July 22, 2012
The Tale of Falcon 1
The Falcon 1 lifts off!
Elon Musk founded Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) in 2002. Its stated business objective was the development of launch services for a fraction of the cost of the then-available commercial launch providers – to the greatest extent practicable, they would create reusable pieces of its launch system, thereby greatly lowering the cost of space access. Toward that end, SpaceX sponsored the development of its own launch vehicle and engines, using a vertically integrated business model in which SpaceX would design, fabricate, prepare and operate a launch system.
Alan Boyle’s recent review of commercial efforts to supply the International Space Station naturally included coverage of the successful flight of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon’s delivery demonstration. The article focused on the way commercial space is financed, specifically how NASA is sponsoring the development of some of these capabilities. This financial arrangement is the basis for a point repeatedly voiced by critics of the heralded vision of “New Space” replacing “government” space – a company like SpaceX is not actually commercial in the traditional free market sense, but simply another government-funded contractor using a different procurement model.
Falcon 1 was the first rocket developed by SpaceX. It is a two-stage launch vehicle capable of putting a metric ton (1000 kg) into low Earth orbit. Falcon 1 uses a single Merlin, a SpaceX-developed, LOX-kerosene rocket engine producing ~570,000 newtons of thrust (for comparison, a single Shuttle main engine burns LOX-hydrogen fuel and produces about 2,300,000 newtons of thrust). The Falcon 1 was designed to put relatively small satellites into low earth orbit. With such payload capacity, it is also capable of sending 100-200 kg microsats beyond LEO, into cislunar space.
Much of the private start-up capital for SpaceX was used to develop the Falcon 1. They also received some government funding from other than NASA. The Department of Defense (DoD) had need for reliable, quick, and cheap space access for small payloads. To that end, SpaceX received funding from several DoD entities, including several million dollars from the U.S. Air Force under a program to develop launch capability for DARPA (a defense research agency). Space X was given access to and the use of DoD launch facilities at the Reagan Test Site (formerly Kwajalein Missile Range) in the Marshall Islands.
The early days of Falcon 1 development were not pretty. The first launch failed after 25 seconds of flight. The second flight successfully launched and staged, but did not reach orbit. After the third attempt at flight failed during staging, a review board looked in detail at SpaceX’s launch processing stream and made recommendations for some significant changes. The next launch was successful in putting a dummy payload into orbit. In July 2009, six years after Falcon 1 development had begun, SpaceX achieved its first (and so far, only) commercial space success with the launch and orbit of the Malaysian RazakSAT imaging satellite on a Falcon 1 launch.
Typically when a space company finally achieves a long-sought success, it moves rapidly to exploit the new vehicle’s operational status and begins to aggressively market and sell its new launch service. However, no Falcon 1 launch has occurred since the success of RazakSAT. A visit to the SpaceX web site describes the Falcon 1 vehicle, but at the bottom of the page it states that a Falcon 1 launch is no longer available for purchase. Instead, small, one-ton class payloads will be accommodated in the future through “piggyback” rides on the new, Falcon 9 medium-class launch vehicle.
For a company to spend six years and start up money developing a needed launch system, only to abandon it just as success and profit is at hand, is difficult to sort through. One could be forgiven for imagining that the development of the Falcon 1 as a commercial launch system was never intended but rather a pretext to flight qualify the pieces (specifically the Merlin 1 engine) used in the nine-engine cluster that powers the Falcon 9 launcher. Interestingly, others have noted that the now-cancelled NASA Constellation Ares I launch vehicle (“The Stick”), purportedly designed to launch the new Orion spacecraft to LEO, likewise appeared to be more of a development effort than a flight project, in that its various pieces (e.g., cryogenic upper stage, five-segment SRB) were all needed to build the large Ares V heavy lift rocket.
Meanwhile, customers in need of low-cost options for launching small payloads are out of luck. Falcon 9 has yet to launch an ounce of commercial payload and Falcon 1 is not for sale. Of course, one can launch small satellites using Orbital’s Taurus launch vehicle, but its ~$50-70 M cost and recent record of unreliability (e.g., the Glory satellite launch failure) engender neither comfort nor confidence. More significantly, after investing in the R&D effort of a new, unproven company that was offering a low cost, small launch vehicle, SpaceX’s original DoD customers, banking on the creation of a quick, inexpensive capability to launch small satellites, saw their support of Falcon 1 go by the board. It appears that SpaceX dropped their initial operational vehicle for the promotion and promise of far more ambitious and distant goals.
That template seems to work for them – NASA has “invested” more than $500 million in the Falcon 9 over the last five years. Now, SpaceX holds court to advance their founder’s Mars fantasies and plans for a Falcon “heavy” launch vehicle – designed and marketed as sending very large payloads into space, at unbelievably low prices. (As an aside, I thought that a New Space article of faith is that heavy lift is a boondoggle and that fuel depots are the way to go beyond LEO.)
When New Space advocates characterize old NASA contractors, legacy launch companies and politicians with NASA centers in their districts as “pigs at the trough of government funding,” they’d be wise to watch out for a “pig” donning falcon feathers. Debate, like competition is good and helpful but only useful when advocates honestly pitch their abilities, services, products and intentions. Money is an important consideration, however our nation’s ability to compete in the arena of space must be the overriding concern. In light of the current situation, that ability is slipping further and further away. We need to honestly assess what we’re buying before nothing remains of our decades long investment and leadership role in space.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Thank you, Dr. Spudis, this needed to be said
Comment by reader — July 22, 2012 @ 9:36 am
“-a company like SpaceX is not actually commercial in the traditional free market sense, but simply another government-funded contractor using a different procurement model.”
Very polite.
My take is that SpaceX is more of an exploitation company to charge the taxpayer twice than aerospace company. Everything they are pushing- from the engine design to friction stir welded stages, to the heat shield on the capsule has all been developed by NASA on the taxpayers dime. They use NASA labs and engineers for token payment and then advertise low prices.
It is a scam.
Worse than a scam, it is a distraction from and drain on funds from the only real possibility for space travel on the horizon; SLS.
Comment by GaryChurch — July 22, 2012 @ 12:56 pm
Interesting article.
I had not really thought about the Falcon 1, but looking at the current Space X web page I notice some interesting things.
On their Launch Manifest tab they list a number of “manifested” flights, including a Falcon Heavy flight this year.
There are no Falcon 1 flights listed (of course), but prior to the termination of the Falcon 1 were there any “manifested” Falcon 1 flights listed (beyond the single operational launch) and if so what happened to them?
Comment by Joe — July 22, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
there are significant fact errors and a lot of opinion masquerading as fact.
However I’ll just do this
” Debate, like competition is good and helpful but only useful when advocates honestly pitch their abilities, services, products and intentions. ”
ATK and their stick (Ares 1) were a government cost plus contract, the dollars spent at SpaceX and OSC by the federal government are milestone achievements in search of a product. Besides the money spent at ATK in one year would barely do the entire Commercial cargo CONTRACT for two vendors.
Falcon 1 has a lot to do with Falcon 9′s initial success…Ares 1 had little in relation to Ares V. moving on RGO
Comment by Robert G. Oler — July 22, 2012 @ 6:43 pm
“As an aside, I thought that a New Space article of faith is that heavy lift is a boondoggle and that fuel depots are the way to go beyond LEO.)”
I believe most people predicate that on a NASA designed and developed, owned and operated heavy lift is a boondoggle. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SpaceX have all suggested prices for heavy lift for a LOT cheaper than what NASA is currently scheduled to spend. 2.5 – 6 billion for commercial, versus the 18-38 billion to develop NASA’s heavy lift. Most would consider NASA’s prices, which historically will not come in on budget or schedule are the boondoggle. Those funds could actually fund some hardware.
Comment by Vladislaw — July 22, 2012 @ 7:42 pm
“Money is an important consideration, however our nation’s ability to compete in the arena of space must be the overriding concern”.
Falcon Heavy will likely launch soon enough. I hope that you’ll recognize that it strengthens our ability to compete in the space arena. I can understand the desire to retain traditional Old Space capability until we have proven New Space capability. But can you understand (based upon past bad experiences with Old Space) that it is just too easy to imagine history repeating itself with scaled down or cancelled programs? To really open the frontier, we need a new approach. It seems to me that the SAA approach offers the best hope moving forward. And the traditional programs again dominating the budget with little wiggle room for payloads. I personally think it unlikely that your Spudis-Lavoie plan will get traction unless the traditional SLS budget space opens up.
Comment by DougSpace — July 23, 2012 @ 1:20 am
Good questions, Paul!
My impression is that with the Falcon 9 they are finally able to launch most of the commercial payloads, and their lower costs appear to be attracting orders. The Falcon 1 probably did not allow them to bid on 99% of the business, so they decided that it was not worth prusuing. But then you have to wonder why they did not start out with something more substantial like the Falcon 5…
As long as they focus on making launches happen rather than making unrealistic promises, I am OK with them.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — July 23, 2012 @ 4:59 am
Thanks to the blind trust that the current presidential administration has put in the space entrepreneurs, NASA’s sole goal for the next ten years will be nothing more than grocery deliveries to the ISS. Think about it: Project Constellation was terminated just so that multiple private companies could try out their prowess at making grocery runs to the ISS! I tell you, the situation that the American space program now finds itself in is a monumental, dismal tragedy!! By the way, so neat & keen of you to notice the farce in the new-space people laying down “plans” for supposed Heavy-Lift rockets, when all the while they did nothing but condemn the possible Ares 5 rocket, as wasteful spending, because fuel depots in LEO were to make such a flight plan approach obsolete. Remember all that? What a freaking joke! And all those Mars fantasies?—JUST THAT: pure fantasy & blowing of steam! Look boys, a manned Lunar expedition is infinitely more easier & simpler than ANY manned flight-to-landing trip to the Red Planet. If a commitment to a Project Constellation-type of Lunar Return cannot be made nor sustained by the nation to completion, then I guarantee to you all that there surely WON’T be any manned Mars mission! Not in our working lifetimes!
Comment by Chris Castro — July 23, 2012 @ 5:00 am
A few minor errors which are worth correcting in an otherwise interesting article.
SpaceX have received some monies from the DoD and DARPA for some launches on test flights – which would have been bought at some discount as they were primarily test flights. Payment for launch services – even on test vehicles – can not be counted as “investment”.
SpaceX did have a small DARPA contract to demonstrate responsive launch technologies. Demonstrating timely cargo handling, intergration and launch might be considered “investment” in SpaceX in a marginal sense, but personally I think it’s stetching it a bit. They got paid for the work they did.
SpaceX did received $398M in funding from NASA towards the development of Falcon 9 AND Dragon under COTS.
And, of course SpaceX subsequently won a $75M award to develop Commercial crew, and they may win further funding in CCiCap.
That makes the total paid to SpaceX as an “investment” $473M to date. But it was awarded for Falcon 9 AND cargo Dragon AND crew Dragon. Way less than $500M for Falcon 9 alone.
Of course SpaceX has earned a lot more money from NASA since then but all that money is payment towards CRS – resupplying the ISS, a fixed price contract which works out at $133M a flight. That is pure payment for services and nothing else.
The thing about a commercial company is it makes commercial decisions. The decision to drop Falcon 1 was purely commercial. SpaceX judged the market isn’t enough to support the Falcon 1.
They dropped it.
But that doesn’t mean SpaceX has abandoned small sats. Witness Falcon 9 flight 2 which carried 9 small sats (as well as Dragon) including a couple for the DoD. Falcon 9 flight 3 (COTS 2+ Dragon to ISS) also carried a Celestis payload on the second stage. Taken together these constitute considerably more than an ounce of commercial payload.
Even if Falcon 1 has been abandoned it did prove it’s worth. According to NASA audited figures it cost $90M to develop and proved much of the technologies used in Falcon 9. (It’s way cheaper to loose 3 Falcon 1s than one Falcon 9). As a consequence Falcon 9 only cost $400M to develop, and it’s now flown 3 times without a loss.
The value SpaceX brings to the launch market can easily be seen in NASA’s recent flight awards to Falcon 9 and Delta II The price for the Falcon 9 is $82M and Delta 2 got $412M for 3 flights at $137M each.
Comment by Fred Willett — July 23, 2012 @ 6:59 am
The early days of Falcon 1 development were not pretty.
The early days of any new launch system are rarely pretty. Let’s consider the early government launchers, shall we? The Vanguard rocket had eleven tries with only three successes. The Rockoon was a miserable failure. Five of the eight Atlas A launches were failures, along with failures of three Atlas B, two Atlas C, and five Atlas D launches. And the list goes on…
It seems to me that you are judging the SpaceX program far more harshly than you are judging the government program. On any objective basis, SpaceX has done more for less money than NASA ever did. (This is not to say that NASA is a failure. They are excellent scientists who showed the way into space and are still fundamental drivers of space research. But they are terrible businessmen and should never have been in the satellite launching business.)
Comment by JohnD — July 23, 2012 @ 9:11 am
$82M on a relatively unproven launcher vs $137M with one with years of flight history is not that big of a deal, actually.
Comment by reader — July 23, 2012 @ 10:59 am
The author said:
“a company like SpaceX is not actually commercial in the traditional free market sense, but simply another government-funded contractor using a different procurement model.”
NASA is buying transportation services from SpaceX, not hardware they are going to own and operate. It’s a pretty simple difference.
The author said:
“Space X was given access to and the use of DoD launch facilities at the Reagan Test Site (formerly Kwajalein Missile Range) in the Marshall Islands.”
You make this sound “special”. The vast majority of companies doing work for the U.S. Government get to use U.S. Government facilities – that’s the whole reason they exist.
The author said:
“In July 2009, six years after Falcon 1 development had begun, SpaceX achieved its first (and so far, only) commercial space success with the launch and orbit of the Malaysian RazakSAT imaging satellite on a Falcon 1 launch.”
A more correct description would be to say that it was their only satellite payload delivery, as they have received customer payments for services rendered under the COTS program with their Falcon 9 launches, including the successful Dragon mission this past May. Commercial space success (i.e. revenue) happens in many ways.
The author said:
“Typically when a space company finally achieves a long-sought success, it moves rapidly to exploit the new vehicle’s operational status and begins to aggressively market and sell its new launch service.”
You assume that they didn’t. Here is an Aviation Week article that addresses why they suspended production of the Falcon 1. From the article:
“The softness of the small-satellite launch market has forced Space Exploration Technologies Inc. (SpaceX) to suspend production of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle pending an upcoming market review.
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell says: “We haven’t abandoned it, but we are looking to address the market in a more cost-effective way. We were really hoping the small-sat market would be really robust. However, with Falcon 1 we sold very few vehicles through 2010.””
So no conspiracy here, just a lack of small-sat market that require individual launchers. And it’s not like SpaceX has abandoned the small-sat market either, as they offer the ability to launch small-sat payloads on Falcon 9 flights. Where is the problem?
Comment by Coastal Ron — July 23, 2012 @ 11:09 am
SpaceX has already successfully launched three Falcon 9s. A Falcon Heavy is not too difficult for SpaceX to achieve and they are already spending the money at Vandenberg to make it happen. Regardless of the philosophical objections to SpaceX, thanks to them, we (America) will soon enough have the capability which the Falcon Heavy provides. Two of the high-end Falcon Heavy payloads docked in LEO will provide America’s space program with nearly Saturn V payload masses. We need to take this imminent capacity into account.
Comment by DougSpace — July 23, 2012 @ 11:17 am
Project Constellation was terminated just so that multiple private companies could try out their prowess at making grocery runs to the ISS!
No, Constellation was cancelled because it was behind schedule and over budget with no way of catching up without massive increases in funding that would have further starved the rest of NASA.
Now if they would only apply the same sensible solution to the James Webb Space Telescope.
Comment by JohnD — July 23, 2012 @ 11:34 am
Comment by Fred Willett — July 23, 2012 @ 6:59 am
“Payment for launch services – even on test vehicles – can not be counted as “investment”.”
Payment for test launches which provide no service only (and hopefully) increased confidence that the vehicle will be able (in the future) to provide services is a text book definition of investment. Why should it not be called such?
“SpaceX did have a small DARPA contract to demonstrate responsive launch technologies. Demonstrating timely cargo handling, intergration and launch might be considered “investment” in SpaceX in a marginal sense, but personally I think it’s stetching it a bit. They got paid for the work they did.”
And the work they did was to “demonstrate responsive launch technologies” not launch a satellite with a specific function. If that is not an investment, nothing is.
“SpaceX did received $398M in funding from NASA towards the development of Falcon 9 AND Dragon under COTS.”
Since NASA was paying for potential cargo delivery to the ISS and that cannot be done without the Dragon vehicle of course they were paying for both. So what is the point in emphasizing it?
“The value SpaceX brings to the launch market can easily be seen in NASA’s recent flight awards to Falcon 9 and Delta II The price for the Falcon 9 is $82M and Delta 2 got $412M for 3 flights at $137M each.”
There are other reasons for the costs to vary. These are primarily the integration of the payload. These include: payload processing; launch vehicle integration; mission unique launch site ground support; and tracking, data and telemetry services.
It is hard to know what percentage of the total cost these comprise, but they are significant and vary with the type and complexity of the payload. To assume that the three Delta 2 flight cost $137M each and not three separate amounts totaling $412M is a dangerous over simplification.
The last time I checked Space X was still listing the cost of a Falcon 9 launch as $54 million. It was not clear whether the payload integration services were included. Making the assumption (and it is a big one) that the $54 million figure is an accurate one for launch of Falcon 9 only that would mean that the $82 million includes $28 million integration services (about 31% of total launch cost).
To know how launch prices would actually compare you would have to have much more detailed information about the respective satellites.
Comment by Joe — July 23, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
“But then you have to wonder why they did not start out with something more substantial like the Falcon 5…”
Because getting started you often have to start small. There is an old saying that if you have not broken anything you have not learned anything. The F1 would take less labor, less time and less money to build than F5 or F9 and it could be built in a way that was applicable to larger rockets. The F1 let him get the kinks out the system at an affordable price. If Cots had not come through he might have built the F5 then F9 but COTS allowed him to skip straight to the F9. The F9 when combined allows him to go on to FH.
Von Braun dreamed of going to the moon, but he didn’t start off attempting to build a Saturn V class rocket.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 23, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
“ There are no Falcon 1 flights listed (of course), but prior to the termination of the Falcon 1 were there any “manifested” Falcon 1 flights listed (beyond the single operational launch) and if so what happened to them?”
Falcon 1 payloads were moved to the Falcon 9. Falcon 9 has dual launch capability. Musk stated that FH would only be at best rolled out late this year(like December). It likely won’t fly till 2013.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 23, 2012 @ 12:52 pm
“ Payment for test launches which provide no service only (and hopefully) increased confidence that the vehicle will be able (in the future) to provide services is a text book definition of investment. Why should it not be called such?”
COTS might fit that definition. CRS isn’t. CRS is payment for services period. COTS helped kick start Dragon and Falcon 9. CRS is delivery. If NASA were dissastified with Space X or any other they could easily give the CRS contract to another company.
“Since NASA was paying for potential cargo delivery to the ISS and that cannot be done without the Dragon vehicle of course they were paying for both. So what is the point in emphasizing it?”
Error. Cygnus can also deliver cargo to the ISS. ATV, Progress, and HTV also. In fact NASA bought 2 progress flights. In addition other competitors for CRS offered their solutions. Boeing was going to use ATV and Delta. Lockhead martin ATV and Atlas. Dream chaser was also in the running for cargo. This is the joy of commercial. Not being tied to one system.
In fact there is a theory that Space X got the contract from NASA and NASA hoped it would fail (i.e. it could have given it to more experienced companies like Orbital and ULA in the first round).
Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 23, 2012 @ 1:08 pm
“Von Braun dreamed of going to the moon, but he didn’t start off attempting to build a Saturn V class rocket.”
That is correct, the original Von Braun proposal was for a Nova class rocket.
“Two of the high-end Falcon Heavy payloads docked in LEO will provide America’s space program with nearly Saturn V payload masses. We need to take this imminent capacity into account.”
Two of the high end SLS payloads docked in LEO will provide America’s space program with…..
“On any objective basis, SpaceX has done more for less money than NASA ever did.”
On any objective basis, SpaceX has done nothing compared to NASA. Been there, done that.
“The early days of any new launch system are rarely pretty.”
Not any more- unless it is private space. The Shuttle (a Saturn V class launcher) launched over a hundred times with one failure- due to pressure to cut costs.
Comment by GaryChurch — July 23, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
“But can you understand (based upon past bad experiences with Old Space) that it is just too easy to imagine history repeating itself with scaled down or cancelled programs? To really open the frontier, we need a new approach.”
If anything should have the “scaled down” label permanently affixed to them, it is the Falcon vehicles. Rebranding 27 engines as “heavy” does not a Saturn V class vehicle make.
As for “Old Space”, I see no bad experiences that were not the result of underfunding. There is no cheap.
Comment by GaryChurch — July 23, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
Good column. I was at the Churchill Club in June 2002 when Elon Musk announced SpaceX. I was very hopeful at the time they would be the solution to low cost lunar missions even though his focus is with Mars. Yes, SpaceX did lose its way by giving in to the temptation of COTS. Hopefully now that COTS is over and Falcon 9 is proven they will disengage from the NASA tar baby and go back to their original vision.
Comment by Thomas Matula — July 23, 2012 @ 2:49 pm
Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 23, 2012 @ 1:08 pm
“COTS might fit that definition. CRS isn’t. CRS is payment for services period.”
For once we are in agreement about something (sort of). COTS was an investment (in fact a subsidy) to attempt to develop a new provider of a desired service. If Space X actually starts providing cargo to the ISS any payments they receive will then be payment for services rendered. That is currently scheduled for the end of next month (2 years and 10 months late) and I wish them luck.
“Error. Cygnus can also deliver cargo to the ISS. ATV, Progress, and HTV also. In fact NASA bought 2 progress flights. In addition other competitors for CRS offered their solutions. Boeing was going to use ATV and Delta. Lockhead martin ATV and Atlas. Dream chaser was also in the running for cargo. This is the joy of commercial. Not being tied to one system.”
Unless you are asserting that Cygnus (Orbital Sciences), ATV (ESA – and about to be put out of service), Progress (Russian), and HTV (Japanese) are all certified to fly on a Falcon 9 (they are not) and that Space X has plans in place to use them as such (they do not) then the only error is yours.
Space X requires both the Falcon 9 and the Dragon Vehicle to attempt to fulfill its ISS cargo delivery requirements.
Comment by Joe — July 23, 2012 @ 4:15 pm
Not any more- unless it is private space.
You forget the Ares 1-X, which did significant pad damage and had a partial parachute malfunction on the SRB.
The Shuttle (a Saturn V class launcher) launched over a hundred times with one failure- due to pressure to cut costs
Two total failures. The Columbia disaster was caused by launch problems that only became apparent during re-entry. And many partial failures, such as the many times that the Shuttle had to reschedule a launch or had launch problems due to engine malfunction.
Comment by JohnD — July 23, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
Comment by JohnD — July 23, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
“Two total failures.”
In over 130 flights as opposed to 3 Falcon 9 flights, not a minor detail.
“And many partial failures, such as the many times that the Shuttle had to reschedule a launch …”
If rescheduling launches are considered “partial failures”, how many partial failures has the Falcon 9 had in only three flights?
Comment by Joe — July 23, 2012 @ 7:21 pm