Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future  (Read 10913 times)

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future
« Reply #20 on: 03/16/2012 07:23 pm »
Perhaps some other company could obtain the rights to launch Falcon 1 vehicles, under license to SpaceX. Maybe SpaceX is too busy to market Falcon 1, but another company could.

Or someone could put together a company to launch Falcon 1.

I doubt the reason they don't offer it is that they are 'too busy to market it'.  A better explanation is: why would they want to when it will face steep price competition from the rest of the SpaceX launchers? 

That being said, not every prospective client cares about cost, but in those cases clients will probably largely shop based on reliability, and will prefer launchers/providers with extensive flight histories (which the Falcon 1 does not have).

It just isn't competitive compared to other existing and near term options so why bother trying to rationalize still using it?  It served its purpose as a testbed to prove out their technologies, time to move on.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
  • Liked: 1751
  • Likes Given: 1455
Re: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future
« Reply #21 on: 03/16/2012 08:37 pm »
Perhaps some other company could obtain the rights to launch Falcon 1 vehicles, under license to SpaceX. Maybe SpaceX is too busy to market Falcon 1, but another company could.

Or someone could put together a company to launch Falcon 1.

I doubt the reason they don't offer it is that they are 'too busy to market it'.  A better explanation is: why would they want to when it will face steep price competition from the rest of the SpaceX launchers? 

That being said, not every prospective client cares about cost, but in those cases clients will probably largely shop based on reliability, and will prefer launchers/providers with extensive flight histories (which the Falcon 1 does not have).

It just isn't competitive compared to other existing and near term options so why bother trying to rationalize still using it?  It served its purpose as a testbed to prove out their technologies, time to move on.

Better answers have been provided before.  SpaceX would need to do a total redesign to use the new Merlin-1d engines.  No significant market has emerged.  It was expensive to maintain and hard to use the Kwajalein launch facility, and they can't launch out of KSC or VAFB without more expensive rework like adding an FTS.   Weight these reasons as you will and add your own. 

I was told that SpaceX would reconsider the F1e if there was a firm need and, I assume, available resources.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future
« Reply #22 on: 03/18/2012 11:15 am »
If the satellite is being launched as a secondary payload then the Falcon 9 will have to go in the right direction.  The Cape Canaveral launches are presumably for equatorial orbits.  Most Vandenberg launches are likely to be polar orbits but they seem to be mostly for Iridium.

Cubesats going into polar orbits are going to have to search for a launch vehicle.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future
« Reply #23 on: 03/18/2012 11:26 am »
  NASA banning SpaceX from adding secondary payloads to manned launches would force SpaceX to find an alternative low cost means of launching the payloads.  An obvious method is to use Falcon 1/1e.  Consequently the Shuttle is having a side effect on the management of the Falcon 1's future.

Wrong.  Again you come to the wrong conclusion.  There is nothing (a policy, a statement,  etc) that states NASA is banning SpaceX from adding secondary payloads to manned launches.  Especially since  secondary payloads (even deployable) were added to shuttle missions all the time (see Starshine, Pansat, Mightysat, simplesat,etc)

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

That all depends on how seriously NASA took Retired Adm. Hal Gehman's comments to a House committee about the Columbia Accident, "Separate the cargo from the people as soon as possible."
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-09-04/tech/sprj.colu.house.hearing_1_orbital-space-plane-shuttle-flights-top-shuttle-managers?_s=PM:TECH

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11346
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: SpaceX Falcon 1/1e future
« Reply #24 on: 03/18/2012 11:41 am »
  NASA banning SpaceX from adding secondary payloads to manned launches would force SpaceX to find an alternative low cost means of launching the payloads.  An obvious method is to use Falcon 1/1e.  Consequently the Shuttle is having a side effect on the management of the Falcon 1's future.

Wrong.  Again you come to the wrong conclusion.  There is nothing (a policy, a statement,  etc) that states NASA is banning SpaceX from adding secondary payloads to manned launches.  Especially since  secondary payloads (even deployable) were added to shuttle missions all the time (see Starshine, Pansat, Mightysat, simplesat,etc)

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

That all depends on how seriously NASA took Retired Adm. Hal Gehman's comments to a House committee about the Columbia Accident, "Separate the cargo from the people as soon as possible."
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-09-04/tech/sprj.colu.house.hearing_1_orbital-space-plane-shuttle-flights-top-shuttle-managers?_s=PM:TECH

Those payloads flew on the shuttle after Gehman said that and what he said is OBE.  Gehman was referring to primary payloads.  My initial statement stands.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2012 11:42 am by Jim »

Tags: