Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[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.