to produce their own Kestrels; let them design and produce their own first and second stages and build their own launch site.

[douglas100]

If Falcon 1E is dead (and it certainly seems to be), then I assume that's because SpaceX doesn't think there's a viable market for it. I don't understand how spinning off another company to operate it will bring it back to life.

[Comga]

Merlin 1D engines require a redesign of most of the parts of the Falcon 1 and its infrastructure.  Right now they are plenty busy with CRS, Falcon 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, the Vandenberg launch facility, Dragon Rider and CCiCap, a possible third launch facility, Grasshopper and stage recovery, their 5 meter fairing and commercial launches.

A good question is how many Merlin 1C engines are available.

If and when they have the ability for side projects beyond those, they might be convinced to revive the Falcon 1 or proceed to the 1E, but the anticipated demand for those small launches did not materialize. 

I don't think there is any question but that Falcon 1 in both forms is and will remain dead until SpaceX starts reducing their backlog by launching lots of rockets.

[LegendCJS]

SpaceX has discovered the same solution to the problem of rides for small sats as the rest of the industry: secondary payloads on normal rockets.  It can be taken as a sign of maturity.  Falcon 1 and derivatives are history.  Think "putting away childish things."

[savuporo]

... but the anticipated demand for those small launches did not materialize. 

The question is, at what kind of price point would there be enough demand to launch like a dozen times a year at least.

[sdsds]

If Falcon 1E is dead (and it certainly seems to be), then I assume that's because SpaceX doesn't think there's a viable market for it. I don't understand how spinning off another company to operate it will bring it back to life.

Hmm! In short, this would work if the new company saw different "return on investment" opportunities than SpaceX sees.

A longer version of that: your premise that SpaceX doesn't see a viable market isn't a given. Instead we can only say that when SpaceX looks at the expected return on an investment in Falcon 1, that return isn't as good as what it expects from other businesses (F9, FH, etc).

That doesn't mean the ROI on Falcon 1 would be negative, or even that it would be unattractive to others who might put resources into Falcon 1 if it were a separate company.

[douglas100]

A longer version of that: your premise that SpaceX doesn't see a viable market isn't a given. Instead we can only say that when SpaceX looks at the expected return on an investment in Falcon 1, that return isn't as good as what it expects from other businesses (F9, FH, etc).

That doesn't mean the ROI on Falcon 1 would be negative, or even that it would be unattractive to others who might put resources into Falcon 1 if it were a separate company.

I agree that my premise isn't a given: another plausible reason is that SpaceX has too much on their plate to make it worth while to deal with Falcon 1E at the present time. But spinning off another company seems contrary to their way of doing things.

I think it's more likely that if they think it's viable at a future time, they will resurrect it. I think too, they've already had reasonable ROI on Falcon 1, if only as a technology pathfinder for Falcon 9.

[Idiomatic]

From this POV stratolaunch is a spin off... Not sure what else you want.

SpaceX gets extra money and funding from an external source and doesn't have to take the risk of trying to break in to a smaller market.

[douglas100]

I would have thought that SpaceX's role in Stratolaunch is as a subcontractor.

[savuporo]

Jeff Foust reporting from AIAA Space 2012
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/245597446292525057
(Brian) Bjelde: put Falcon 1 on hold because projected demand (~10 per year) didn't materialize as we had hoped

EDIT: What was the proposed F1(e) price point again ? Went from ~$7M to ~10M IIRC ? $100M in revenues a year best case, and they were hoping to sustain the company on it ?

[Mader Levap]

What was the proposed F1(e) price point again ? Went from ~$7M to ~10M IIRC ? $100M in revenues a year best case, and they were hoping to sustain the company on it ?

I guess $100M/year would eventually paid off F1 research, development and ops... obviously not sustain entire SpaceX on it.

[russianhalo117]

SpaceX's recently updated launch manifest no longer lists Astrium flying on Falcon 1E. Astrium simultaneously switched to European and Russian rockets after it signed several agreements earlier this year and last year (mostly on grounds of Falcon 1's extremely low mission success rate).
--------
On a related note:
the second of two production batches of Merlin 1C Engines originally set aside for its Falcon 1/1E program have been transferred for future use on Falcon 9.

If a customer wants to fly on 1/1E it can be expected to be powered by 1D engines or newer block engine versions.

The Falcon 1/1E's latest order to launch build timelines closely match that of ULAs Delta II.

So essentially the Falcon 1 family is semi-permanently sidelined at this point until Russia stops flying payloads on converted ICBMs, Vega becomes to expensive for most customers, and alternatives diminish in supply. This not enough interest in the rocket to continue the program. Falcon 1E is no longer displayed on the Falcon 1 page as of today.

This was just added to their site today:

SPACEX LAUNCH AND PLACEMENT SERVICES
FALCON 1 PAYLOADS
Current plans are for payloads that would have previously flown on Falcon 1 (SIC 1e) to be served by flights on Falcon 9, utilizing excess capacity. This is a very cost-effective solution for small satellite launch needs. For more information on Falcon 9 capabilities, see the Falcon 9 overview.

For further information, contact us at sales@spacex.com.

[savuporo]

So essentially the Falcon 1 family is semi-permanently sidelined at this point until Russia stops flying payloads on converted ICBMs, Vega becomes to expensive for most customers, and alternatives diminish in supply.

That would indicate that ITAR barriers for going with foreign launchers are not that big of a deal for US customers. Or there simply are no US customers.