Market for new build Falcon 1's?

[MP99]

SpaceX has demonstrated the technology to make their original recovery plan successful.
Just saying...

If/when SpaceX demonstrates recovery/landing of F9US, ISTM that could form the technical basis of an F1D-r first stage. M1D instead of M1Dvac, F9US avionics & SD landing hardware, plus tankage derived from F9 but maybe shorter/fatter.

Instead of a kestrel-based upper stage, perhaps something based on a vac-optimised/scaled-down version of the Super Draco, IE pressure fed hypergolics. Hypergolic u/s worked OK for Delta II, and it looks to me like that was ~6t prop for many times the payload of an F1D-r.  Perhaps not worth recovering.

Payload would be well under 1T, I suspect.

cheers, Martin

PS wondering if there will ever come a time in SpaceX where this could be built as a parts-bin project, maybe by a group of interns or similar? (Yeah, I know - too busy / no spare time.)

[SpacexULA]

There are LOTS of issues with restarting Falcon 1.

The only Falcon 1 first stages that where ever flown where the stages scaled for the Merlin 1A.  They never went forward with the tank stretch to take full advantage of the Merlin 1C which flew on the final 3 flights.  Now SpaceX is only producing a higher thrust, cheaper to produce Merlin 1D.  So the flight proven Falcon 1 first stage would not be used, and the proposed and sold Falcon 1e would also not be used, they would need an even further stretched first stage to accommodate the Merlin 1D's thirst.

The Kestrel 2nd stage engine, which has not flown since 2009, was originally going to be the base engine for both the Falcon 1, 5, and 9.  So a completely new production line would need to be restarted, or more likely a whole new engine developed with lessons learned in the last 5 years for the 2nd stage of the vehicle.

A restart of Falcon 1 seems to be an idea with almost all downsides.  It would have very little commonality with the original Falcon 1 or the current Falcon 1.1/R family for a launch vehicle that would eat Falcon 1.1/R and Heavy's secondary payload market, and cause significant outlays in development, production, and pad infrastructure.

[Danderman]

There are LOTS of issues with restarting Falcon 1.

The only Falcon 1 first stages that where ever flown where the stages scaled for the Merlin 1A.  They never went forward with the tank stretch to take full advantage of the Merlin 1C which flew on the final 3 flights.  Now SpaceX is only producing a higher thrust, cheaper to produce Merlin 1D.  So the flight proven Falcon 1 first stage would not be used, and the proposed and sold Falcon 1e would also not be used, they would need an even further stretched first stage to accommodate the Merlin 1D's thirst.

The Kestrel 2nd stage engine, which has not flown since 2009, was originally going to be the base engine for both the Falcon 1, 5, and 9.  So a completely new production line would need to be restarted, or more likely a whole new engine developed with lessons learned in the last 5 years for the 2nd stage of the vehicle.

A restart of Falcon 1 seems to be an idea with almost all downsides.  It would have very little commonality with the original Falcon 1 or the current Falcon 1.1/R family for a launch vehicle that would eat Falcon 1.1/R and Heavy's secondary payload market, and cause significant outlays in development, production, and pad infrastructure.

Let me translate the above from random assertions into technical requirements:


Stage 1 tankage would have to be lengthened. Alternative approaches to accommodating Merlin 1-D should also be considered.

Completed Kestrel engines will be identified, and Kestel production would have to be re-started. Any previous development effort towards Kestrel 2 should be considered.

[cuddihy]

Alternatively, a F1 payload sized  vehicle could probably be fabricated from a F9R first stage, and a smaller upper stage. Perhaps that will be the payload capacity of the first F9R with reusable upper stage.

[rst]

Let me translate the above from random assertions into technical requirements:


Stage 1 tankage would have to be lengthened. Alternative approaches to accommodating Merlin 1-D should also be considered.

Completed Kestrel engines will be identified, and Kestel production would have to be re-started. Any previous development effort towards Kestrel 2 should be considered.

Also, as SpaceXULA noted, pad infrastructure costs.  Supporting both F9 and FH is already causing pad refit headaches; tossing a third vehicle in the mix at their currently active launch sites is not likely to make that easier.  The prior F1 launch facilities would also require substantial refit (of whatever there is still salvageable!).  And while it probably wouldn't make a difference to SpaceX if there were a compelling business case, I doubt anyone there is yearning for another trip out to scenic Kwaj...

[go4mars]

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 your assumption is something along the lines of $5M cost for a $7M price = $2M "profit for re-investment" per launch but 5000 launches/year.     That's a lot of $ to channel into the Mars program.  And it could inspire many to become investors/bequeathers.           

Canada alone has ~1 million millionaires.      http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/18/list_of_canadian_billionaires_has_grown_more_than_30_per_cent_since_2010_report_finds.html 

http://www.businessinsider.com/where-the-worlds-millionaires-will-live-in-2018-2013-10

If even a very very small fraction of the world's millionaires wanted to go orbit Earth (for ~$1 million per ticket), It's not implausible to imagine significant untapped demand.  It might become an insouciant pass-time for some.

[A_M_Swallow]

How much can the Falcon 1 launch as a sounding rocket?  There are still a few of those being launched.

edit:grammar

[Danderman]

Perhaps some city/county/state might want to invest in a new launch facility to support Falcon 1X.

Same with manufacturing. There may be some municipalities that would support an assembly facility. Perhaps the major components for a launcher could be manufactured by SpaceX using existing tooling and lines, but the final assembly could be conducted elsewhere.

Here is a thought: what if a Falcon 1 class launcher could send ~ 200 kg to interplanetary space? Would be there a market for 200 kg space probes to the Moon, Mars, or NEOs?

[Comga]

Perhaps some city/county/state might want to invest in a new launch facility to support Falcon 1X.

Same with manufacturing. There may be some municipalities that would support an assembly facility. Perhaps the major components for a launcher could be manufactured by SpaceX using existing tooling and lines, but the final assembly could be conducted elsewhere.

Here is a thought: what if a Falcon 1 class launcher could send ~ 200 kg to interplanetary space? Would be there a market for 200 kg space probes to the Moon, Mars, or NEOs?

If we are debating the existance of a market, we are not anticipating a huge number of launches. 
Therefore, the idea of a dedicated new launch facility is unreasonable.

There are many established launch facilities that could support the launch of a Falcon 1 much better than Omlek island.  (That is satisfied by just having electric power! )  Wallops, Kodiak, Alaska, and Kauai come to mind.  Even Vandenberg, the site of the original Falcon 1 launch pad.

The issue of a market if the source of demand.  Many productive small satellites have been built for communications and imaging.  There are markets for these products.  There are no markets for the products of interplanetary missions.  (Governments that launch interplanetary missions do not do so for market reasons.  Nor do they "shop the market" for the lowest price launch.)

[Danderman]

There is a launch facility at Kauai?

How do I get a job there?

Anyway, this thread has some resources for pricing for launches of smallsats as secondaries:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33926.0

Bottom line is: $7 million for 300 kg as a secondary.

I suspect that there is a sweet spot for ~ 1,000 kg as a primary somewhere under $15 million a pop.

The other issue is that some flight opportunities for secondaries do not have very gentle rides. It does you no good if you get to orbit, but your satellite has been shaken and stirred along the way.

[Comga]

There is a launch facility at Kauai?

How do I get a job there?

Anyway, this thread has some resources for pricing for launches of smallsats as secondaries:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33926.0

Bottom line is: $7 million for 300 kg as a secondary.

I suspect that there is a sweet spot for ~ 1,000 kg as a primary somewhere under $15 million a pop.

There is a facility for launching sounding rockets on Kauai. 
 
You want to work there?  Pull together the financing and team to build Falcon 1 rockets.

$15M is >2X the $7M Ms. Shotwell has stated as a goal for Falcon 9R.  Any market for a hypothetical Falcon 1 has to be some fraction of this $7M.

[Danderman]

$15M is >2X the $7M Ms. Shotwell has stated as a goal for Falcon 9R.  Any market for a hypothetical Falcon 1 has to be some fraction of this $7M.

Putting on my business hat, I should note that the $9 million per flight for Falcon 9R is a goal, not a reality.

Nobody's pricing today or their plans are impacted by what is effectively "FUD" at this time.

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.

[Danderman]

There is a facility for launching sounding rockets on Kauai. 
 
You want to work there?  Pull together the financing and team to build Falcon 1 rockets.

http://www.sandia.gov/locations/kauai_test_facility.html

[Comga]

(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.

[Danderman]

(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.

Yeah, there is no way that a Falcon variant could hover or land on one Merlin.

 

Edit:  unfortunately, the internet is not able to convey sarcasm very well, but my sentence above is dripping in it.

[Danderman]

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.

[R7]

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?

Sojourner was only 16kg, perhaps a lander to go with it could be shrunken under 200kg?

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

Sending 200 kg of food or a replacement part to Mars may be useful.


207 kg is the mass of NASA's prototype Mighty Eagle lander.  Although propellant and payload would also be needed.

[Danderman]

Concerning markets, I am fairly confident that a Magic Falcon 1 that could send 200 kg to interplanetary space would be viable, as there really isn't another LV in that class (except maybe Minotaur V).  NASA does have a Small Explorer program AFAIK, but more to the point, the existence of a commercial 200 kg LV for exploration might provoke NASA to engage in a "mini-Discovery" program to explore NEOS and other near space targets that are not economically viable using current launchers.

Along those lines, in order for a revived Falcon 1 to not be a "me too" launch vehicle that merely duplicates competitive systems (even if at a lower price point), I would imagine that a launch capability of more than 1000 kg to LEO would be useful, maybe even 1500 kg to 200 km 28.5 degrees.

I am sure that there is a market for a LV that can orbit Proteus-class payloads for well under $15 million.

[Danderman]

I also think there may be a market for Falcon 1X to orbit that small space capsule that is the subject of another thread, if SpaceX could squeeze 1500 kg payload out of a single Merlin launch vehicle.