Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[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.