Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[Wigles]

Hi, been reading for a while but thought I might chime in with a post.

I have been looking at what a falcon 1 style launch vehicle may be able to launch with new build Merlin 1-D engines. Based on a 160,000 lbf Merlin 1-D first stage (I believe Spacex has stated it should be capable of this) and 2x Kestrel's for the second stage, I estimate that it should be able to lift approx 4000lbs into LEO from a total launch mass of 134,000lbs.

Estimating a cost increase of roughly 20% over the 1e estimate, and accounting for inflation since 2010, this puts it still at roughly $15 Mil. Compared to the Vega which costs roughly 30Mil per launch it would appear to be at least economically feasible.

I understand that SpaceX has had to focus its resources on the F9 & FH, but could another company just purchase the engines off SpaceX and licence the tech?

[Danderman]

You are almost describing the Falcon 1-E, which had a payload capability of 1,000 kg, with one Kestrel engine in the second stage.

[Wigles]

But the falcon 1e design was based on the Merlin 1c, wasn't it? Since then the merlin has evolved and so I was looking into what an evolved F1 might be capable of and then evaluating the market.

[ArbitraryConstant]

But the falcon 1e design was based on the Merlin 1c, wasn't it? Since then the merlin has evolved and so I was looking into what an evolved F1 might be capable of and then evaluating the market.

Yeah, Merlin 1D has more than doubled thrust over the initial version.

But I don't think SpaceX or anyone else will ever build another Falcon 1. One suspects SpaceX will chase any launches it might have wanted with a reusable Falcon 9.

[douglas100]

...I understand that SpaceX has had to focus its resources on the F9 & FH, but could another company just purchase the engines off SpaceX and licence the tech?

I doubt very much SpaceX is going to sell their engines to anyone else.

[R7]

I doubt very much SpaceX is going to sell their engines to anyone else.

If the price is right why not? Reanimated F-1 would not compete with their customers. Maybe just one each, F1R?

[sdsds]

Link to an earlier discussion:

[dror]

I have been looking at what a falcon 1 style launch vehicle may be able to launch with new build Merlin 1-D engines. Based on a 160,000 lbf Merlin 1-D first stage (I believe Spacex has stated it should be capable of this) and 2x Kestrel's for the second stage, I estimate that it should be able to lift approx 4000lbs into LEO from a total launch mass of 134,000lbs.

Hi,
I was just thinking the same.
There is a market of small to mini sattelites that can use an affordable booster.
A possible new aplication could be a smaller resuply truck like a mini dragon, or a diffrent design based on a F1 second stage.
F1 can also be designed to be air launched with an even bigger payload.

[Jim]

There is no market to sustain it

[DJPledger]

SpaceX will never build any new Falcon 1's as they are fully committed to F9R, FH, manned Dragon, and Raptor. The Falcon 1 is dead and buried so we might as well close this discussion because Falcon 1 is ain't going to be resurrected.

[dror]

There is no market to sustain it

According to SpaceX attitude as presented by Barry Matsumori, that is true if you are looking in the rear view mirror. Looking ahead, they hope that the lower launch costs will create a new market, and that is true especially for smaller payloads where the launch cost is a bigger part of the total price.
After the F9R is proven, and FH is steady, they will look back and revive the F1 as a reusable mini launcher to complete the fleet. Mark my words

[guckyfan]

There is no market to sustain it

According to SpaceX attitude as presented by Barry Matsumori, that is true if you are looking in the rear view mirror. Looking ahead, they hope that the lower launch costs will create a new market, and that is true especially for smaller payloads where the launch cost is a bigger part of the total price.
After the F9R is proven, and FH is steady, they will look back and revive the F1 as a reusable mini launcher to complete the fleet. Mark my words

They can't make it reusable, so I see it very unlikely. Also they may be able to fly some of those payloads as secondaries.

[Jim]

According to SpaceX attitude as presented by Barry Matsumori, that is true if you are looking in the rear view mirror. Looking ahead, they hope that the lower launch costs will create a new market, and that is true especially for smaller payloads where the launch cost is a bigger part of the total price.
After the F9R is proven, and FH is steady, they will look back and revive the F1 as a reusable mini launcher to complete the fleet. Mark my words

And they will be marked as wrong (see below).  You have no basis to make that statement.    There is no market in F1 for Spacex (That is true looking forward too.), it would be just a distraction.  It does nothing for their long term goals and it would not make money.    There is no benefit for a F1R.
Spacex can fly small payloads as secondaries on F9 and FH.

[Jim]

They can't make it reusable, so I see it very unlikely. Also they may be able to fly some of those payloads as secondaries.

Bingo and we have the deal breaker.  The single first stage engine can not be throttled low enough to allow for landing the first stage. 

[Jim]

F1 can also be designed to be air launched

Unsubstantiated.  what are you basing that on?

[savuporo]

There is no market in F1 for Spacex (That is true looking forward too.), it would be just a distraction.  It does nothing for their long term goals and it would not make money. 

Of course, Vega and Epsilon were just recently brought online, but i dont think either of these programs are really space launch programs.

( they exist because the agencies funding them need to have people who are capable of building ahem, suborbital point to point package delivery rockets , if and when the need arises )

[Wigles]

Even if your assertation that Vega and Epsilon are just covers for ballistic missile programs was the only reason they exist, customers are still paying over 30 mil per launch for roughly 1.5t to LEO. I would presume that these customers would rather pay 15mil.

Also transfering the F1 launches to F9 as secondaries I presume that the customer wants a similar altitude and inclination to the primary payload, or is willing to use a large amount of fuel to reposition?

I understand that the profit margin probably isnt as large as the juicy GTO or EELV market, and hence I can understand why SpX isnt interested.

Edit: also, a question. Why would having only a single engine mean it can't be throttled low enough for landing? I assume its something to do with the weight difference between the f1 and F9 first stages?

[Patchouli]

Musk is interested in Mars colonization and small LVs don't fit into the later parts of that plan.

LVs like Launcher One and Pegasus might be a better match for the small sat customers who can't wait to be a secondary payload on a larger rocket.

[savuporo]

Even if your assertation that Vega and Epsilon are just covers for ballistic missile programs was the only reason they exist,

I didn't assert that. I guessed that they are skill and industrial base retention/creation programs. There is a difference.

customers are still paying over 30 mil per launch for roughly 1.5t to LEO. I would presume that these customers would rather pay 15mil.

I have not looked but I suspect these customers that fly on these rockets have strong non budgetary reasons to do so

I also think pulling F1 from the market was an annoying move and did a lot of damage in many ways

[cryptoanarchy]

You are almost describing the Falcon 1-E, which had a payload capability of 1,000 kg, with one Kestrel engine in the second stage.

SpaceX could make a new Falcon 1 with the Merlin 1D on the first stage but it would have to have the same tank width as the Falcon 9 to be economical.  Making shorter tanks on the same line is not too hard, and would be much more economical then having a second production line. Maybe an expert could figure what height it would be (much shorter) and if it would present a problem.  The second stage would be Kestrel or even a super Draco.  The whole idea would be to reuse current SpaceX production not create many new items or restart old lines.  If that rocket could be built cheaply enough it might not matter that it is not reusable. 

[savuporo]

SpaceX could make a new Falcon 1 with the Merlin 1D on the first stage but it would have to have the same tank width as the Falcon 9 to be economical.

Huh, no. Why ?

Making shorter tanks on the same line is not too hard

It makes no sense to build a shorter tank on a line that is already set up to build full size ones, it works out to be the same cost.

[llanitedave]

The Falcon 1 makes no sense in any current scenario. The Falcon 9 is designed for a high flight rate.  With a high flight rate, any small satellite maker that wants to buy a launch can piggyback theirs onto an available Falcon 9 or heavy that happens to have margin. There should be a fair number to choose from.  There's simply no need for a dedicated smallsat launcher.

[QuantumG]

Maybe an expert could figure what height it would be (much shorter) and if it would present a problem.

I'm no expert but my back of the envelope calculation says: about 17 meters, with the tanks only being 6.5 meters of that. (Assuming the same interstage and fairing). Gross liftoff mass of 56 tons, one ton to LEO.

[Danderman]

Why not simply use a Falcon 9 second stage as the first stage, and add a Kestrel engine based second stage.

Yes, I know the nozzle on the engine would have to be modified for ground start.

Maybe use some super Dracos for added liftoff power, and help with the landing.

[QuantumG]

Why not simply use a Falcon 9 second stage as the first stage, and add a Kestrel engine based second stage.

Why use a second stage as a first stage? According to Elon the second stage is basically just a shorted version of the first stage, but presumably it's the "basically" that gets ya.

[cryptoanarchy]

SpaceX could make a new Falcon 1 with the Merlin 1D on the first stage but it would have to have the same tank width as the Falcon 9 to be economical.

Huh, no. Why ?

Making shorter tanks on the same line is not too hard

It makes no sense to build a shorter tank on a line that is already set up to build full size ones, it works out to be the same cost.

Making the tank the same length would make it way to big (heavt) for a 1 engine rocket.  You are sizing the length of the  tank for the smaller rocket size but using the same tank production facility (and therefore the same diameter as the F9) to save cost. 

This would be a 'parts bin' rocket.  Not fuel efficient but cost efficient for the smaller launch size and taking advantage of existing SpaceX manufacturing. 

[ChrisWilson68]

Welcome to the forum, Wigles!  It's an interesting question.

I'd have to side with those who are saying there's no reason for SpaceX to build a Falcon 1-like vehicle going forward.

[Danderman]

Why not simply use a Falcon 9 second stage as the first stage, and add a Kestrel engine based second stage.

Why use a second stage as a first stage? According to Elon the second stage is basically just a shorted version of the first stage, but presumably it's the "basically" that gets ya.

Well, the Falcon 9 FIRST stage is waaaaaay too large for a single Merlin engine, but the Falcon 9 SECOND stage is designed for one engine already. The only issue with the Falcon 9 SECOND stage is that the tankage may still be too large for one ground started Merlin engine, which I why I fanwanked some SuperDracos for additional liftoff thrust.

Let me add to the chorus of there not really being a big market for a 1,000 kg to LEO launcher, but if someone wants to step forward and buy the rights to Falcon 1E from Elon, please feel free.

[QuantumG]

Well, the Falcon 9 FIRST stage is waaaaaay too large for a single Merlin engine, but the Falcon 9 SECOND stage is designed for one engine already.

What sort of "design" did you have in mind? It's designed for a vac engine, and to integrate with the interstage, not the pad.

I think what was being suggested (by scamanarchy) was to shorten the tanks on both stages, while keeping the diameter the same. That'll increase aerodynamic losses, but not overwhelming so, I don't imagine.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX hopes to get the per-launch cost of their F9-class reusable rocket eventually down to the level of a Falcon 1.

[savuporo]

I fanwanked some SuperDracos for additional liftoff thrust

There's probably a Godwin's law's equivalent about invoking superdracos in any space related topic. Twas a reasonable thread.

[CuddlyRocket]

Although I agree that SpaceX won't go back to the F1 to address the very small payload market - partly because they address a lot of that market anyway with secondaries, but mainly because it would be a distraction from their ultimate goals - I don't see any reason why they wouldn't sell Merlin-1D engines to a US third party willing to pay (have to be US because of ITAR). Additional production would reduce the unit costs of the engines they use themselves.

It will interesting to see whether the commercial rocket companies go the way of car manufacturers, who mainly make their own engines, or airline manufacturers, who mainly buy in their engines.

[Zed_Noir]

The Falcon 1 rocket family is going to stay buried IMO.

The Grasshopper 2 (aka F9R-1) could be easily modified to a small sat LV with minimum modification. Just add a rail launcher for a solid rocket. The GH2 ejects the solid rocket at apogee like a missile on a fighter aircraft. The rocket with the payload handles like a piece of munition. If SpaceX chooses to reenters the small LV market again.

One of the DAPRA XS-1 proposal looks almost like the above description.

[aero]

Once SpaceX develops the second stage recovery technology and methodology, a single Raptor powered second stage could launch about one tonne to LEO in an SSTO mode with some recovery prop left over. A Raptor second stage would be more expensive to build initially but considering recovery and refurbishment of an SSTO should be much more economical than a two stage rocket, it makes sense. That is, if there is a market for 1000 kg to LEO at all.

[Comga]

The Falcon 1 rocket family is going to stay buried IMO.

The Grasshopper 2 (aka F9R-1) could be easily modified to a small sat LV with minimum modification. Just add a rail launcher for a solid rocket. The GH2 ejects the solid rocket at apogee like a missile on a fighter aircraft. The rocket with the payload handles like a piece of munition. If SpaceX chooses to reenters the small LV market again.

One of the DAPRA XS-1 proposal looks almost like the above description.

Just because it is physically possible doesn't mean you have to post it.
That's not Falcon 1 and it's not SpaceX.
Perhaps it's the Ant, less than half an Antares. 
It is certainly OT.

[rst]

Once SpaceX develops the second stage recovery technology and methodology, a single Raptor powered second stage could launch about one tonne to LEO in an SSTO mode with some recovery prop left over. A Raptor second stage would be more expensive to build initially but considering recovery and refurbishment of an SSTO should be much more economical than a two stage rocket, it makes sense. That is, if there is a market for 1000 kg to LEO at all.

That is, if there is a market for 1000 kg to LEO which is not adequately served as secondary payloads on other LVs, in sufficient volume to recoup the development costs for being able to launch the thing from ground level, including the opportunity cost of forgoing whatever else their staff might have been doing instead of pursuing this business. 

(It's possible that they'd be doing some of that development work anyway to support parts of their test program, but likely not all of it, particularly not when it comes to adapting their launch sites.)

[R7]

I fanwanked some SuperDracos for additional liftoff thrust

There's probably a Godwin's law's equivalent about invoking superdracos in any space related topic. Twas a reasonable thread.

"some SuperDracos" denote at least two. Wiki says 67kN per SD so at least 134kN thrust for landing a vehicle with half ton engine and 0.5 - 1 ton tank. That'll be one brown pants hover slam for sure. No, I don't think SDs can throttle down much at sea level.

I suggest throttling down the Merlin to 0% thrust and parachute. [but, but the F1s failed!1] Yes, but they didn't do a break burn?

[Comga]

I fanwanked some SuperDracos for additional liftoff thrust

There's probably a Godwin's law's equivalent about invoking superdracos in any space related topic. Twas a reasonable thread.

"some SuperDracos" denote at least two. Wiki says 67kN per SD so at least 134kN thrust for landing a vehicle with half ton engine and 0.5 - 1 ton tank. That'll be one brown pants hover slam for sure. No, I don't think SDs can throttle down much at sea level.

I suggest throttling down the Merlin to 0% thrust and parachute. [but, but the F1s failed!1] Yes, but they didn't do a break burn?

I read savuporo's comment differently, that once SuperDraco's have been invoked, the discussion is fully off the rails and off topic, pretty much independent of the original topic.  It is certainly the case here.  This was about the case for reviving the Falcon 1.

"Just because it is physically possible doesn't mean you have to post it."

[savuporo]

I read savuporo's comment differently, that once SuperDraco's have been invoked, the discussion is fully off the rails and off topic, pretty much independent of the original topic.  It is certainly the case here.

Yes exactly. Let me try a clearer formulation

"As an online space related discussion grows longer, the probability of someone suggesting SuperDracos approaches 1."


—regardless of topic or scope—

[Lourens]

Well, the SuperDraco is the closest thing SpaceX currently have to a Kestrel. If someone were to do a new version of the F1, a Merlin 1D on the original first stage plus a single SuperDraco on the original second stage may make sense. Then you can use currently available and mass-produced engines, and all you need is the tanks.

[llanitedave]

You don't NEED a Falcon 1.  It's time has come and gone.  It's not worth fantasizing about.

[R7]

"As an online space related discussion grows longer, the probability of someone suggesting SuperDracos approaches 1."


—regardless of topic, scope or feasibility—

I read you clear the first time, tried to point out the red.

Also, sooner or later 3D-printing must be mentioned so here goes: aren't SDs 3D-printed from Inconel now? 3D-print Kestrels and design a sea level Kestel for use in the first stage. Low-tech fully pressurefed F1.9R.

You don't NEED a Falcon 1.

You are right, but Pegasus costs so much.

[llanitedave]

Pegasus payloads can become secondaries on a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

[R7]

Guaranteed that there's enough primary customers flying to suitable orbits? Could mean a long wait.

[Lourens]

India's PSLV has put up quite a few payloads in the up-to-one-tonne category. It's maximum payload to LEO is more, but there are some payloads apparently at least, if the price is right. And they're not the only launcher in this market. If you want a polar orbit, it may not be so easy to find an F9 going the right way for you to hitch a ride...

[go4mars]

Also, sooner or later 3D-printing must be mentioned so here goes: aren't SDs 3D-printed from Inconel now? 3D-print Kestrels and design a sea level Kestel for use in the first stage.

Ah the other rule...  I'll jump in too.
Oh, and once in orbit and no early abort required, 3D print extra extra large nozzle extensions in space.  Could also be done for huge draco or superdraco vacuum bells. 

[garidan]

I secondo the idea Falcon 1M (M=Methane) could be a falcon 9 tank with only 1 Raptor engine and legs. With the equivalent power of 4 Merlin 1D engines it's a sort of reusable falcon 5, or a Grasshoper III.
It would be a good platform to test Raptor while doing business and migrating toward methane.
By using a "standard" Falcon 9 second stage, the only pad change would be a second fuel line and support for methane.

[zaitcev]

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't sell Merlin-1D engines to a US third party willing to pay (have to be US because of ITAR).

We know that Elon was resistant to the idea of selling Merlins previously, when it was bandied around by independent start-ups. It seems clear that F1 in SpaceX is deader than dead. However, it may be possible to sell him on a notionally independent subsidiary that remains under his complete control through stake ownership. It's basically a question of finding someone who's charismatic enough yet interested enough in a small business like that.

[ChrisWilson68]

Once SpaceX develops the second stage recovery technology and methodology, a single Raptor powered second stage could launch about one tonne to LEO in an SSTO mode with some recovery prop left over. A Raptor second stage would be more expensive to build initially but considering recovery and refurbishment of an SSTO should be much more economical than a two stage rocket, it makes sense.

There's no reason to believe the recovery and refurbishment of an SSTO vehicle would be more economical than that of a two stage vehicle with the same payload capacity.  In fact, there's good evidence the opposite is true.

To do SSTO you have to push everything to the edge of what's possible.  Pushing things to the edge of what's possible makes things much much less economical.

[ChrisWilson68]

Well, the SuperDraco is the closest thing SpaceX currently have to a Kestrel. If someone were to do a new version of the F1, a Merlin 1D on the original first stage plus a single SuperDraco on the original second stage may make sense. Then you can use currently available and mass-produced engines, and all you need is the tanks.

Except that SuperDraco uses hypergolic propellant and Kestrel uses RP-1 and LOX.  So you'd be doing a bunch of new development work.  And it would be more expensive to operate.

It would be easier and cheaper to just re-start production of Kestrel.

Not that there's any sane reason to restart Falcon 1 production anyway.

[Comga]

To the Original Post of this thread....

A small article on page 82 of the December 30, 2013 and January 6, 2014 print edition of Aviation Week has a paragraph of text and an illustration of a "Rusable Smallsat Launcher".  Swiss Space Systems (S3) is proposing a three stage system to launch "250 kg payloads for $11 million".  It consists of a small "expendable upper stage" launched from an "unmanned shuttle" that looks like a black Dream Chaser with three engines.  This is to be launched from the back of an Airbus A300 that looks to be unmodified, other than a shiny black paint job.   This looks hopeless, all wrong.

Like Launcher 1 and who knows who else, these are large systems going after the market that SpaceX has decided to ignore. I side with SpaceX, much to my own dismay.

[CuddlyRocket]

Swiss Space Systems (S3) is proposing a three stage system to launch "250 kg payloads for $11 million". ... This looks hopeless, all wrong.

Given that Gwynne Shotwell has said SpaceX is targeting $7 million per launch for the F9R, that's something of an understatement!

[Lar]

To the Original Post of this thread....

A small article on page 82 of the December 30, 2013 and January 6, 2014 print edition of Aviation Week has a paragraph of text and an illustration of a "Rusable Smallsat Launcher".  Swiss Space Systems (S3) is proposing a three stage system to launch "250 kg payloads for $11 million".  It consists of a small "expendable upper stage" launched from an "unmanned shuttle" that looks like a black Dream Chaser with three engines.  This is to be launched from the back of an Airbus A300 that looks to be unmodified, other than a shiny black paint job.   This looks hopeless, all wrong.

Like Launcher 1 and who knows who else, these are large systems going after the market that SpaceX has decided to ignore. I side with SpaceX, much to my own dismay.

There's an entire thread on this proposed system, IIRC and I think this is it

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31278.msg1022107#msg1022107

[RanulfC]

I fanwanked some SuperDracos for additional liftoff thrust

There's probably a Godwin's law's equivalent about invoking superdracos in any space related topic. Twas a reasonable thread.

Probably NOT "superdracos" but I suggest that the term "fanwanked" be forever barred from use... Really...

Randy

[RanulfC]

Once SpaceX develops the second stage recovery technology and methodology, a single Raptor powered second stage could launch about one tonne to LEO in an SSTO mode with some recovery prop left over. A Raptor second stage would be more expensive to build initially but considering recovery and refurbishment of an SSTO should be much more economical than a two stage rocket, it makes sense. That is, if there is a market for 1000 kg to LEO at all.

That is, if there is a market for 1000 kg to LEO which is not adequately served as secondary payloads on other LVs, in sufficient volume to recoup the development costs for being able to launch the thing from ground level, including the opportunity cost of forgoing whatever else their staff might have been doing instead of pursuing this business. 

(It's possible that they'd be doing some of that development work anyway to support parts of their test program, but likely not all of it, particularly not when it comes to adapting their launch sites.)

First of all I highly doubt SpaceX will revive the Falcon-1 or 5, they have pretty much "bypassed" that level at this point. As to selling engines, I believe, (but can't seem to find) HMXHMX note that to his knowledge they WOULD sell engines, but with restrictions.

Lastly on the "market" for small payloads to LEO and "secondary" payload servicing. I've talked to a lot of people who regularly attend the "SmallSat" conferences here in Utah and consensus I get is that while flying as secondary payloads is "acceptable" due to the cost it is highly limited and there is a LOT of possible customers who (if the price was comparable) would much rather charter a SPECIFIC launch to an orbit that allows them to get the maximum use out of their vehicle. But no one sees any viable concept on the horizon. SSS, VG-L1, etc so far the general attitude is "wait-and-see-if-they-actually-launch-something" first.

On the other hand we have still more companies coming along, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33757.0;all) though I have no details of what payload range they are aimed at. The "biggest" factor is going to be price. If you can get a dedicated launch of your specific vehicle for around the price of flying as a secondary payload or less then there is probably a "market" but I have to ask since I have no idea, what exactly is the general "price-range" we're looking at here?

Randy

[Comga]

snip

If you can get a dedicated launch of your specific vehicle for around the price of flying as a secondary payload or less then there is probably a "market" but I have to ask since I have no idea, what exactly is the general "price-range" we're looking at here?

Randy

Try SpaceFlight Services for a list of secondary payload pricing.

For instance, they want $5M for 180 kg to LEO.

That's a tough price point to match, particularly if you want to amortize a lot of development work, or a giant carrier jet, or some other massive infrastructure.

[Wigles]

snip

If you can get a dedicated launch of your specific vehicle for around the price of flying as a secondary payload or less then there is probably a "market" but I have to ask since I have no idea, what exactly is the general "price-range" we're looking at here?

Randy

Try SpaceFlight Services for a list of secondary payload pricing.

For instance, they want $5M for 180 kg to LEO.

That's a tough price point to match, particularly if you want to amortize a lot of development work, or a giant carrier jet, or some other massive infrastructure.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that link before.

My post was estimating roughly 4000lb for $15Mil. Using an ESPA/SSPS-like ring weighing roughly 200kg, this could put 5x 300kg sats into an orbit. Using the pricing on Spaceflight Services that should go for $34 Mil.

Although I do note that there seems to be a large availability on their shedule page so there would need to be enough demand to put sats into dedicated orbits which are not serviced by typical larger rockets.

[TrevorMonty]

In regards to recovery of F1, isn't GH1 a modified F1 and that lands using a single Merlin.

[QuantumG]

isn't GH1 a modified F1

No. F1 was much smaller than GH1.

and that lands using a single Merlin.

Yes.

[guckyfan]

In regards to recovery of F1, isn't GH1 a modified F1 and that lands using a single Merlin.

Grasshopper is a modified Falcon 9 1.0 tank with a Merlin 1D engine.

[Comga]

Now that this thread has morphed from "market" to "reuse" I feel free to raise this point:

Musk seems to have stumbled into his recoverable rocket architecture.  Unable to meet NASA's goals even under the most optimistic assumptions, he adds four engines to his "magic number" of five and builds the Falcon 9.  With 70% throttle capability, the rocket now has a total min-to-max thrust of only 8%.  At this point he can bring back the first stage with a minimum of terminal deceleration, about 2G, which goes with a first stage dry mass of about 3% of the entire rocket.  Then he ups the ante from ocean recovery to RTLS powered landing.

However, while testing this Musk (to personalize this) validates a variant of his original recovery scheme of soft "landing" downrange in the ocean.  They almost accomplished this on the Cassiope launch

At $7M per recoverable F9 flight, there isn't much room for a 1 ton capable Falcon 1.  It would also have to be recoverable.  But what if he fixed the Falcon 1 recovery with the Falcon 9 technology?  He could supplant the belly-flop with the cold gas thruster attitude control system?  It might not even need the braking burn, and they may have determined this on  the SES-8 and Thiacom launches, but they could add it if needed.  (Salt water immersion and barge recovery issues are acknowledged, but these were in the original plan.)   

There is a lot to be said for breaking things into small units.  There should be market for $3-5M launches of one ton payloads to the orbit of choice.  There should be several sources of funding for $10-12M missions.

[ChrisWilson68]

The evidence suggests the market for a one ton payload at $3-5 million is far too small to make it worth anyone's effort to bother.

[Jcc]

I think the main reason why they will not do Falcon 1 again is they don't need the distraction. They have enough to focus on with F9, FH, Dragon cargo, Dragon crew, Raptor and MCT. They can't just spin off an independent division to do Falcon 1, because any failure of it would reflect badly on the company, so Elon and Gwynne will still need to pay attention to every flight and they can't afford for their attention to be diverted. It's not worth it.

[dglow]

Agree. Does an F1, flown now, get SpaceX closer to Mars? It could be argued I'm sure.
But compared to a FH? Ah... right. I think there's little question which is priority for them.

[Lourens]

Well, it seems that Virgin Galactic thinks that there's a market for small payloads. They're thinking 500 lbs/225 kg to LEO for 10 million...

[Danderman]

For a Falcon 1 class launcher to be economically viable, an investor would want to see a significant number of 1000 lb payloads to be available. These could be single units, or aggregates of smaller payloads.

Dnepr barely gets by today, I am not sure how another launcher could survive in this market.

HOWEVER, there is no reason why someone could not license Falcon 1, and operate the launcher under contract with SpaceX.

[Avron]

Falcon 1 launcher does not get anyone to Mars quicker, thus Spacex will not return to that program. Its just not in line with the aim of the company, and would just be a detraction from the core direction.

[Danderman]

Falcon 1 launcher does not get anyone to Mars quicker, thus Spacex will not return to that program. Its just not in line with the aim of the company, and would just be a detraction from the core direction.

My assertion is that another company could operate Falcon 1 under license from SpaceX  and therefore not impact the focus of SpaceX on Mars.  The issue is more profitability than anything else.

IMHO, a Falcon 1E using "used" Merlins could easily be operated by a company at the Cape or elsewhere.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

IMHO, a Falcon 1E using "used" Merlins could easily be operated by a company at the Cape or elsewhere.

What "used Merlins"?

[Danderman]

IMHO, a Falcon 1E using "used" Merlins could easily be operated by a company at the Cape or elsewhere.

What "used Merlins"?

In the event that SpaceX manages to recover first stages from Falcon 9s, there may be customers who specify that their launches only utilize brand new engines. In that case, SpaceX may build up an inventory of Merlins that have been used in prior launches. One way to use up that inventory would be in "selling" the engines to an outside operator of Falcon 1s.

If all the SpaceX fan bois here simply pooled their resources, they could probably form a company to launch Falcon 1s.

[RonM]

If the F9R can deliver many times the payload of the F1 for only $7 million, who needs the F1?

SpaceX is not going to build more F1s.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

If all the SpaceX fan bois here simply pooled their resources, they could probably form a company to launch Falcon 1s.

Haha that would be something to see!

I still don't think SpaceX would be interested in selling their engines...

[Comga]

If the F9R can deliver many times the payload of the F1 for only $7 million, who needs the F1?

Asked and answered.

SpaceX is not going to build more F1s.

Probably not but you don't know that and it's not the point. 
They are busy.  F1 doesn't get them closer to Mars.  There is no demonstrated market for small payloads. Yada yada yada.

There are advantages to "fractioning" launches, offering selected orbits on customers' schedules, even at half the price for one fifth the payload.
There was no demonstrated market for $3000 computers that didn't conform to the DEC or IBM 360 standards.
SpaceX has demonstrated the technology to make their original recovery plan successful.
Just saying...

[R7]

There is no demonstrated market for small payloads. Yada yada yada.

VG, S-3, Firefly spacesystems et al didn't get the memo?

[Lurker Steve]

If the F9R can deliver many times the payload of the F1 for only $7 million, who needs the F1?

SpaceX is not going to build more F1s.

Has SpaceX quoted anyone a launch price of $7 million for a F9 ? I mean anyone that didn't have a F1 launch contract that got moved to the F9.

Launching payloads for $7 million on a F9 does not get Elon Musk closer to Mars, since the profit margin on those launches does not contribute enough to the required funding levels needed for Mars missions. Unless you are talking about launching for $7 million SpaceX cost, instead of customer cost, that is not on the path to Mars.

[Danderman]

Since we are not privy to internal SpaceX decision-making, any speculation as to why there are not F1s anymore is just that, speculation. Stating any of these reasons with any certainty is not helpful.

Given that there are no demonstrated success stories for sub 1000 kg launchers, citing a bunch of planned projects is not too useful, either, unless customer contracts are also cited.

I am not sure why F1s don't exist, but there is a possibility that the reason is not related to markets, or Mars, or anything other than Elon is busy with bigger projects.

IMHO, there may be an opening for someone to try to license the technology and make some $$ flying F1s. Or not. Only one way to find out.

[Lar]

If all the SpaceX fan bois here simply pooled their resources, they could probably form a company to launch Falcon 1s.

Sure, but why would we want to? Doesn't get us any closer to Mars...

[Danderman]

 

If all the SpaceX fan bois here simply pooled their resources, they could probably form a company to launch Falcon 1s.

Sure, but why would we want to? Doesn't get us any closer to Mars...

Not every one lives and breathes to colonize Mars.

Some people like to make money, other people might believe that there is an underserved market for this class of launcher.

Besides, it might be possible that Falcon 1 could get you closer to Mars. 

I am beginning to come around to the idea that there may be a way to fly Falcon 1 class LVs for fun and profit, as long as SpaceX were open to some sort of joint venture, and the venture absolutely was bound to stick with existing tooling and hardware, and didn't try developing a new system.

[Lar]

Not every one lives and breathes to colonize Mars.

You said SpaceX amazing peoples.

Some people like to make money, other people might believe that there is an underserved market for this class of launcher.

Besides, it might be possible that Falcon 1 could get you closer to Mars. 

I am beginning to come around to the idea that there may be a way to fly Falcon 1 class LVs for fun and profit, as long as SpaceX were open to some sort of joint venture, and the venture absolutely was bound to stick with existing tooling and hardware, and didn't try developing a new system.

I think the only way SpaceX would go for it would be if it took little or no additional effort on their part, that all they had to do was sell parts and license designs and get lots of money in exchange. But if it started getting to the point where it took SpaceX engineers out of their normal tasks to debug things or the like it's less attractive.

Thing is, they are (likely) not going to restart the 1C line and if they dust off the design for the Falcon 1, it uses 1Cs... So some engineering is needed to fit the 1D. Who is going to do it?

The incremental dollars don't seem large to me compared to what SpaceX are chasing.

[Danderman]

Assertions are not useful in program management.  We don't know what SpaceX wants to do.

However, some of the above assertions are based on technical issues, and listing the technical issues would be a useful exercise. Launch site issues would not be a trivial problem.

And yes, used Merlins would probably be 1-D variants, and maybe too powerful even for Falcon 1E.

[MP99]

SpaceX has demonstrated the technology to make their original recovery plan successful.
Just saying...

If/when SpaceX demonstrates recovery/landing of F9US, ISTM that could form the technical basis of an F1D-r first stage. M1D instead of M1Dvac, F9US avionics & SD landing hardware, plus tankage derived from F9 but maybe shorter/fatter.

Instead of a kestrel-based upper stage, perhaps something based on a vac-optimised/scaled-down version of the Super Draco, IE pressure fed hypergolics. Hypergolic u/s worked OK for Delta II, and it looks to me like that was ~6t prop for many times the payload of an F1D-r.  Perhaps not worth recovering.

Payload would be well under 1T, I suspect.

cheers, Martin

PS wondering if there will ever come a time in SpaceX where this could be built as a parts-bin project, maybe by a group of interns or similar? (Yeah, I know - too busy / no spare time.)

[SpacexULA]

There are LOTS of issues with restarting Falcon 1.

The only Falcon 1 first stages that where ever flown where the stages scaled for the Merlin 1A.  They never went forward with the tank stretch to take full advantage of the Merlin 1C which flew on the final 3 flights.  Now SpaceX is only producing a higher thrust, cheaper to produce Merlin 1D.  So the flight proven Falcon 1 first stage would not be used, and the proposed and sold Falcon 1e would also not be used, they would need an even further stretched first stage to accommodate the Merlin 1D's thirst.

The Kestrel 2nd stage engine, which has not flown since 2009, was originally going to be the base engine for both the Falcon 1, 5, and 9.  So a completely new production line would need to be restarted, or more likely a whole new engine developed with lessons learned in the last 5 years for the 2nd stage of the vehicle.

A restart of Falcon 1 seems to be an idea with almost all downsides.  It would have very little commonality with the original Falcon 1 or the current Falcon 1.1/R family for a launch vehicle that would eat Falcon 1.1/R and Heavy's secondary payload market, and cause significant outlays in development, production, and pad infrastructure.

[Danderman]

There are LOTS of issues with restarting Falcon 1.

The only Falcon 1 first stages that where ever flown where the stages scaled for the Merlin 1A.  They never went forward with the tank stretch to take full advantage of the Merlin 1C which flew on the final 3 flights.  Now SpaceX is only producing a higher thrust, cheaper to produce Merlin 1D.  So the flight proven Falcon 1 first stage would not be used, and the proposed and sold Falcon 1e would also not be used, they would need an even further stretched first stage to accommodate the Merlin 1D's thirst.

The Kestrel 2nd stage engine, which has not flown since 2009, was originally going to be the base engine for both the Falcon 1, 5, and 9.  So a completely new production line would need to be restarted, or more likely a whole new engine developed with lessons learned in the last 5 years for the 2nd stage of the vehicle.

A restart of Falcon 1 seems to be an idea with almost all downsides.  It would have very little commonality with the original Falcon 1 or the current Falcon 1.1/R family for a launch vehicle that would eat Falcon 1.1/R and Heavy's secondary payload market, and cause significant outlays in development, production, and pad infrastructure.

Let me translate the above from random assertions into technical requirements:


Stage 1 tankage would have to be lengthened. Alternative approaches to accommodating Merlin 1-D should also be considered.

Completed Kestrel engines will be identified, and Kestel production would have to be re-started. Any previous development effort towards Kestrel 2 should be considered.

[cuddihy]

Alternatively, a F1 payload sized  vehicle could probably be fabricated from a F9R first stage, and a smaller upper stage. Perhaps that will be the payload capacity of the first F9R with reusable upper stage.

[rst]

Let me translate the above from random assertions into technical requirements:


Stage 1 tankage would have to be lengthened. Alternative approaches to accommodating Merlin 1-D should also be considered.

Completed Kestrel engines will be identified, and Kestel production would have to be re-started. Any previous development effort towards Kestrel 2 should be considered.

Also, as SpaceXULA noted, pad infrastructure costs.  Supporting both F9 and FH is already causing pad refit headaches; tossing a third vehicle in the mix at their currently active launch sites is not likely to make that easier.  The prior F1 launch facilities would also require substantial refit (of whatever there is still salvageable!).  And while it probably wouldn't make a difference to SpaceX if there were a compelling business case, I doubt anyone there is yearning for another trip out to scenic Kwaj...

[go4mars]

Launching payloads for $7 million on a F9 does not get Elon Musk closer to Mars, since the profit margin on those launches does not contribute enough to the required funding levels needed for Mars missions.

Unless your assumption is something along the lines of $5M cost for a $7M price = $2M "profit for re-investment" per launch but 5000 launches/year.     That's a lot of $ to channel into the Mars program.  And it could inspire many to become investors/bequeathers.           

Canada alone has ~1 million millionaires.      http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/list_of_canadian_billionaires_has_grown_more_than_30_per_cent_since_2010_report_finds.html 

http://www.businessinsider.com/where-the-worlds-millionaires-will-live-in-2018-2013-10

If even a very very small fraction of the world's millionaires wanted to go orbit Earth (for ~$1 million per ticket), It's not implausible to imagine significant untapped demand.  It might become an insouciant pass-time for some.

[A_M_Swallow]

How much can the Falcon 1 launch as a sounding rocket?  There are still a few of those being launched.

edit:grammar

[Danderman]

Perhaps some city/county/state might want to invest in a new launch facility to support Falcon 1X.

Same with manufacturing. There may be some municipalities that would support an assembly facility. Perhaps the major components for a launcher could be manufactured by SpaceX using existing tooling and lines, but the final assembly could be conducted elsewhere.

Here is a thought: what if a Falcon 1 class launcher could send ~ 200 kg to interplanetary space? Would be there a market for 200 kg space probes to the Moon, Mars, or NEOs?

[Comga]

Perhaps some city/county/state might want to invest in a new launch facility to support Falcon 1X.

Same with manufacturing. There may be some municipalities that would support an assembly facility. Perhaps the major components for a launcher could be manufactured by SpaceX using existing tooling and lines, but the final assembly could be conducted elsewhere.

Here is a thought: what if a Falcon 1 class launcher could send ~ 200 kg to interplanetary space? Would be there a market for 200 kg space probes to the Moon, Mars, or NEOs?

If we are debating the existance of a market, we are not anticipating a huge number of launches. 
Therefore, the idea of a dedicated new launch facility is unreasonable.

There are many established launch facilities that could support the launch of a Falcon 1 much better than Omlek island.  (That is satisfied by just having electric power! )  Wallops, Kodiak, Alaska, and Kauai come to mind.  Even Vandenberg, the site of the original Falcon 1 launch pad.

The issue of a market if the source of demand.  Many productive small satellites have been built for communications and imaging.  There are markets for these products.  There are no markets for the products of interplanetary missions.  (Governments that launch interplanetary missions do not do so for market reasons.  Nor do they "shop the market" for the lowest price launch.)

[Danderman]

There is a launch facility at Kauai?

How do I get a job there?

Anyway, this thread has some resources for pricing for launches of smallsats as secondaries:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33926.0

Bottom line is: $7 million for 300 kg as a secondary.

I suspect that there is a sweet spot for ~ 1,000 kg as a primary somewhere under $15 million a pop.

The other issue is that some flight opportunities for secondaries do not have very gentle rides. It does you no good if you get to orbit, but your satellite has been shaken and stirred along the way.

[Comga]

There is a launch facility at Kauai?

How do I get a job there?

Anyway, this thread has some resources for pricing for launches of smallsats as secondaries:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33926.0

Bottom line is: $7 million for 300 kg as a secondary.

I suspect that there is a sweet spot for ~ 1,000 kg as a primary somewhere under $15 million a pop.

There is a facility for launching sounding rockets on Kauai. 
 
You want to work there?  Pull together the financing and team to build Falcon 1 rockets.

$15M is >2X the $7M Ms. Shotwell has stated as a goal for Falcon 9R.  Any market for a hypothetical Falcon 1 has to be some fraction of this $7M.

[Danderman]

$15M is >2X the $7M Ms. Shotwell has stated as a goal for Falcon 9R.  Any market for a hypothetical Falcon 1 has to be some fraction of this $7M.

Putting on my business hat, I should note that the $9 million per flight for Falcon 9R is a goal, not a reality.

Nobody's pricing today or their plans are impacted by what is effectively "FUD" at this time.

Besides, if recovery for Falcon 9 becomes real and effective, then the same would be true for a launcher that is 10% of the size of Falcon 9, based on the same hardware, and we might be talking about $1 million per launch.

[Danderman]

There is a facility for launching sounding rockets on Kauai. 
 
You want to work there?  Pull together the financing and team to build Falcon 1 rockets.

http://www.sandia.gov/locations/kauai_test_facility.html

[Comga]

(snip)
Besides, if recovery for Falcon 9 becomes real and effective, then the same would be true for a launcher that is 10% of the size of Falcon 9, based on the same hardware, and we might be talking about $1 million per launch.

No, it won't.
The Falcon 9 recovery method is dependent on having nine engines.  That way the rocket can throttle down to below 8% of lift-off thrust.
A Falcon 1 would need another recovery method which won't be proven even if the Falcon 9 recovery and reuse is accomplished.
My argument above is that SpaceX has now proven how to make the original water landing recovery plan work.  There remain many issues to be solved for reuse.

[Danderman]

(snip)
Besides, if recovery for Falcon 9 becomes real and effective, then the same would be true for a launcher that is 10% of the size of Falcon 9, based on the same hardware, and we might be talking about $1 million per launch.

No, it won't.
The Falcon 9 recovery method is dependent on having nine engines.  That way the rocket can throttle down to below 8% of lift-off thrust.
A Falcon 1 would need another recovery method which won't be proven even if the Falcon 9 recovery and reuse is accomplished.
My argument above is that SpaceX has now proven how to make the original water landing recovery plan work.  There remain many issues to be solved for reuse.

Yeah, there is no way that a Falcon variant could hover or land on one Merlin.

 

Edit:  unfortunately, the internet is not able to convey sarcasm very well, but my sentence above is dripping in it.

[Danderman]

Forgetting for a moment exactly how Falcon 1 could send 200 kg to Mars, is there anything useful that could be done at Mars with a payload of that size?

For reference, 200 kg is about the mass of Mariner 4, IIRC.  By today's standards, Mariner 4 didn't have very much in the way of capability, but with today's technology, I suspect a much more capable system could be flown for that much mass.

[R7]

Forgetting for a moment exactly how Falcon 1 could send 200 kg to Mars, is there anything useful that could be done at Mars with a payload of that size?

Sojourner was only 16kg, perhaps a lander to go with it could be shrunken under 200kg?

[A_M_Swallow]

Forgetting for a moment exactly how Falcon 1 could send 200 kg to Mars, is there anything useful that could be done at Mars with a payload of that size?

For reference, 200 kg is about the mass of Mariner 4, IIRC.  By today's standards, Mariner 4 didn't have very much in the way of capability, but with today's technology, I suspect a much more capable system could be flown for that much mass.

Sending 200 kg of food or a replacement part to Mars may be useful.


207 kg is the mass of NASA's prototype Mighty Eagle lander.  Although propellant and payload would also be needed.

[Danderman]

Concerning markets, I am fairly confident that a Magic Falcon 1 that could send 200 kg to interplanetary space would be viable, as there really isn't another LV in that class (except maybe Minotaur V).  NASA does have a Small Explorer program AFAIK, but more to the point, the existence of a commercial 200 kg LV for exploration might provoke NASA to engage in a "mini-Discovery" program to explore NEOS and other near space targets that are not economically viable using current launchers.

Along those lines, in order for a revived Falcon 1 to not be a "me too" launch vehicle that merely duplicates competitive systems (even if at a lower price point), I would imagine that a launch capability of more than 1000 kg to LEO would be useful, maybe even 1500 kg to 200 km 28.5 degrees.

I am sure that there is a market for a LV that can orbit Proteus-class payloads for well under $15 million.

[Danderman]

I also think there may be a market for Falcon 1X to orbit that small space capsule that is the subject of another thread, if SpaceX could squeeze 1500 kg payload out of a single Merlin launch vehicle.

[Comga]

Forgetting for a moment exactly how Falcon 1 could send 200 kg to Mars, is there anything useful that could be done at Mars with a payload of that size?

For reference, 200 kg is about the mass of Mariner 4, IIRC.  By today's standards, Mariner 4 didn't have very much in the way of capability, but with today's technology, I suspect a much more capable system could be flown for that much mass.

There was once upon a time a program for Mars Micromissions.  It used an extremely oddly shaped spacecraft that would mount to an ASAP ring.  Serious science was the goal.  I don't know if it was as light as 200 kg, but it was of that magnitude.

PS
[sarcasm]Sarcasm is SO hard to express in a post.[/sarcasm]
Not
 

Edit: From JPL

The Mars Micromission Project is planning to launch a series of a small 220-kilogram (485-pound) low-cost spacecraft to Mars as piggyback payloads on the French Ariane 5 rocket when it launches commercial communication satellites into an Earth-based geosynchronous transfer orbit. From Earth orbit, the Mars Micromission spacecraft will use on-board propulsion and an innovative trajectory involving Lunar and Earth flybys to send the spacecraft on the proper trajectory to Mars. The launch services will be provided through the NASA partnership with the French space agency, Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), at no cost to NASA. Launch of the first Mars Micromission spacecraft is planned for spring of 2003 from the Ariane launch facilities in Kourou, French Guiana.

[go4mars]

Forgetting for a moment exactly how Falcon 1 could send 200 kg to Mars, is there anything useful that could be done at Mars with a payload of that size?

For reference, 200 kg is about the mass of Mariner 4, IIRC.  By today's standards, Mariner 4 didn't have very much in the way of capability, but with today's technology, I suspect a much more capable system could be flown for that much mass.

There was once upon a time a program for Mars Micromissions.  It used an extremely oddly shaped spacecraft that would mount to an ASAP ring.  Serious science was the goal.  I don't know if it was as light as 200 kg, but it was of that magnitude.

PS
[sarcasm]Sarcasm is SO hard to express in a post.[/sarcasm]
Not
 

Edit: From JPL

The Mars Micromission Project is planning to launch a series of a small 220-kilogram (485-pound) low-cost spacecraft to Mars as piggyback payloads on the French Ariane 5 rocket when it launches commercial communication satellites into an Earth-based geosynchronous transfer orbit. From Earth orbit, the Mars Micromission spacecraft will use on-board propulsion and an innovative trajectory involving Lunar and Earth flybys to send the spacecraft on the proper trajectory to Mars. The launch services will be provided through the NASA partnership with the French space agency, Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), at no cost to NASA. Launch of the first Mars Micromission spacecraft is planned for spring of 2003 from the Ariane launch facilities in Kourou, French Guiana.

I wasn't expecting to find this thread interesting, but I must admit, I've never seen this before, and it is interesting! 

If anyone has pictures of the configuration, or some added insight on the lunar and earth flyby trajectory, it would be appreciated!

[Danderman]

Flying payloads to Mars as a secondary is a recipe for nothing to actually happen.

Again, I believe that there would be a market for a launcher that could send a 200 kg to Mars as a primary payload, and for a launcher that could send 1000 kg or so to SSO.

I think Elon missed something here.

So, let me ask a related question: what would it cost to set up a launch site for Falcon 1, assuming that an existing range was the site for the launcher? How difficult would it be to revive the launch license for Falcon 1?

[Lars_J]

Again, I believe that there would be a market for a launcher that could send a 200 kg to Mars as a primary payload, and for a launcher that could send 1000 kg or so to SSO.

I think Elon missed something here.

So, let me ask a related question: what would it cost to set up a launch site for Falcon 1, assuming that an existing range was the site for the launcher? How difficult would it be to revive the launch license for Falcon 1?

Sure. Elon has "missed something here", even though he could build Falcon 1's at will, since he has the components and capability in-house.

But you see something he doesn't?

I don't think a 200kg payload to Mars is practical for anyone. This is not a LEO nanosat which has ample communication ability at low power levels, and orbiting in a relatively gentle thermal environment. A lot more has to go into an interplanetary payload, unless you are just interested in chucking inert mass out there.

[Danderman]

I don't think a 200kg payload to Mars is practical for anyone. This is not a nanosat in LEO which has ample communication ability at low power levels, and orbiting in the gentle thermal environment of LEO. A lot more has to go into an interplanetary payload, unless you are just interested in chucking inert mass out there.

Mariner IV had a mass about 200 kg, so life itself is arguing against you.

With modern technology, 200 kg to Mars could be much more effective than probes from 50 years ago. The main issue is power, but modern solar panels are much more efficient than Mariner IV's panels, so more power would be on hand for mission use.

[Danderman]

Sure. Elon has "missed something here", even though he could build Falcon 1's at will, since he has the components and capability in-house.

But you see something he doesn't?

I think Elon is far too busy to even think about Falcon 1 level operations.

Even if 10s of millions of dollars could be generated from flying Falcon 1 class launchers, over time, it is not worth his time to figure any of this out.

But, if someone were to propose that they would do it, and give Elon a share of the $$ in exchange for IP, it might be worth a couple of hours of thinking it over, maybe.

[llanitedave]

I think Elon is far too busy to even think about Falcon 1 level operations.

And that's the key.  What good would Falcon 1 do him or SpaceX if it's a distraction from the big projects they're taking on now?  In 2006, it was a good project for a foot in the door, and possibly a sustainer if business didn't increase rapidly.  But events since have left Falcon 1 behind, and it's no longer a good fit for what SpaceX wants to do.

[mme]

And that's the key.  What good would Falcon 1 do him or SpaceX if it's a distraction from the big projects they're taking on now?  In 2006, it was a good project for a foot in the door, and possibly a sustainer if business didn't increase rapidly.  But events since have left Falcon 1 behind, and it's no longer a good fit for what SpaceX wants to do.

Exactly. Elon Musk in 2008 said, "Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one."

They got what they wanted from the F1, they are over it.

[Comga]

And that's the key.  What good would Falcon 1 do him or SpaceX if it's a distraction from the big projects they're taking on now?  In 2006, it was a good project for a foot in the door, and possibly a sustainer if business didn't increase rapidly.  But events since have left Falcon 1 behind, and it's no longer a good fit for what SpaceX wants to do.

Exactly. Elon Musk in 2008 said, "Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one."

They got what they wanted from the F1, they are over it.

And that brings us back to the OP.


The question wasn't whether or not SpaceX should build the Falcon 1 or 1e.  Everyone is pretty well agreed that they won't.


It wasn't a question of the cost of setting up at an existing launch facility.  Rebuilding Omelek at Wallops doesn't seem that big a deal.  (I always thought SpaceX should have started there instead of the middle of the Pacific, but SpaceX got burned at Vandenburg, so they may have valued remoteness.)



The question WAS if there was a market for it, perhaps a market sufficient to sustain another entity building F1s with licensed technology or purchased engines, avionics, etc. 



We have a few points of data.
Spaceflight Services wants to charge ~5M for a few hundred kg do essentially random low Earth orbits.
Mariner IV was 200 kg and JPL once made some progress with 200 kg Mars Micromissions, but never got them flown.


From there we all wrote our posts.
Apparently none of the arguments was sufficiently convincing that someone had to write a business plan and raise the money to pursue it.  So be it.   

[Danderman]

I don't have a good feel for what it would cost to develop a launch site for Falcon 1 class vehicles, that is the great unknown at this point.

[Danderman]

It wasn't a question of the cost of setting up at an existing launch facility.  Rebuilding Omelek at Wallops doesn't seem that big a deal.  (I always thought SpaceX should have started there instead of the middle of the Pacific, but SpaceX got burned at Vandenburg, so they may have valued remoteness.)

AFAIK, launch from Wallops is problematic for 98 degree SSO.

And that may be the key market for Falcon 1 class vehicles.

[Danderman]

We have a few points of data.
Spaceflight Services wants to charge ~5M for a few hundred kg do essentially random low Earth orbits.
Mariner IV was 200 kg and JPL once made some progress with 200 kg Mars Micromissions, but never got them flown.

and Richard Branson is investing in Launcher One, which would orbit less than Falcon 1 and cost more. The brain trust here clearly seems to think that Branson doesn't know markets or costs.

[Comga]

It wasn't a question of the cost of setting up at an existing launch facility.  Rebuilding Omelek at Wallops doesn't seem that big a deal.  (I always thought SpaceX should have started there instead of the middle of the Pacific, but SpaceX got burned at Vandenburg, so they may have valued remoteness.)

AFAIK, launch from Wallops is problematic for 98 degree SSO.
And that may be the key market for Falcon 1 class vehicles.

And one can't launch to less than 37.85° inclination orbits, but it's a convenient place for rocket development which was one of their goals.  Now SpaceX claims it was their only reason. 

We have a few points of data.
Spaceflight Services wants to charge ~5M for a few hundred kg do essentially random low Earth orbits.
Mariner IV was 200 kg and JPL once made some progress with 200 kg Mars Micromissions, but never got them flown.

and Richard Branson is investing in Launcher One, which would orbit less than Falcon 1 and cost more. The brain trust here clearly seems to think that Branson doesn't know markets or costs.

Obviously a better businessman than any of us here says he knows the answer to the OP is positive.

Personally the idea of making money on Launcher One is even harder to understand than for Falcon 1, but what do I know about big business?

[Danderman]

Obviously a better businessman than any of us here says he knows the answer to the OP is positive.

Personally the idea of making money on Launcher One is even harder to understand than for Falcon 1, but what do I know about big business?

Let me try it this way:

As a thought experiment, IF Falcon 1 could launch payloads to LEO for $1 million, would there be a market for it?

If so, at what price point does the market evaporate?

Can Falcon 1 class launchers make a profit at a price point where there is a market?

My feeling is that the answer is yes, but I don't have a handle on the DDT&E to develop a launch site.

[baldusi]

We have a few points of data.
Spaceflight Services wants to charge ~5M for a few hundred kg do essentially random low Earth orbits.
Mariner IV was 200 kg and JPL once made some progress with 200 kg Mars Micromissions, but never got them flown.

and Richard Branson is investing in Launcher One, which would orbit less than Falcon 1 and cost more. The brain trust here clearly seems to think that Branson doesn't know markets or costs.

Or has found a way to have extremely low overhead cost and can keep the business with just one flight per year. And they needed that development for SpacePlaneThree.

[RocketmanUS]

For a business case there first would need to be customers signed up for a given amount of flights.

Stratolaunch with a 1st stage Raptor ( air launch design ~611,000 lb at start up ) with a modified F9 v1.1 2nd stage. Mass of payload to LEO should be around 4,500 kg.

Advantage of air launch:
1 ) Near anytime launch
2 ) Launch point were need to for payload
3 ) Work around weather , air traffic and sea
4 ) Air plane ready next day for next launch
5 ) Ect.

Price may be more per mass to orbit,  however customer would not have to wait for a shared ride, launch when they need to.

F1 compared to a Raptor air launch.
More mass to LEO means more potential customers.
Should not cost to much more, both have single 1st stage engines.
F1 might be to small mass to orbit for amount of possible customers. Would have fixed launch site.
2nd stage being from F9 v1.1 could possible be reusable for possible cost savings.
More GTO launches with Raptor.

Main point would need customers first with down payment.

[Wigles]

So the question of launch pad development costs has come up a bit. What examples of recently developed pads/facilities are there and what were the costs?
Is there a projected cost for the new SpaceX commercial pad?

[Danderman]

So the question of launch pad development costs has come up a bit. What examples of recently developed pads/facilities are there and what were the costs?
Is there a projected cost for the new SpaceX commercial pad?

On launch pad/facility costs, I got nuttin.

There was a very pleasant message earlier in the thread about an existing facility on the island of Kauai, near the dinosaurs, but it does not seem to support liquid fueled boosters.

[Wigles]

So the question of launch pad development costs has come up a bit. What examples of recently developed pads/facilities are there and what were the costs?
Is there a projected cost for the new SpaceX commercial pad?

On launch pad/facility costs, I got nuttin.

There was a very pleasant message earlier in the thread about an existing facility on the island of Kauai, near the dinosaurs, but it does not seem to support liquid fueled boosters.

I saw that, but I was looking at full greenfield development costs, similar to the new commercial pad proposal.

Also, based on some rough modelling it seems a Falcon1 derived rocket with a Merlin 1D first stage and a second stage with roughly 18-20,000lbf thrust shuld be able to lift 1,700kg to 200km LEO or 1,000 to 700km SSO.

What powers the second stage is an issue, at this stage I have been working off either 2x evolved Kestrels or a Chase-10.

[ChrisWilson68]

and Richard Branson is investing in Launcher One, which would orbit less than Falcon 1 and cost more. The brain trust here clearly seems to think that Branson doesn't know markets or costs.

Obviously a better businessman than any of us here says he knows the answer to the OP is positive.

There are also thousands of others who could raise the funds to go into this market but who have not.  So only a tiny fraction of those people think this is a good market to go into.

Branson is quirky, to say the least, and relishes the image of quirkiness.  The amount he's spending on Launcher One is small compared to the size of his business empire.  He could well be doing it more as a vanity project than an attempt to make money, or as a branding investment -- good publicity for the Virgin brand, even if it loses money as a launch business.

[guckyfan]

I was looking at full greenfield development costs, similar to the new commercial pad proposal.

Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which has nearly 50 launches on its manifest representing about $5 billion in contracts, plans to invest $73,650,000 in the Boca Chica project.

http://www.valleymorningstar.com/coastal_current/news/article_0875e53a-771a-11e3-9975-0019bb30f31a.html

So that would be for a Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy pad.

[Danderman]

There are also thousands of others who could raise the funds to go into this market but who have not.  So only a tiny fraction of those people think this is a good market to go into.

Developing a new launcher from scratch plus developing a new launch pad is indeed a business that few would want to go into. Starting with a more or less existing launcher is a rather novel approach, although this has been done in the past, with some success.

[Danderman]

Here is a question for the naysayers here:

If there is clearly market for a Falcon 9, but not a market for a vehicle at 10% the size and cost of Falcon 9, at what scale would there be a market?  Is there a market for 3/4 of a Falcon 9 at 3/4 the price?

Is there a market for 20% of a Falcon 9 at 20% of the cost?

Or is your position that there is only a market for 100% of a Falcon 9 at 100% of the cost?

In case you were wondering what I am going with this, I am coming around to the idea that there might indeed be a market for a "rebooted" Falcon 1 (like in TV or movies, a reboot does not mean that the original would be duplicated).

[Owlon]

Here is a question for the naysayers here:

If there is clearly market for a Falcon 9, but not a market for a vehicle at 10% the size and cost of Falcon 9, at what scale would there be a market?  Is there a market for 3/4 of a Falcon 9 at 3/4 the price?

Is there a market for 20% of a Falcon 9 at 20% of the cost?

Or is your position that there is only a market for 100% of a Falcon 9 at 100% of the cost?

In case you were wondering what I am going with this, I am coming around to the idea that there might indeed be a market for a "rebooted" Falcon 1 (like in TV or movies, a reboot does not mean that the original would be duplicated).

Falcon 9 is actually undersized for a lot of the commercial market. Many large GEO satellites cannot be launched by F9, and need FH capability. That isn't to say there's no market below F9 payload class, though.

[Patchouli]

I don't think a 200kg payload to Mars is practical for anyone. This is not a nanosat in LEO which has ample communication ability at low power levels, and orbiting in the gentle thermal environment of LEO. A lot more has to go into an interplanetary payload, unless you are just interested in chucking inert mass out there.

Mariner IV had a mass about 200 kg, so life itself is arguing against you.

With modern technology, 200 kg to Mars could be much more effective than probes from 50 years ago. The main issue is power, but modern solar panels are much more efficient than Mariner IV's panels, so more power would be on hand for mission use.

Agreed a small science mission can actually be fairly capable these days and be used for missions that might be too risky for a large one.

Deep Space 1 was only 486 kg and was a very capable vehicle.
A more modern variant could be lighter.

Technically if the ion engine was used for part of the escape burn a Falcon 1e class LV could launch it.

In these days of budget short falls a small space probe is better then no mission at all.

For Mars colonization plans launching a large number of small landers to scout out resources would be nice to have.

Though you also could launch a lot of them together on one big rocket.

[simonbp]

Deep Space 1 was only 486 kg and was a very capable vehicle.
A more modern variant could be lighter.

I've heard people who worked on the mission call it Deep Sh!t 1, so many things went wrong with it.

Not to say you can't do low-mass science missions, but a JPL technical demonstrator is not necessarily the best example. NEAR-Shoemaker is probably a better example of a small-but-capable 90s spacecraft.

[baldusi]

Here is a question for the naysayers here:

If there is clearly market for a Falcon 9, but not a market for a vehicle at 10% the size and cost of Falcon 9, at what scale would there be a market?  Is there a market for 3/4 of a Falcon 9 at 3/4 the price?

Is there a market for 20% of a Falcon 9 at 20% of the cost?

Or is your position that there is only a market for 100% of a Falcon 9 at 100% of the cost?

In case you were wondering what I am going with this, I am coming around to the idea that there might indeed be a market for a "rebooted" Falcon 1 (like in TV or movies, a reboot does not mean that the original would be duplicated).

I'm not exactly a naysayers, but I'm a skeptical. You can't say if there's a market for a certain size. A market include demand and supply. You're assuming no scale economies in rockets. Thus, if Falcon 9 is ~4,700USD/kg to LEO, I'm pretty sure that a 47,000USD, 10kg launcher would be in great demand. Yet, a single cubesat on a rideshare is around 100,000.
We know that Pegasus is barely making it, and only because it's already developed. Athena Ic has yet to find an actual customer. Dnpr is making 2launches/year, but at a higher pricepoint and using legacy hardware.
Now, if SpaceX could use a new T/E and use the same infrastructure as F9, with a smaller hangar so as to not take much time out of F9. And use the same Merlin 1D as F9, with a 3D printed Kestrel 2, same avionics, same everything. Even in that case, things like range support and telemetry (which are almost a fixed amount) will increase your cost per kilogram. But more importantly, it would seem that the only company that could actually pull it of, is SpaceX (because of the Merlin 1D, principally). And they have chosen to bet that segment to full reusability.

[dror]

(snip)
Besides, if recovery for Falcon 9 becomes real and effective, then the same would be true for a launcher that is 10% of the size of Falcon 9, based on the same hardware, and we might be talking about $1 million per launch.

No, it won't.
The Falcon 9 recovery method is dependent on having nine engines.  That way the rocket can throttle down to below 8% of lift-off thrust.
A Falcon 1 would need another recovery method which won't be proven even if the Falcon 9 recovery and reuse is accomplished.
My argument above is that SpaceX has now proven how to make the original water landing recovery plan work.  There remain many issues to be solved for reuse.

so,
It seems possible, by these arguments, to achive a first stage reusability by splashdown.
If so, what could be the target price?

[Robotbeat]

Deep Space 1 was only 486 kg and was a very capable vehicle.
A more modern variant could be lighter.

I've heard people who worked on the mission call it Deep Sh!t 1, so many things went wrong with it.

Not to say you can't do low-mass science missions, but a JPL technical demonstrator is not necessarily the best example. NEAR-Shoemaker is probably a better example of a small-but-capable 90s spacecraft.

Right, but Deep Space 1 was only supposed to be a technical demonstrator, not actually do science (which it did anyway).

[Danderman]

We know that Pegasus is barely making it, and only because it's already developed. Athena Ic has yet to find an actual customer. Dnpr is making 2launches/year, but at a higher pricepoint and using legacy hardware.

Now, if SpaceX could use a new T/E and use the same infrastructure as F9, with a smaller hangar so as to not take much time out of F9. And use the same Merlin 1D as F9, with a 3D printed Kestrel 2, same avionics, same everything. Even in that case, things like range support and telemetry (which are almost a fixed amount) will increase your cost per kilogram. But more importantly, it would seem that the only company that could actually pull it of, is SpaceX (because of the Merlin 1D, principally). And they have chosen to bet that segment to full reusability.

Pegasus is $30 million for 300 lbs, not exactly a good indicator that there is no market for $10 million for 1000 kg or thereabouts.

Dnepr is limited to 2 launches per year, not by markets, but by availability.

Athena 1C may be a better example of a launcher in this class not finding a market, and I will look into that one.

As for the last paragraph, the assertion comes down to: Falcon 1 won't work, because SpaceX isn't doing it right now.

There may be reasons why SpaceX isn't flying Falcon 1 that have nothing to do with economics. Too soon to tell now.

[Comga]

Deep Space 1 was only 486 kg and was a very capable vehicle.
A more modern variant could be lighter.

I've heard people who worked on the mission call it Deep Sh!t 1, so many things went wrong with it.

Nonsense. I know the Chief Engineer and have used some of DS-1's results to design my deep space instruments. It lived beyond its design lifetime, got at a target beyond the mission plan and is totally off topic here.
Plus we don't need any second hand snark on NSF.

[Danderman]

I just remembered that the Start-1 was still being sold, and that seems to be about the same capability as the initial Falcon 1, although I don't know how much those things are going for.

[Danderman]

With Orbital now announcing the Minotaur-C, why is it that Orbital perceives a market for a small launcher, but there is no market for Falcon 1?

[dorkmo]

i think it simply comes down to mars

[Danderman]

i think it simply comes down to mars

F9 isn't getting anyone to Mars, either.

[oiorionsbelt]

i think it simply comes down to mars

F9 isn't getting anyone to Mars, either.

Of course not, which is why they're planning the Raptor BFR. FH will probably send something to Mars.
SpaceX obviously came to the conclusion that F1 simply doesn't help with the stated goal of the company, Mars colonization, which is why it was dropped.
 Why do so many want to keep F1 alive? It was a trainer vehicle. They learned what they wanted from it and have moved on.

[beancounter]

i think it simply comes down to mars

F9 isn't getting anyone to Mars, either.

Of course not, which is why they're planning the Raptor BFR. FH will probably send something to Mars.
SpaceX obviously came to the conclusion that F1 simply doesn't help with the stated goal of the company, Mars colonization, which is why it was dropped.
 Why do so many want to keep F1 alive? It was a trainer vehicle. They learned what they wanted from it and have moved on.

Probably because it seemed to be an economical and effficient small launch vehicle.

[Danderman]

i think it simply comes down to mars

F9 isn't getting anyone to Mars, either.

Of course not, which is why they're planning the Raptor BFR. FH will probably send something to Mars.
SpaceX obviously came to the conclusion that F1 simply doesn't help with the stated goal of the company, Mars colonization, which is why it was dropped.
 Why do so many want to keep F1 alive? It was a trainer vehicle. They learned what they wanted from it and have moved on.

What is suggested here is that the decision to stop flying the F1 was not related to the market.

[R7]

With Orbital now announcing the Minotaur-C, why is it that Orbital perceives a market for a small launcher, but there is no market for Falcon 1?

Because despite developing a larger medium-sized LV Orbital still views mini-sat customers as real customers, not nuisance, and sometimes they also manufacture the payload too?

[a_langwich]

With Orbital now announcing the Minotaur-C, why is it that Orbital perceives a market for a small launcher, but there is no market for Falcon 1?

You might reword that.  "No" market for Falcon 1 is a straw man.  Instead, Orbital chooses to build a launcher for a market that SpaceX declines to address.  Who said SpaceX had to provide a rocket for every possible market segment? 

Orbital has chosen to use a variety of solids, manufactured by another company, to address a wide range of lower end markets.  They continue to support these, even when launches only occur every few years (but since they aren't manufacturing the parts, they don't have much infrastructure to maintain).  In return, they charge a fair premium for these niche launchers (and no doubt ATK also charges a premium for making one motor every few years, too).  The surplus MM and PK motor rockets are cheap, but are limited both in the number available and in the customers allowed to purchase.  This is all great, but not every company wants to work the niches, and the infrequent launches mean costs stay high.  On the other hand, it's a fabulous place to work for someone who wants to design rockets, because they've designed more in the last 20-30 years than any other company I know (of non-paper rockets).

SpaceX has targeted the meat of the commercial launch industry with one rocket, and with that rocket it has gotten enough business to keep them very busy for the next decade.  Enough business that they are buying and building extra launch pads.  They build nearly everything in-house, so it's important to keep their factory, all their facilities, pushing toward capacity.  So they've chosen so far to focus on that rocket, and develop larger ones for their focus toward Mars. 

By simplifying "not enough market to justify a separate manufacturing line" to "no market" you get a straw man you can disprove with a single launch.  But it's oversimplified.  Other possible reasons include "not enough market for us to generate sharply lower prices and still profit, and we aren't interested in selling another rocket at typical prices."  Or "that payload range is uninteresting to us, and we don't need to pursue uninteresting areas when we are maxed out pursuing interesting ones."

Manufacturing startups have to focus.

[Danderman]

Well, this thread IS about the question of whether there is a market for the Falcon 1.

And yes, there really isn't a quantifiable answer, just the issue of whether there is a large enough market for rebooting F1 to result in an IRR greater than 0.

What I find interesting is that the comments come in classes:

There is a market, but F1 doesn't help with Mars, so Elon isn't interested in it anymore.

There is a market, but F1 was just a training system, so no more training is required.

There isn't a market.

There is a market, but trying to get F1 to work with Merlin 1D is so much of a hassle that it doesn't make sense.

What this is telling me is that there is a chance for someone to make some cash IF they can do the following:

Solve the F1/Merlin 1D compatibility issue, and
Convince Elon that F1 supports Mars missions somehow.

[Wigles]

This thread does not assume that Spacex will be constructing or launching the new build Falncon 1, so convincing Elon shouldnt be significant.

There are a number of rockets in is sector, and in this thread I count 3 which have either recently been developed or are soon to be, being Vega, Epsilon, and Minotaur C. Among the already established Rokot and Taurus.

The development and integration costs for fitting 1D to a modificaion to the existing Falcon 1 designs shouldnt cost as much as a whole new rocket build as per Vega and Epsilon. I also estimate that the launch costs should be 50-60% of the current market price in the roughly 1.5t to LEO market.

A 1D powered Falcon 1 derivative with probably 2 kestrel for upper stage (or some other engine) should be able to put 1.8t into a 200km LEO, and roughly 1t into a SSO useful for the expanding earth observation market. It shiuld also be able to throw a couple of hundred kgs to the moon or interplanetary (near earth asteroid exploration & prospecting).

So it can clearly be competitive with the existing rockets, the issue is that the current rockets are typically used for national programs that may not move to a commercial provider.

So is the market for commercial sats in that range big enough?

[a_langwich]

What this is telling me is that there is a chance for someone to make some cash IF they can do the following:

Solve the F1/Merlin 1D compatibility issue, and
Convince Elon that F1 supports Mars missions somehow.

And someone could generate some sales if you could convince Elon that minivans are a good choice for electric vehicle production.  Or pickup trucks.  Tesla must have convinced themselves there is "no market" there.

[Avron]

What this is telling me is that there is a chance for someone to make some cash IF they can do the following:

Solve the F1/Merlin 1D compatibility issue, and
Convince Elon that F1 supports Mars missions somehow.

And someone could generate some sales if you could convince Elon that minivans are a good choice for electric vehicle production.  Or pickup trucks.  Tesla must have convinced themselves there is "no market" there.

Or there are higher priorities. Why not get some IPO together and make Musk et al  an offer, and while you are at it go for sea launch, I think there is a rig available. Neither of there are of the roadmap for spacex, however, they may be part of the roadmap for SpaceZ.

[dror]

There is no point to this discussion if we dont asume reusability for a falcon1. than the topic should have been:
"market for a newly built small LVs."
the falcon 1was orlglnally planed for reuseability by water landing with parashoots, like the cargo dragon.
it does not need to be able to hover, therefor all the neysayers are wrong.
after reading Danderman's post I was thinking maybe thats what Elon is planning:

Why not simply use a Falcon 9 second stage as the first stage, and add a Kestrel engine based second stage.
Yes, I know the nozzle on the engine would have to be modified for ground start.

First establish falcon9 reusabilty, then use the reusable second stage as a falcon1R with reduced costs.
then this discussion makes sense. will there be a market for falcon1R at ~1mil$ ~1000kg?

our asumptions for this thread should be

[Danderman]

What this is telling me is that there is a chance for someone to make some cash IF they can do the following:

Solve the F1/Merlin 1D compatibility issue, and
Convince Elon that F1 supports Mars missions somehow.

And someone could generate some sales if you could convince Elon that minivans are a good choice for electric vehicle production.  Or pickup trucks.  Tesla must have convinced themselves there is "no market" there.

Somehow, I think you are making my point for me.

[swampcat]

And someone could generate some sales if you could convince Elon that minivans are a good choice for electric vehicle production.  Or pickup trucks.  Tesla must have convinced themselves there is "no market" there.

Off topic, but just to set the record straight:

Tesla Is Planning To Make A Pickup Truck

[a_langwich]

What this is telling me is that there is a chance for someone to make some cash IF they can do the following:

Solve the F1/Merlin 1D compatibility issue, and
Convince Elon that F1 supports Mars missions somehow.

And someone could generate some sales if you could convince Elon that minivans are a good choice for electric vehicle production.  Or pickup trucks.  Tesla must have convinced themselves there is "no market" there.

Somehow, I think you are making my point for me.

Is your point that SpaceX gets to choose where they spend their effort, and so far they've chosen not to spend it on Falcon 1 sized vehicles any more?  Then yes, we agree.  And that choice, I agree, doesn't necessarily indicate much about the market, although Elon Musk or Gwynne Shotwell might have added more insight at some point. 

There are other indications about market size, based on the number of annual launches purchased from all small launch vehicles in that class.  But, I would agree, that information on market size doesn't fully explain SpaceX's decision.  There are additional factors, although many of those are connected to market size.

I certainly agree that if you could convince Elon Musk that the Falcon 1 was the key to reaching Mars, he'd crank them out in an instant.  I just don't see how you'd do it, because it pretty clearly isn't true.

(Tesla deciding to pursue the pickup market is their choice, too.  Seems pretty risky, but that's Elon Musk for you.)

[Zed_Noir]

folks, no need for more off topic Tesla references. 

[Danderman]

I certainly agree that if you could convince Elon Musk that the Falcon 1 was the key to reaching Mars, he'd crank them out in an instant.  I just don't see how you'd do it, because it pretty clearly isn't true.

Please explain how F9 is the key to reaching Mars, but F1 is not (except for raising cash).

[guckyfan]

I certainly agree that if you could convince Elon Musk that the Falcon 1 was the key to reaching Mars, he'd crank them out in an instant.  I just don't see how you'd do it, because it pretty clearly isn't true.

Please explain how F9 is the key to reaching Mars, but F1 is not (except for raising cash).

Getting experience. Falcon 1 was essential but has done its part. Falcon 9 did the same plus now it is good for raising cash too.

Falcon 9 will still have another experience to provide. That is second stage reentry and landing. Doing that with F 9 upper stage is crucial for development of MCT.

The point on topic is that Falcon 1 was on the critical path but no longer is.

[Danderman]

I certainly agree that if you could convince Elon Musk that the Falcon 1 was the key to reaching Mars, he'd crank them out in an instant.  I just don't see how you'd do it, because it pretty clearly isn't true.

Please explain how F9 is the key to reaching Mars, but F1 is not (except for raising cash).

Getting experience. Falcon 1 was essential but has done its part. Falcon 9 did the same plus now it is good for raising cash too.

Falcon 9 will still have another experience to provide. That is second stage reentry and landing. Doing that with F 9 upper stage is crucial for development of MCT.

The point on topic is that Falcon 1 was on the critical path but no longer is.

The bottom line here is that both F1 and F9 are good for raising cash, but F9 is essential because of testing recovery of the second stage.

[MP99]

I certainly agree that if you could convince Elon Musk that the Falcon 1 was the key to reaching Mars, he'd crank them out in an instant.  I just don't see how you'd do it, because it pretty clearly isn't true.

Please explain how F9 is the key to reaching Mars, but F1 is not (except for raising cash).

Because F9 will carry crewed Dragon, and experience with crew is what they need now.

Cheers, Martin

[Robotbeat]

And because Musk says he prefers to make mistakes on a small scale. And Falcon 9 is smaller than any hypothetical BFR. Besides, it's unlikely SpaceX could get the capital needed for a BFR without having having revenue from F9 (or FH or Dragon/F9) launches, which shows they know what they're doing and can deliver (which isn't yet demonstrated for reusability or crew, by the way... but hopefully will soon).

[dror]

I think many here in this forum takes Elon statements about spacex's goals in a wrong way.
His stated short term goal is lowering launch costs by full and rapid reuseability and continous advencement in technology. mars colonization is defenitly part of the vision of expanding away from earth, but that is not what dictates their current development program.
this is not off topic since I think falcon 1 fits in their short term golas and BFRs doesnt, so they will renew the program once they get reuseability figured out.

[mme]

I think many here in this forum takes Elon statements about spacex's goals in a wrong way.
His stated short term goal is lowering launch costs by full and rapid reuseability and continous advencement in technology. mars colonization is defenitly part of the vision of expanding away from earth, but that is not what dictates their current development program.
this is not off topic since I think falcon 1 fits in their short term golas and BFRs doesnt, so they will renew the program once they get reuseability figured out.

I disagree. From SpaceX's Careers Page:

"SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on Mars."

From Now 0-for-3, SpaceX's Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit:

"The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one."

From Pacific Coast Business Times:

“We had enough capital to do rockets. And right from the get-go, we were going to do manned rockets and go to Mars,” Mueller said. “It seemed kind of crazy then, but it doesn’t seem as crazy now.”

and

But the company’s true goal remains Mars. Mueller said Musk’s office has two giant pictures of Mars – one as the red planet looks today, and one as it might look if colonized.

These days, Mueller’s main focus is the Raptor engine, a reusable power plant that would use liquid methane and oxygen and provide 1 million pounds of thrust. Nine of them would be combined on one craft.

“It’s going to put over 100 tons of cargo up to Mars,” Mueller said. “That’s what it takes to get to Mars.”

I don't know if there is a market for the Falcon 1, but I can't imagine SpaceX taking the opportunity cost of diverting engineers and manufacturing to the Falcon 1 even though it's a cool rocket. They don't have extra people to do projects that aren't pushing the key technologies forward: Reusability, Dragon (man rating and propulsive landing), Falcon Heavy, Red Dragon, Raptor and the monster rocket Raptor is suppose to power. Look at the list of open positions on their careers page. They are hiring like mad and they have a manifest of over 50 missions to fly while developing all the new technologies.

[Wigles]

I don't know if there is a market for the Falcon 1, but I can't imagine SpaceX taking the opportunity cost of diverting engineers and manufacturing to the Falcon 1 even though it's a cool rocket.

Gents, the point of this thread is not to discuss why SpaceX has chosen not to continue with Falcon 1, it is quite clear that it doesn't fit within either their short term commercial spaceflight goals (manned crew, commercial cargo resupply, GEO sats, Falcon Heavy etc...) or their long term vision (mars).

I simply asked if there would be a market in the commercial launch arena which a re-engineered Falcon 1 could service. This does not imply that SpaceX should or must service that market, the consensus (from those who remained on topic) seems to be that there is a market and that a new build Falcon 1 (or Falcon 1 like vehicle) would be quite competitive compared to the competition.

[dror]

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/2-19-2014-Contract-Optsat3000-Venus.asp
two great satlites with high performence under 400 kg each will be launched on a Vega. IAI experts in small hyperspectral cameras and I thonk well see more capable small sats in the years to come.

[baldusi]

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/2-19-2014-Contract-Optsat3000-Venus.asp
two great satlites with high performence under 400 kg each will be launched on a Vega. IAI experts in small hyperspectral cameras and I thonk well see more capable small sats in the years to come.

It was a payback for an aircraft operation between Italy and Israel.

[mme]

Gents, the point of this thread is not to discuss why SpaceX has chosen not to continue with Falcon 1, ...

Sorry about that...

[RanulfC]

I don't know if there is a market for the Falcon 1, but I can't imagine SpaceX taking the opportunity cost of diverting engineers and manufacturing to the Falcon 1 even though it's a cool rocket.

Gents, the point of this thread is not to discuss why SpaceX has chosen not to continue with Falcon 1, it is quite clear that it doesn't fit within either their short term commercial spaceflight goals (manned crew, commercial cargo resupply, GEO sats, Falcon Heavy etc...) or their long term vision (mars).

I simply asked if there would be a market in the commercial launch arena which a re-engineered Falcon 1 could service. This does not imply that SpaceX should or must service that market, the consensus (from those who remained on topic) seems to be that there is a market and that a new build Falcon 1 (or Falcon 1 like vehicle) would be quite competitive compared to the competition.

But if SpaceX doesn't return to making the parts for the Falcon-1 how am I to produce my air-launched, tri-barrel, "Falcon-X-3" I dream of?

Randy