Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[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.