Picture 1: Falcon 9 as it launches from the pad at Cape Canaveral on Dec. 08, 2010. Photo provided by remote viewing cameras operated by Spaceflightnow
Howdy All,
I know it's been awhile since I posted anything, but due to the holidays and what not, I have been busy. Nonetheless, I want to take some time now to discuss a news story that I consider to be the most exciting published recently. I mentioned on my space page that I would try to provide some commentary and analysis of news regarding the space industry as I became aware of it. This will be my first entry in that series.
I know it's been awhile since I posted anything, but due to the holidays and what not, I have been busy. Nonetheless, I want to take some time now to discuss a news story that I consider to be the most exciting published recently. I mentioned on my space page that I would try to provide some commentary and analysis of news regarding the space industry as I became aware of it. This will be my first entry in that series.
Summary of Story
So what exactly happened that I am so excited about? Well, a company called Space Exploration Technologies (or SpaceX for short) launched its medium class rocket for the second time in history on December 8, 2010. At first glance, this doesn't seem like terribly important news. The important part, however, is that a small capsule that SpaceX also designed and built was fixed to the top of the launch vehicle. The Dragon capsule, as it is called, is an orbital vehicle that is slated to be used as a cargo transport to and from the International Space Station (ISS) for NASA. This flight was the Dragon's first check out and on-orbit test. The capsule performed two complete orbits around the Earth before reentering and splashing down off the coast of Mexico (orbit geometry: 288 km x 301 km at 34.53 degrees inclination).
This test flight marks the first time in history that a commercial space company developed a piece of hardware and brought it back to the surface of the Earth. Until now, only a few governments have managed this feat (USA, Russia, Japan, EU, and a few others). The other very important thing to note is that the Dragon capsule was designed to be man-rated. Ideally, the capsule will be used to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS, thus restoring the manned flight capabilities that will be lost when the space shuttle fleet is retired. More information about the Dragon capsule can be found here.
Finally, this marks the second flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster. SpaceX has already launched a few Falcon 1 vehicles, which use the same rocket engine (Merlin engine, designed and developed by SpaceX) as the Falcon 9. The trick is, the Falcon 9 configured nine of the merlin engines in a square array to give the Falcon 9 more thrust compared to the smaller Falcon 1. Having two successful flights of a new launch vehicle is quite an accomplishment on SpaceX's part, especially for the small amount of money they have spent. More information about the Falcon 9 can be found here.
The video below, provided by Spaceflightnow, can be viewed for a peak at the Falcon 9 launch up through main engine cut-off (MECO).
This test flight marks the first time in history that a commercial space company developed a piece of hardware and brought it back to the surface of the Earth. Until now, only a few governments have managed this feat (USA, Russia, Japan, EU, and a few others). The other very important thing to note is that the Dragon capsule was designed to be man-rated. Ideally, the capsule will be used to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS, thus restoring the manned flight capabilities that will be lost when the space shuttle fleet is retired. More information about the Dragon capsule can be found here.
Finally, this marks the second flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster. SpaceX has already launched a few Falcon 1 vehicles, which use the same rocket engine (Merlin engine, designed and developed by SpaceX) as the Falcon 9. The trick is, the Falcon 9 configured nine of the merlin engines in a square array to give the Falcon 9 more thrust compared to the smaller Falcon 1. Having two successful flights of a new launch vehicle is quite an accomplishment on SpaceX's part, especially for the small amount of money they have spent. More information about the Falcon 9 can be found here.
The video below, provided by Spaceflightnow, can be viewed for a peak at the Falcon 9 launch up through main engine cut-off (MECO).
The significance of this mission, however, will not only be in the impressive firsts that were achieved, but also, in the lasting impact that SpaceX, the Falcon 9, and the Dragon capsule will have on the space industry over all.
Financial Impact on Space Access
Perhaps the most significant impact that this launch will have on the space industry will be in demonstrating the reliability of the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9, and SpaceX's space access solution in general, has been touted as being one of the answers directed towards the question of, "How can we lower the cost of access to space?"
This is a very important question to answer. As long as it costs thousands of dollars to launch each kilogram of mass into space ($10,000 / kg is a popular number to toss around), then space access will be limited only to powerful countries and extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions. If the cost per kilogram of mass delivered to orbit is lowered significantly over the next few decades, then human kind will truly be able to become a space faring species. Assuming that the average male weights about 200 lbs. or 90 kg, launch costs would need to be reduced to approximately $5.56 per kilogram to deliver a standard male to orbit for about $500, or the average cost of a plane ticket. This is a very far cry from the $10,000 dollar number mentioned above. The Falcon 9, and SpaceX as a company, promises to lower the costs to orbit significantly, albeit, not that far.
So what kind of financial impact will SpaceX actually have on the launch industry? Well, to start answering this question, I dug up an old study conducted by the military in February of 2001 here. This study involved real estimations regarding prices to launch on vehicles that were flying at the time. Once I got hold of that data, I needed to distinguish the launch systems that had been retired, and then adjust for inflation through 2010 by using the overall consumer price index data found here. I also wanted to include two launch systems that were absent due to the early nature of the study conducted; the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, or the EELV services provided by the United Launch Alliance. Currently, these two rockets are the workhorses of the United States space fleet. In order to work those two systems into the study, I compiled the data for the Delta IV, found here, and the Atlas V, found here. The compiled and adjusted data is displayed in Table 1 below.
This is a very important question to answer. As long as it costs thousands of dollars to launch each kilogram of mass into space ($10,000 / kg is a popular number to toss around), then space access will be limited only to powerful countries and extraordinarily wealthy individuals and institutions. If the cost per kilogram of mass delivered to orbit is lowered significantly over the next few decades, then human kind will truly be able to become a space faring species. Assuming that the average male weights about 200 lbs. or 90 kg, launch costs would need to be reduced to approximately $5.56 per kilogram to deliver a standard male to orbit for about $500, or the average cost of a plane ticket. This is a very far cry from the $10,000 dollar number mentioned above. The Falcon 9, and SpaceX as a company, promises to lower the costs to orbit significantly, albeit, not that far.
So what kind of financial impact will SpaceX actually have on the launch industry? Well, to start answering this question, I dug up an old study conducted by the military in February of 2001 here. This study involved real estimations regarding prices to launch on vehicles that were flying at the time. Once I got hold of that data, I needed to distinguish the launch systems that had been retired, and then adjust for inflation through 2010 by using the overall consumer price index data found here. I also wanted to include two launch systems that were absent due to the early nature of the study conducted; the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, or the EELV services provided by the United Launch Alliance. Currently, these two rockets are the workhorses of the United States space fleet. In order to work those two systems into the study, I compiled the data for the Delta IV, found here, and the Atlas V, found here. The compiled and adjusted data is displayed in Table 1 below.
Take note that the redlined launch systems are currently retired and, thus, no longer available. Also, take note of the green and blue highlighted boxes. The blue boxes indicate very low cost to LEO systems, while the green boxes indicate the two lowest cost systems. The Falcon 9, offering a price point of $4,689 per kilogram, stands as one of the two cheapest rides per kg to LEO according to data found on SpaceX's pricing website. So, does the Falcon 9 live up to its promise of lowering the cost of access to space? Well, sort of.
Currently the cheapest ride to space can be found on the Zenit 2 launch system at $3,169 per kilogram to LEO. This is a Ukrainian system that is currently being upgraded and revamped to the Zenit-2M. The 2M model is currently being tested, and is not yet available for commercial launches. Thus, it is difficult to say whether or not it will still provide dirt cheap access to space. Other competitors to the Falcon 9 include China's Long March 3B rocket, and the Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles. These trends are also depicted below in Figure 1.
Currently the cheapest ride to space can be found on the Zenit 2 launch system at $3,169 per kilogram to LEO. This is a Ukrainian system that is currently being upgraded and revamped to the Zenit-2M. The 2M model is currently being tested, and is not yet available for commercial launches. Thus, it is difficult to say whether or not it will still provide dirt cheap access to space. Other competitors to the Falcon 9 include China's Long March 3B rocket, and the Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles. These trends are also depicted below in Figure 1.
The Atlas V and Delta IV figures derived above are a bit misleading. The cost figures posted on Astronautix are probably the low end cost figures for the stripped down Atlas V 400 and Delta IV Medium configurations. However, the payload to LEO figures used to calculate the cost per kilogram figure were the maximum payload to orbit figures found for each of these vehicles. The wide range of payload mass to orbit figures exist for each vehicle because each vehicle offeres multiple configurations ( Atlas V - 431, Delta IV Medium+ 4,2 etc.) which involve various payload fairings and booster configurations. I chose to divide the lowest price, by the highest payload potential because I wanted to get the absolute best case cost for each launcher. However, it is probable that the higher payload capabilities require the more complex configurations of the systems and, thus, cost more than the figures posted above. Essentially, the two figures highlighted in blue develop a "best-case bound" regarding the price offerings of the EELV program boosters.
The Long March 3B, dialing in at a price point of $5,184 per kilogram to LEO, also offers some competition to the Falcon 9. However, this booster is operated by China and, thus, utilizing it requires some fun political hoops to jump through. The only other competitive booster, the Sea Launch platform, is currently owned by a company (Sea Launch) which just went through bankruptcy and is in the process of recovery. This is partially due to some failed launches of the Sea Launch platform, which raises another very important question regarding SpaceX and the Falcon 9. How risky is it to launch on a new vehicle?
The Long March 3B, dialing in at a price point of $5,184 per kilogram to LEO, also offers some competition to the Falcon 9. However, this booster is operated by China and, thus, utilizing it requires some fun political hoops to jump through. The only other competitive booster, the Sea Launch platform, is currently owned by a company (Sea Launch) which just went through bankruptcy and is in the process of recovery. This is partially due to some failed launches of the Sea Launch platform, which raises another very important question regarding SpaceX and the Falcon 9. How risky is it to launch on a new vehicle?
Table 2: Risk data collected for a few
select launch systems. This data
counts, 'partial failures,' in the failures column.
select launch systems. This data
counts, 'partial failures,' in the failures column.
Currently, the Falcon 9 has a spotless track record. It has met its launch goals for 100% of its two launches. But since it has only launched twice, that's not really saying much. Let's look at some of the other platforms that we said were competitive with the Falcon 9. The EELV program that ULA operates has a very impressive track record, with a 92.86% and 95.65% success rate for the Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles respectively over a total of 37 launches. The Zenit 2, which is currently being revamped, has an 83.78% success rate over 37 launches. Meanwhile, the Long March Chinese rocket has an 83.33% success rate, but only has 12 launches under its belt. SpaceX's other platform, the Falcon 1 has only performed successfuly for 2/5 launches, or with a 40% success rate. This data is depicted in Table 2.
So what does this tell us about the current cheap launch systems on the market? Well, overall, the cheapest launch systems do not currently exist in the U.S. United States customers must either go to a foreign agency for space access if they want to get a good price, or they can pay more money for more reliability on United States hardware. Each of these options presents its own problems. On one hand, a customer with a payload they want sent to space, has to go through the hassle of dealing with ITAR regulations when dealing with a foreign launch agency since most space rated hardware is categorized as armaments hardware. On the other hand, they can pay more money to launch on the EELV systems. However, the EELV launchers are also used to launch military payloads for the U.S. government and, thus, utilizing them may require a customer to bump up against problems regarding classified techincal details.
This is the exact conundrum that SpaceX is in a position to solve. Since it is a commercial company, their systems should not be classified under any government protections. Since they are a United States company, launching with their platform will not involve a mess of legal hoops that potential customers will have to jump through. So, while SpaceX does not (yet) offer the cheapest ride to space, they certainly should be abile to lower customers incurred costs of dealing with contracts, legal issues, and schedule slips due to red tape and needless bullshit. That is the true power that SpaceX is offering with the Falcon 9, not just cheap access to space, but cheap, simple, and domestic access to space.
So what does this tell us about the current cheap launch systems on the market? Well, overall, the cheapest launch systems do not currently exist in the U.S. United States customers must either go to a foreign agency for space access if they want to get a good price, or they can pay more money for more reliability on United States hardware. Each of these options presents its own problems. On one hand, a customer with a payload they want sent to space, has to go through the hassle of dealing with ITAR regulations when dealing with a foreign launch agency since most space rated hardware is categorized as armaments hardware. On the other hand, they can pay more money to launch on the EELV systems. However, the EELV launchers are also used to launch military payloads for the U.S. government and, thus, utilizing them may require a customer to bump up against problems regarding classified techincal details.
This is the exact conundrum that SpaceX is in a position to solve. Since it is a commercial company, their systems should not be classified under any government protections. Since they are a United States company, launching with their platform will not involve a mess of legal hoops that potential customers will have to jump through. So, while SpaceX does not (yet) offer the cheapest ride to space, they certainly should be abile to lower customers incurred costs of dealing with contracts, legal issues, and schedule slips due to red tape and needless bullshit. That is the true power that SpaceX is offering with the Falcon 9, not just cheap access to space, but cheap, simple, and domestic access to space.
Engineering Impact on Space Hardware
"Well, what I like about SpaceX is they've turned "rocket science" into "rocket engineering." As an interested outsider, they seem to have a strong focus on modular design, which aids in keeping costs down. It's basic bottom-up design, which usually leads to better and cheaper solutions than the top-down design work that government mandated engineering tends to be."
-- Slashdot User jpmorgan, UID: 517966 . Reference.
-- Slashdot User jpmorgan, UID: 517966 . Reference.
Picture 2: This is a picture of SpaceX's Merlin
rocket engine. The picture is owned by SpaceX
and was provided via their website.
rocket engine. The picture is owned by SpaceX
and was provided via their website.
I couldn't have said it much better than jpmorgan said above. SpaceX has had, and will continue to have, a lasting effect on the rocket engineering world. Essentially, SpaceX designed one core engine for their rockets (so far), named the Merlin engine. They use this engine to power both their light class (Falcon 1) and medium class (Falcon 9) rockets. They also use the same engine to power the upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket. By using the same engine for all of their booster configurations, SpaceX has given themselves the advantage of mass producing this hardware which lowers the cost of each unit delivered. Essentially, this design practice allows SpaceX to buy their rocket engines in bulk. The same manufacturing lines, the same tooling, the same testing and inspection processes can be used to build the core hardware for every one of their rockets. This gives SpaceX a huge jump ahead of other companies that mix and match various rocket engines to design various vehicle configurations. For those companies, speccing, testing, building, and integrating each component of their vehicles requires separate hardware, separate tooling, separate test procedures, and so on. Thus, SpaceX has saved themselves a lot of money over their competition, which is savings that they can pass down to their customers.
Picture 3: The Saturn V launch vehicle with
Apollo 11 as a payload. You can clearly see the
clustered F-1 engines on the bottom of the rocket.
Photo provided by NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center.
Apollo 11 as a payload. You can clearly see the
clustered F-1 engines on the bottom of the rocket.
Photo provided by NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center.
Furthermore, this common engine cluster design is not necessarily a novel approach. The Russian Proton rocket, for instance, utilizes 6 of the same engines in its first stage. However, it does use a myriad of other engines in its later stages. The Saturn V design, however, (the U.S. manned rocket that carried the Apollo missions to the moon), also demonstrates the wisdom of mass production. The Saturn V implemented five F-1 engines in its first stage, five J-2 engines in its second stage, and one more J-2 engine in its third stage. Both of these vehicles stand as a testament to the power that can be derived from redundant design components. By utilizing the same engines multiple times, these vehicles show that high reliability, and low costs can be had for orbital launch vehicles. Reusing the same components establishes a failure model which has multiple redundant pathways which can be followed in the event of any single component failure.
So is SpaceX's approach to cluster engine rocket design novel? No, not really. However, the Falcon family of rockets does bring the concept of simple, reusable rocket engines back to the United States rocket market. Rather than having to rely on multiple subcontractors for each engine, SpaceX has given itself the freedom of developing its own, in-house engine that can be utilized in dozens of different ways. This is a powerful concept that, while once lost in the art off rocket making in the United States, appears to be returning.
So is SpaceX's approach to cluster engine rocket design novel? No, not really. However, the Falcon family of rockets does bring the concept of simple, reusable rocket engines back to the United States rocket market. Rather than having to rely on multiple subcontractors for each engine, SpaceX has given itself the freedom of developing its own, in-house engine that can be utilized in dozens of different ways. This is a powerful concept that, while once lost in the art off rocket making in the United States, appears to be returning.
Political Impact of Dragon Demo
SpaceX has actually become a bit of a controversial topic in the political realms of the space industry. During the 2010 fiscal year, President Barrack Obama drafted a suggested budget for NASA based on the findings of the Augustine Commission which had been established near the beginning of 2010. Essentially, the commission found that NASA's current manned space program, involving the Constellation program, was unsustainable on the budget it had been granted the last few years. As a result, the commission decided to explore alternative pathways for NASA's manned space program to work towards. Some of these pathways involved a heavy reliance upon commercial launch services, like those provided by SpaceX or ULA, for NASA, rather than the in-house development of a new launch vehicle. Many of these pathways were suggested to President Obama and, as a result, President Obama drafted a NASA budget that included a large chunk of money being allocated to competitions and award fees that could be spent on developing the launch abilities of the commercial space companies, like SpaceX.
When President Obama introduced this suggestive budget to Congress, he was met with much opposition. The Constellation Program, which had been the focus of NASA's manned space program until the fall of 2010, was funded as a super heavy launch vehicle system that would replace the space shuttle program once it was closed in 2011. The Constellation program promised to unlock new worlds to mankind, providing enough lift capacity to transport humans to the moon and, possibly, to Mars. The problem with the Constellation program however was that it was over budget and very far behind schedule. This is why the Augustine Commission suggested its dismantlement in their final report. However, the vehicles proposed as part of the Constellation Program, the Ares V and Ares I, promised to use some hardware that was developed in the districts of various Congressional representatives and Senators (such as Richard Shelby and Orrin Hatch). These Congressmen were, therefore, vehemently opposed to the dismantlement of the Constellation program (as it would cost their constituents potential business from the U.S. government) despite its various budgetary, schedule, and safety issues. Some portions of Congress, therefore took it upon themselves to condemn all of the suggestions made by the Augustine Commission (and President Obama) with regards to the manned spaceflight programs at NASA. This criticism included much vehemence and ire directed at companies like SpaceX.
When President Obama introduced this suggestive budget to Congress, he was met with much opposition. The Constellation Program, which had been the focus of NASA's manned space program until the fall of 2010, was funded as a super heavy launch vehicle system that would replace the space shuttle program once it was closed in 2011. The Constellation program promised to unlock new worlds to mankind, providing enough lift capacity to transport humans to the moon and, possibly, to Mars. The problem with the Constellation program however was that it was over budget and very far behind schedule. This is why the Augustine Commission suggested its dismantlement in their final report. However, the vehicles proposed as part of the Constellation Program, the Ares V and Ares I, promised to use some hardware that was developed in the districts of various Congressional representatives and Senators (such as Richard Shelby and Orrin Hatch). These Congressmen were, therefore, vehemently opposed to the dismantlement of the Constellation program (as it would cost their constituents potential business from the U.S. government) despite its various budgetary, schedule, and safety issues. Some portions of Congress, therefore took it upon themselves to condemn all of the suggestions made by the Augustine Commission (and President Obama) with regards to the manned spaceflight programs at NASA. This criticism included much vehemence and ire directed at companies like SpaceX.
Picture 4: Courtesy of SpaceX and NASA, this
computer rendition depictes the Dragon capsule
preparing to berth with the ISS.
computer rendition depictes the Dragon capsule
preparing to berth with the ISS.
The Congress critters that had something to lose via the dismantlement of the Constellation Program lambasted SpaceX, and other upcoming commercial launch providers, for advertising launch costs and abilities that had yet to be demonstrated. On more than one occasion, various politicians used the term, "unproven flight technologies," with regards to SpaceX and other commercial launch companies. Well, the second successful (and damn well nominal) launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 vehicle helps to shut those critics up. Furthermore, the term, "unproven," can hardly be assigned to SpaceX's launch hardware anymore. The successful testing of the Dragon capsule also serves to establish the notion that a commercial provider can develop a reusable capsule that can supply the International Space Station (as well as travel to Mars and the Moon, as Dragon's heatshield was designed to reenter the Earth atmosphere from a trans-Martian orbit). In other words, SpaceX is forcing some Congress critters to eat their own words about Obama's reckless endangerment of the U.S. manned space program via placing launch operations in the hands of commercial providers.
So what final impact does this test flight demonstration have on the political landscape of the space industry? Well, it is very simple. This flights goes to show that there is a new launch company on the scene that can give the established players a run for their money, thus disrupting the cash flow into various congressional districts where established players have set up their shops.
Overall Impact on Industry
So where does this test flight leave the space industry overall? Well, this hasn't exactly put any nails in the coffins of any other players. Nor has the test so effectively put Congressmen's feet in their own mouth as to shut them up for good. It does, however, bring one more strong, competitive player to the United States launch market. This will help increase competition in the industry and, thus, spurn innovation. Furthermore, this successful test will give SpaceX the ability to grow and mature as a company as it attracts more customers. This expansion will open up many career opportunities for many out of work engineers, which can only be a good thing in the present economic environment. It also demonstrates the power, efficiency, and reliability that can be derived from performing in-house development on vehicle components that can be reused in multiple roles and locations on each vehicle.
Picture 5: The dragon capsule as it returns to Earth safely, via its parachute reentry system, after a 100% successful test flight. Photo provided courtesy of Spaceflightnow
But perhaps even more important than all that, this test flight represents the Space Renaissance, as it has been termed, at what might be one of its finest hours. This test flight has shown that the United States, and humanity in general, is not willing to give up on its potential adventures in the stars. It shows that some folk, even if they be few today, will not stand idly by while the space industry of the human race stagnates. No, this test flight shows quite the opposite, that some men and women consider the dark void of space to be our future, the bright stars of the night sky to be our destiny, and the breathtaking marvels of the celestial sphere to be our destination.
This test flight demonstrates the human spirit's uncompromising and unwavering demand to explore the infinite, without fear, without hesitation, and without pause, but rather, with the clarity of vision, vigor, and gumption that can only be found in the human species!
This test flight demonstrates the human spirit's uncompromising and unwavering demand to explore the infinite, without fear, without hesitation, and without pause, but rather, with the clarity of vision, vigor, and gumption that can only be found in the human species!
"I think I speak for all of us when I say "EEEEEEEEE!" and do a little dance."
-- Slashdot User Toze, UID: 1668155, in regards to reading about the successful Falcon 9 and Dragon test. Reference.
-- Slashdot User Toze, UID: 1668155, in regards to reading about the successful Falcon 9 and Dragon test. Reference.