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
(Page 2 of 2)
If Flight 003 fails, will the customers stick around? Despite the launch mishaps, ground tests have so far given them reason to remain hopeful. Falcon 1 and 9 engine firings and other dynamic tests over the last few months have all succeeded. The fuel baffles in the faulty second stage tank have been reconfigured.
On July 29, if all is ready, Musk will once again enter SpaceX mission control, a semi trailer parked in his huge manufacturing facility in Hawthorne, California. The spartan trailer has a row of Sun computer workstations against one wall, and a raised, carpeted platform and single chair at one end. Musk will watch the screens as his rocket tries for its first undisputed win.
If the Falcon falls short, he has pledged to continue. His words sometimes have a Churchillian ring: “SpaceX will never give up,” he told a gathering of space reporters in mid-May. “I will never give up. Never.”
For the 37-year-old visionary, SpaceX is not just about putting payloads into orbit, or even on the moon. (Though he said recently that a seven-person circumlunar voyage could be achieved for just $80 million.) Musk started this quest with a more ambitious goal—sending men and women to Mars.
In a speech delivered earlier this month to the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, he said, “For the first time in the four-billion-year history of Earth, there exists the possibility of extending life beyond Earth to other planets…. It is difficult to predict how long that window will remain open.
“Commercial space transport companies, including possibly SpaceX, are needed to make this happen, as the commercial sector is best suited to optimizing both the cost and reliability of access to space, just as the commercial air and ground transport companies did in their sectors. I believe we will need at least an order (perhaps two orders) of magnitude reduction in present-day space launch costs and flight failures to achieve the goal of becoming a multi-planetary species.”
A lofty goal. But first Musk has to pass the test of reaching Earth orbit. And as he himself has noted, in the rocket business, the only passing grade is 100 percent.
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