Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[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.