I talked to Elon for half an hour or so last night, to make sure that I was getting the story straight on an article I’m writing for Popular Mechanics, but he didn’t really tell me anything that changed the relevant aspects of my story. It does, however, change the spin on the story that AvLeak did a few days ago, and they’ve provided a correction, based apparently on a similar conversation with him. It’s always possible to read too much into technical papers presented at professional conferences (not to mention retirement aspirations), and that seems to be what occurred here. SpaceX would like to build a heavy lifter, but they don’t see the market for it absent NASA interest, which sort of makes the point that I’ve always made — that it’s not affordable, or even necessarily the best way to do the exploration job. I am sure, though, that if NASA really needs a heavy lifter, funding SpaceX to build it is the most affordable option.
17 thoughts on “Clarifying”
Comments are closed.
Did I mention that I got Spacevidcast the interview with Musk? Who says constantly nagging a media contact doesn’t work?
I personally thought the purpose of the Falcon X and Falcon XX stuff was to show that if NASA and Congress really want Saturn-class heavy lift, it can be built without any shuttle-derived parts. I think that is still a worthwhile message to get out.
Tom, agreed, and for an order of magnitude (or two) less money.
The Falcon X seems to make much more sense to me as it can scale down to something a little more potent than a current Delta 4 heavy for likely much less money and scale up to something Saturn V class.
It out Atlas V Phase II’s the AVPII.
The one vibe I got from the Falcon X Heavy and the Falcon XX was that the MLP and the VAB would be necessary for both.
If he every actually builds the XX, I would humby ask he consider naming it the Von Braun instead.
Rand,
What did he say about the developing Merlin 2?
Seems if you want to eat an HLV sans .gov help, one bite at a time is the way to go about it.
Without the Congressional direction to design something based on the Shuttle, there is room to develop advanced engines for the EELVs. Merlin 2 and Raptor would certainly qualify. I would like to see someone design a Regen RS68 with Aerojet’s Thrust Augmentation Nozzle using RP1 for a duel-fuel launcher.
It is remotely possible that there might be a commercial customer who thinks a Falcon 9-Heavy is a bit “light” and may want to put some larger vehicles on the manifest. If that happens, SpaceX won’t need anything from NASA.
As it is, there has been a tendency for SpaceX customers wanting more than what SpaceX is able to deliver. The Falcon 1 is now the Falcon 1e and the Falcon 5 is now the Falcon 9. If this does happen where regular customers (other than NASA) are wanting heavy lift vehicles because they are making money hand over fist in space and want to make even more in fewer launches… expect that SpaceX will be delivering the “Falcon X” shortly after that need is established.
The potential for this to happen for SpaceX has mainly to do with finding customers who are finding a new niche application for spaceflight that until now has not been affordable due to the current high cost of space launchers. Robert Bigelow is an example of a totally new kind of customer that until now hasn’t been involved in the spaceflight industry. If Richard Garriott finds a new space-based manufacturing process, that is something that might by itself need a heavy launch vehicle eventually. Space-based mining operations would be something that could require a whole fleet of heavy launch vehicles. Unfortunately all of these are still wishful thinking and may not come to pass. Even Robert Bigelow’s projects could simply end with him pulling the plug and giving up.
Mostly, like what has been said above (to paraphrase), “if it is needed, they will build it.”
Comsats have been getting larger. Perhaps the availability of Falcon X will stimulate the comsat industry to develop larger and more capable satellites. Ones that will have much more powerful transponders. If so it will be a good bread and butter market. It will be interesting to see what develops.
Perhaps the availability of Falcon X will stimulate the comsat industry to develop larger and more capable satellites.
The availability of Delta (and potentially Atlas) Heavy and Ariane haven’t.
“The availability of Delta (and potentially Atlas) Heavy and Ariane haven’t.”
The launchers from these other companies are also priced in the stratosphere for these rockets, so that may not be an accurate guide to the potential for commercial customers willing to go into space. Unlike government contracts, commercial projects tend to have sometimes a razor thin profit margin where a 10% cost reduction can make or break the company. Iridium satellites are a good example of this where it had to go through bankruptcy because the “current” $10k/pound to LEO (give or take some) is really more than they can afford. The Falcon 9 really makes a huge difference here and the cost to orbit is making a difference in terms of the potential for this company to stay in the black.
While perhaps Iridium might have been put into space on some Delta IV launchers, their profit picture would certainly be much more doubtful if that had been their only choice. As it is Iridum used launchers from China and Russia in order to get their current fleet into orbit. Lucky for Iridium, SpaceX is cheaper than either of those two national launch systems.
What other potential commercial space projects could be developed if only the price to orbit were even cheaper? It would have to come out of markets that traditionally haven’t been a part of commercial spaceflight, and perhaps they need to be created in the first place. Satellite constellations are very price sensitive, and so is space tourism. What other kinds of space-based services could start with a cheaper price to orbit?
Thanks for the clarification! I think we can all calm down a little now, right?
What we really need is for the other guys to start competing with Musk in building meaningfully low-cost platforms. And for the record, he does deserve to win – but competition is always a good thing.
It’s worth noting that the Air Force seems to really be pursuing ideas like commercially hosted payloads etc. This could become a good trend as I believe other agencies are pursuing it as well.
Imagine if those ‘bigger’ platforms at GEO were financed half-commercial, half-government, all fixed-price. You might see some demand for a low-cost commercial heavy lift.
Notice that SpaceX did not provide estimates for the Falcon X vehicle costs, but they did provide estimates for Merlin 2. Elon told the Augustine Commission that he could do heavy lift launchers for $1.5 Billion, but we don’t know what configuration of launcher he was discussing.
A Merlin-2 engine at full thrust on a Falcon-9 can place 6 to 7 tons into GTO, which represents over 80% of the commercial launch market. This same Merlin-2 engine on a Falcon-9 Heavy, when used at full thrust (i.e. not at 70% thrust as shown in the SpaceX presentations) can place 50 – 120 tons into LEO.
NASA will use a new LOX/RP-1 engine for its Government-operated/owned heavy-lift vehicle (possibly with the ATK solid boosters on the side). At present, the Merlin 2 engine is competing with the P&W RS-68B, the Aerojet HC-boost derivative, the P&W RS-84, and the P&W SSME for the NASA heavy-lift booster engine contract in FY 2011. Don’t focus on the Falcon X rocket. Focus on the Merlin-2 engine. It is for real.
I also think we should realize that Elon has gone through an education about public remarks. The price he gives publicly for the M2 likely includes a lot of padding for profit.
Anom, how do you get those performance numbers for a 1.7Mlbf variant Merlin-2 on Falcon 9 and Heavy? How would a 60% increase in thrust, alone, double or triple the performance to LEO and GTO? If you assuming a new thrust structure and longer tankage, that’s a different rocket.
M Puckett Says:
August 11th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“If he every actually builds the XX, I would humby ask he consider naming it the Von Braun instead.”
Please don’t. Von Braun was a socialist who lived off the public dole all his life and who poached off the inventions of others. Absolutely nothing in the V-2 rocket wasn’t a ripoff of a Robert Goddard patent. Goddard did his research off of private grants from Guggenheim and other foundations and only did government work when drafted to invent the bazooka. If Musk changes the name of the XX, he should call it the Goddard, who richly deserves the long overlooked honor.
One of the things that seems apparent is there is a real hunger to see success of space ventures. We really do want to see the vision of some kind of Pan Am space station come true.