LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2)

[Jim]

51D Mascot - 27/3/2007  11:21 PM

Jim - 27/3/2007  10:56 PM

rpspeck - 27/3/2007  10:15 PM

Nothing is as simple as its description in these short notes.  Remember, I have built and flown several near hover, gimbaled motor, guided rockets.  The control loop modeling and development for these was “interesting”, but successful.  

My primary point is that radically lower cost technology is available to replace more expensive historic systems.  This may (as will be seen in the next few years) make markedly lower cost launch vehicles possible.   Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

Proof is in the pudding.  

Lower costs for 500kg to LEO isn't going to change anything

Lower costs for 500kg to LEO is going to mean a WHOLE LOT to a growing market for and interest in small-sats, nanosats, and so on. It may not change much in the realm YOU are interested in, but it's a big world out there, and a LOT more in it than you may be aware of.

Build it and they will come does not apply.  There is interest but like everything else "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"   The smallsat market isn't there.

[George CA]

Elon posts an update:

http://spacex.com/updates.php

Shows the vehicle was heading in the right direction after 10 minutes of flight, with new images. Lots of the data talk he gave to this site first three days ago, but he also:

Slaps down the media saying it was not a success.

Slaps down some other companies, and the talk of spin.

Enjoy!! Good on ya Elon.

[guidanceisgo]

We always talk about the two flight failures, but no one remembers the fact that Spacex destroyed  the first vehicle before even flying!  So really they have consumed 3 vehicles.  If Delta III management had made the statements Spacex has made,  I think most people on this board would be laughing.

[Jeff Bingham]

Jim - 28/3/2007  12:45 AM

Build it and they will come does not apply.  There is interest but like everything else "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"   The smallsat market isn't there.

And in that assertion you are simply incorrect--or uninformed. I recently reviewed an in-depth assessment of the SmallSat market potential and found it to be rather widespread--and growing. That was based on thoroughly-documented facts, not opinions proclaimed as fact. Unfortunately, the assessment was proprietary, so I can't share it with you, so we'll just have to wait and see the proof, as you say, in the pudding.

[CentEur]

guidanceisgo - 28/3/2007  7:46 AM

We always talk about the two flight failures, but no one remembers the fact that Spacex destroyed  the first vehicle before even flying!  So really they have consumed 3 vehicles.

We do remember it as well as all those broken and exploded poor Merlines. Tanks ruptured, avionics fried and (last but not least) every screw SpaceX destroyed building Falcons. I'm sure these amount to at least a dozen failed vehicles. Shame on them!  

[Jim]

51D Mascot - 28/3/2007  4:00 AM

Jim - 28/3/2007  12:45 AM

Build it and they will come does not apply.  There is interest but like everything else "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"   The smallsat market isn't there.

And in that assertion you are simply incorrect--or uninformed. I recently reviewed an in-depth assessment of the SmallSat market potential and found it to be rather widespread--and growing. That was based on thoroughly-documented facts, not opinions proclaimed as fact. Unfortunately, the assessment was proprietary, so I can't share it with you, so we'll just have to wait and see the proof, as you say, in the pudding.

Saw a difference assessment and it said the opposite

[Jeff Bingham]

Jim - 28/3/2007  8:24 AM

51D Mascot - 28/3/2007  4:00 AM

Jim - 28/3/2007  12:45 AM

Build it and they will come does not apply.  There is interest but like everything else "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"   The smallsat market isn't there.

And in that assertion you are simply incorrect--or uninformed. I recently reviewed an in-depth assessment of the SmallSat market potential and found it to be rather widespread--and growing. That was based on thoroughly-documented facts, not opinions proclaimed as fact. Unfortunately, the assessment was proprietary, so I can't share it with you, so we'll just have to wait and see the proof, as you say, in the pudding.

Saw a difference assessment and it said the opposite

Not surprising to have differing points of view...like you say, time'll tell. I know the Senate's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee is considering holding a hearing on the subject later this year, so maybe there'll be more info on the subject, if they do.

[aero313]

51D Mascot - 28/3/2007  4:00 AM

Jim - 28/3/2007  12:45 AM

Build it and they will come does not apply.  There is interest but like everything else "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"   The smallsat market isn't there.

And in that assertion you are simply incorrect--or uninformed. I recently reviewed an in-depth assessment of the SmallSat market potential and found it to be rather widespread--and growing. That was based on thoroughly-documented facts, not opinions proclaimed as fact. Unfortunately, the assessment was proprietary, so I can't share it with you, so we'll just have to wait and see the proof, as you say, in the pudding.

Pardon my skepticism, but we have seen the proof.  These market studies have said the same thing for the last 20 years.  That's one of the reasons that Orbital developed Pegasus originally.  As history has shown, even when Pegasus was the same $6M a flight as Falcon 1, the smallsat market did not materialize, and the payloads that DID come were worth in excess of $50M each - those customers were much more concerned with mission success than low launch cost.

Every year both FAA and Teal Group put out launch manifest predictions, and every year they significanly over-predict the market.  The most glaring error was during the 1990s when they counted every Iridium and Globalstar satellite as one launch.

The reality is that the supposed large number of small sats are usually university projects that can't afford a $600K launch, never mind a $6M launch.  Cubesat tried to package a number of these on a single Dneper, but that hasn't materialized as a viable market either.

[Danderman]

Avron - 27/3/2007  9:06 PM    Yip, it starts with a trickle, not very noticable at first, then it grows, feeding on success.. who knows, SpaceX is not limited by anything yet, and they have not gone to the Public for funding.. imagine what they could do with a few $100 million more?

The COTS program is providing Elon with up to $274 million in public funding.

 

[Danderman]

aero313 - 28/3/2007  6:41 AM  [   The reality is that the supposed large number of small sats are usually university projects that can't afford a $600K launch, never mind a $6M launch.  Cubesat tried to package a number of these on a single Dneper, but that hasn't materialized as a viable market either.

It is unclear whether this assertion is accurate. Certainly, the number of CubeSATS contracted for launch has exploded in the last three years or so.  And with 3 Dneprs scheduled for launch in the next 30 days or so it is difficult to say how the market for Dnepr would have progressed without the launch failure last year. 

[Analyst]

Even if the price to launch a 200 or 300kg smallsat is 6 million $, wouldn’t it be cheaper to get a secondary ride on some big launcher? Arianespace and LM both have adapter rings to launch several small satellites together with the primary payload. The last Atlas V used one. Delta 2 carried secondary payloads mounted on the second stage. The shuttle used GAS canisters.

If you look at launch vehicle performance and payload mass, there has been additional capability on many missions in the past. The DMSP Delta IV last year is an extreme example. Sure you have to be flexible, you may not get “your” ideal orbit. But there are often rides into polar orbit and GTO, if you separate during coast you are in LEO (often a little low, I know). And if you want to built a constellation (GPS, Iridium etc.), you better launch on larger vehicles in clusters, like the Galileo project plans.

What are the marginal costs for adding a secondary payload to an already planned mission with given excess performance, lets say the next DMSP on an EELV?

Analyst

[Nate_Trost]

Elon's update also confirms that the first F9 launch is a demo flight. I still have to wonder how they're going to be ready for that in just over a year's time.

[rpspeck]

RE Shared payloads:  Add in a HUGH insurance cost if your payload includes a propulsion system which could conceivably degrade or destroy the primary payload!

[Danderman]

Analyst - 28/3/2007  8:22 AM   What are the marginal costs for adding a secondary payload to an already planned mission with given excess performance, lets say the next DMSP on an EELV?  Analyst

The marginal costs are not the issue, the opportunity cost is the big problem.

 Let's say you are the customer for the launch, and you are providing a $200 million payload, whose lifetime is a function of the propellant you can carry in your tanks. Naturally, in most cases, you want to fill those tanks as much as possible so your payload can have as a long a lifetime as possible.

Now, your launch services provider is telling you that you are going to lose 100 kg of prop to some secondary customer. You are not happy.

 

[WHAP]

Secondary payloads are typically not flown at the expense of the primary.  As anyalst said, it's excess performance.

[aero313]

Danderman - 28/3/2007  12:36 PM

Analyst - 28/3/2007  8:22 AM   What are the marginal costs for adding a secondary payload to an already planned mission with given excess performance, lets say the next DMSP on an EELV?  Analyst

The marginal costs are not the issue, the opportunity cost is the big problem.

Let's say you are the customer for the launch, and you are providing a $200 million payload, whose lifetime is a function of the propellant you can carry in your tanks. Naturally, in most cases, you want to fill those tanks as much as possible so your payload can have as a long a lifetime as possible.

Now, your launch services provider is telling you that you are going to lose 100 kg of prop to some secondary customer. You are not happy.

Sorry, but that statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the launch market works.  The secondary is always flown on a non-interference basis with the primary.  ALso, marginal costs are ABSOLUTELY the issue for the small sats.

The way mission design works is that the candidate launch vehicle (or possibly multiple vehicles for backup) is selected.  That fixes the total mission throw weight to a particular orbit.  The satellite designer (at least a GOOD satellite designer) will hold some performance back as margin against unforseen weight growth.  A good launch vehicle provider will do the same, by the way.  At the launch pad, the satellite will often come in under the max capability of the booster, thus the room for a secondary payload.  Again, this is done on a space available basis.

Another option in the case of the EELVs (and the old Ariane 4) is the flexibility to add strapon boosters.  The marginal cost of the strapon is small and can provide extra performance for secondary payloads.

The issue of the secondary payload posing a mission success hazard to the primary is a very real concern, but there are ways to deal with it.  Most small sats do not have a propulsion system, or use a safe fluid like GN2.  Some launch vehicles have secondary payload adapters that fully contain the secondary inside an adapter cylinder under the primary.  Again, this helps prevent damage to the primary in the event of a problem with the secondary.

Finally, don't confuse 200-300 kg smallsats with 1-2 kg Cubesats.  There has been and continues to be a miniscule market for the 200-300 kg satellites; possibly 2-4 a year.  These DO NOT comprise the legions of payloads waiting in the wings.  The vast majority of potential payloads are the tiny, underfunded university payloads and I'll say it again, they DON'T have the money to pay for a launch.  Combining a number of these microsats on a single launch may get them flown, but one additional mission does nothing for the small launcher market.

[bad_astra]

aero313 - 28/3/2007  12:11 PM


Finally, don't confuse 200-300 kg smallsats with 1-2 kg Cubesats.  There has been and continues to be a miniscule market for the 200-300 kg satellites; possibly 2-4 a year.  These DO NOT comprise the legions of payloads waiting in the wings.  The vast majority of potential payloads are the tiny, underfunded university payloads and I'll say it again, they DON'T have the money to pay for a launch.  Combining a number of these microsats on a single launch may get them flown, but one additional mission does nothing for the small launcher market.

China has quite literally blown up that paradigm. It may take some time to adjust but I suspect SOME satellites are about to get a lot smaller and a lot cheaper to replace.

[Jim]

Analyst - 28/3/2007  11:22 AM
What are the marginal costs for adding a secondary payload to an already planned mission with given excess performance, lets say the next DMSP on an EELV?

Analyst

The integration for a secondary is most of the time takes more than the primary payload.  This is caused by many things including the following:  late addition to the mission, unique accomodations, inexperienced secondary payload organization (university, etc)....

They end up being not so "secondary"

The costs are hard to fgure out

[Jim]

WHAP - 28/3/2007  12:54 PM

Secondary payloads are typically not flown at the expense of the primary.  As anyalst said, it's excess performance.

It is rare for there to be excess performance.  Most high energy orbits (GTO, GSO, escape) don't have it.   If they do, it is used to reduce spacecraft fuel usage, increase launch window and period, increase launch probability etc

[aero313]

bad_astra - 28/3/2007  1:32 PM
China has quite literally blown up that paradigm. It may take some time to adjust but I suspect SOME satellites are about to get a lot smaller and a lot cheaper to replace.

Doubt it.  The satellites that might be of concern have aparture sizes that are limited by physics - you CAN'T make the antenna or optics package smaller.  Yes, you can build a smaller sat with limited capability for a rapid but degraded replacement, and you can also think about smaller sats in a defensive role.  In the latter case, the small sat would almost certainly be co-launched with the primary.  Also, let's just say that some organizations are looking at what it would take to get bigger satellites launched responsively - although the problem still remains that 24 hr vs. 24 day launch responsiveness is irrelevant if the satellite still takes months in orbit for checkout, deployment, and calibration.  AFRL is finally looking at ways to solve THAT part of the problem.