Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[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...