Third Time’s the Charm?
Elon Musk tries again to reach orbit, with hopes for low-cost spaceflight riding on the outcome.
- By Geoffrey Little
- AirSpaceMag.com, July 17, 2008
Falcon 1 on the launch pad at Kwajalein. SpaceX
After a month-long delay due to a crack in a fuel nozzle weld, SpaceX—the California-based company founded six years ago by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk—is poised for a third attempt to send its privately developed Falcon-1 rocket into orbit. According to SpaceX, the launch window opens August 1 (Ed. note--changed from July 29), when the 70-foot tall, two-stage Falcon 1 is scheduled to blast off from a U.S. military base on Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific.
The hopes of the “New Space” movement will be riding along with it.
In its 2006 inaugural attempt, the Falcon-1 took off and flew for 29 seconds before catching fire and exploding. Fuel leaking past a single rusted nut was to blame. On a second try a year later, the Falcon reached an altitude of more than 180 miles but did not achieve orbit before falling back to Earth. Sloshing fuel in the pressure-fed, second-stage tank had never reached the engine, which ran dry and cut off 90 seconds too soon.
Unlike the previous tries, which were billed as demonstrations, this is not a test. Flight 003, as SpaceX calls it, carries cargo belonging to paying customers: an Air Force satellite called Jumpstart that’s meant to show that small satellites can be built and launched quickly; a test ring adapter for the Malaysian space agency ATSB (a future SpaceX client); and two breadbox-size NASA experiments, one of which aims to be the first solar sail deployed in space.
For Musk, it’s a critical moment in his second career. A co-founder of PayPal with a personal fortune estimated at more than $300 million, the South African native has sunk more than a third of that amount into his 470-person space company. This is not a hobby; SpaceX's manifest lists 14 launches through 2011, all with customers who have contracted for low-cost launches on Falcon 1 and the much larger Falcon 9, which is being built and tested for launch early next year.
Musk aims to use these rockets and their variants to smash the current price to reach orbit. A Falcon-1 launch costs under $8 million, about half the industry average; the Falcon 9 goes for less than $37 million to lift 7,700 pounds to low Earth orbit; a planned Falcon-9 Heavy will be able to lift 62,000 pounds for $94.5 million.
Virtually everyone in the space business wishes SpaceX luck. NASA is a potential customer, and already a partner. The agency has given the company development funds from its COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) initiative, which is trying to foster new ways to resupply the International Space Station after the space shuttle is retired next year. After a rigorous NASA design review involving more than 400 agency personnel, SpaceX was recently awarded an open-ended NASA contract to provide launch services between now and 2012; the arrangement is worth up to $1 billion. (Or, as the fine print says, as little as $20,000—it’s the rocketry equivalent of “Deal or No Deal.”)
Other customers, such as the U.S. Air Force, the Malaysian space agency, Canada’s MDA, Avanti Communications in the United Kingdom, the Swedish Space Corporation, and Bigelow Aerospace, have contracted for launches as well.
Related topics: Rockets Orbital Spacecraft 21st Century Aviation
| Tweet | Digg |
Comments (6)
Um...great. Can anyone explain why Musks rockets are so inexpensive? What about the technology allows him to offer flights so cheaply? Is what he's charging related to actual costs?
Posted by Ralphie on July 20,2008 | 04:10 AM
Ralphie, those are great questions.
From what I've seen and heard from Musk and SpaceX, it comes down to several key factors:
1) simple design -- incremental improvements on proven technology, such as using a single hypogolic engine -- the Merlin 1-C -- for all stages and in clusters for the larger Falcon 9 and state of the art materials
2) anticipated savings through partially reusable first stages
3) relatively very low overhead to build a lot of rockets. 470 employees is not very many--the big prime space contractors carry 10s of thousands of employees.
4) Most processes brought in house and not subcontracted out. For example, I've seen them building their own machine tools (such as a giant stir friction welder)
5) efficiencies in production using IT and other technology well to go from design to fabrication
6) Finally, volume. 14 launches with paying customers will make the numbers work--if the launches are successful. After all the price of those launches are still not trivial--up to $100 million for the Falcon 9H to LEO.
So far his stated development costs--well over $100 million--laid against the construction of a handful of rockets ready to launch would bear out those numbers.
Remember, he's setting out at first to halve the cost of launches and of getting a pound of hardware or crew to LEO or GTO. It's a reasonable goal and Musk is making a concerted effort.
--GL
Posted by Geoffrey on July 22,2008 | 09:44 AM
Geoff,
The Merlin is not Hypergolic (oxidiser and fuel combust spontaneously when mixed). It runs on kerosene and liquid oxygen. It is also not used on the F1 upper stage. That stage uses the Kestral, a pressure fed Kerosene-LOX engine.
Posted by Tom on July 22,2008 | 12:20 PM
Tom, thanks for the corrections. I posted in haste and should have fact checked my comment.
Posted by Geoffrey on July 23,2008 | 02:53 PM
Historically, most rockets designs attempted to optimize performance, not cost. SpaceX is focused on cost. From what I've seen, the key to their cost-sensitive approach is simplicity and automation. As Geoffrey pointed out, 470 employees is a very low number for what they are doing. You will never get to space cheaply if you need an army of thousands to build, test and launch your spacecraft.
Posted by Bill on July 23,2008 | 02:54 PM
Geofrries post pretty much sums up spacex. First, they have minimal RD costs because NASA and industry has actually done that work. In addition, rather than try to do it all, they are doing 1 thing, VERY WELL. By repeating it over and over, they make it extermely profitable. But according to Musk, they have automated just about everything. The shuttle, Constellation, etc had just about everything being manual. As such, just to launch a vehicle requires 2000+ of ppl. OTH, spaceX will requires less than 100 for a man launch. Even the recycling of the falcons is high compared to what anything in the industry does.
No doubt about it. Musk will change the space industry once he succeeds. In particular, the dragon will change things. It will allow 6-7 ppl into space at a fraction of the price what we currently pay.
What will be interesting is if Musk will pursue the BFR (either Big Falcon Rocket or Big F*&^ing Rocket; take your pick :) ). It is designed to take on Ares V. If Obama really slows Ares V down, I think that he will build it. It will almost certainly cost a fraction of the ares V and will gaurentee that private enterprise dominates the moon, not the feds. I would be surprised if the private enterprise industry does not pull together in the next 4 years. In particular, SpaceX, Bigelow, and (blue origin|armadillo) will most likely shoot for the moon in about 6-7 years. Bigelow has some major work to do on their infrastructure. In particular, they are showing major issues with their management. If they solve that, then they will easily occupy leo space, transportation to/from the moon, and obviously the moon habitat. What is left is getting down and up from the moon surface. Blue origin & armadillo are both working on rockets that are designed for up/down (dark horse approach). If it works, then these companies will own the moon within 10 years.
Posted by windbourne on July 24,2008 | 07:48 AM
I wish them the best of luck.
From what I've seen of SpaceX it will be a success.
Posted by Serge K. on July 24,2008 | 04:18 PM