SpaceX for Real?

We'll know soon enough.

BTW, the planned Falcon launch is apparently supposed to go from
Space Launch Complex 3-West at Vandenberg AFB, formerly used for
Atlas E/F/H launches. The site's service and unbilical towers
were demolished in 2000, so this must be a "flat pad" setup.
SLC-3W is supposed to be rebuilt for Atlas V in a few years as
I understand it.

The SpaceX web site has news of a recent test stand engine
explosion and of launch date slippage. Neither are big
suprises in such a development effort.

According to the web site, the "reusable" Falcon first stage
will reenter at Mach 9, float down to the Pacific on parachutes,
and be fished out of the water by some guys in a rented tugboat!

- Ed Kyle

SpaceX Press Release Follows


SpaceX Falcon Rocket to Be Unveiled In Washington, DC December 4

WHAT: Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)'s official
unveiling ceremony for the new Falcon orbital launch vehicle. SpaceX
will bring the entire seven-story high spacecraft and its mobile
launch system to the nation's Capitol as part of the hundred-year
anniversary of manned flight.

WHO: SpaceX founder CEO Elon Musk and others

WHEN: Thursday, December 4, 2003
- Unveiling ceremony at 8:00 EST
- Reception begins at 7:00 EST


WHE Unveiling ceremony on Independence Avenue followed by
Reception: The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, on the Mall,
Washington, DC

WHAT ELSE: The Falcon rocket is notable for being:

-- The first rocket with substantial reusability developed since the
Space Shuttle launched over two decades ago. Once the Shuttle retires,
it will be the world's only reusable rocket.

-- A major breakthrough in the cost of access to space, with a price
per flight to orbit over four times lower than its nearest American
competitor.

-- Designed from a "clean sheet" for reliable space transportation,
compared to most existing launch vehicles, which have a comparatively
low-reliability heritage as weapons systems.

First launch is expected to occur in early 2004 from the SpaceX launch
complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The payload is a
Department of Defense tactical communications & observation satellite
called TacSat-1.

CONTACT: Frank Sietzen 703 685 7090, Email:

About SpaceX

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is developing a family of
launch vehicles intended to reduce the cost and increase the
reliability of access to space by a factor of ten. Falcon, a two
stage, liquid-fueled orbital launch vehicle, is the company's first
product. The entire vehicle, including main and upper stage engines,
primary structure, avionics and guidance control, is being developed
internally at SpaceX.

Located in El Segundo, California, the company was founded by CEO Elon
Musk in June 2002. SpaceX is the third company founded by Mr. Musk.
Previously he co-founded and was the largest shareholder of PayPal,
the world's leading electronic payment system, which sold to online
auction giant eBay(TM) for $1.5 billion in 2002. More information
about SpaceX can be found at http://www.SpaceX.com

On 2003-11-26, ed kyle wrote:

BTW, the planned Falcon launch is apparently supposed to go from
Space Launch Complex 3-West at Vandenberg AFB, formerly used for
Atlas E/F/H launches. The site's service and unbilical towers
were demolished in 2000, so this must be a "flat pad" setup.
SLC-3W is supposed to be rebuilt for Atlas V in a few years as
I understand it.

They've also been allocated Complex 46 out at The Cape. From
a reply that Kim (Keller) gave to me wondering where Complex 46 was,
that is a "flat pad". I'd guess SLC-3W is the same...

See http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g7....rr.com&rnum=2


Iain

Iain Young wrote in message ...
On 2003-11-26, ed kyle wrote:

BTW, the planned Falcon launch is apparently supposed to go from
Space Launch Complex 3-West at Vandenberg AFB, formerly used for
Atlas E/F/H launches. The site's service and unbilical towers
were demolished in 2000, so this must be a "flat pad" setup.
SLC-3W is supposed to be rebuilt for Atlas V in a few years as
I understand it.

They've also been allocated Complex 46 out at The Cape. From
a reply that Kim (Keller) gave to me wondering where Complex 46 was,
that is a "flat pad". I'd guess SLC-3W is the same...


SLC 46 is flat in the sense that it has a subgrade flame
trench and no umbilical tower to speak of (Athena used a
steel pole-like mast), but it does have a mobile service
structure that can house a vehicle during pre-launch
assembly and testing. Vandenberg's SLC 3-West won't have
a service tower, unless SpaceX or the Air Force builds
one.

I'm going to waffle a bit now about the Atlas V pad. It
turns out that a recent Aviation Week story said that
SLC-*East*, the current Atlas IIAS pad, is supposed to
be rebuilt to support Atlas V. SLC-3E in current form
is practically brand new (first launch in 1999), but
has only hosted two Atlas IIA(S) launches. A third and
final Atlas IIA(S) is on that pad right now.

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
According to the web site, the "reusable" Falcon first stage
will reenter at Mach 9, float down to the Pacific on parachutes,
and be fished out of the water by some guys in a rented tugboat!

The story I heard is that the reusability is more public relations than
reality... although things may have changed since then, I haven't had a
recent update.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
According to the web site, the "reusable" Falcon first stage
will reenter at Mach 9, float down to the Pacific on parachutes,
and be fished out of the water by some guys in a rented tugboat!

The story I heard is that the reusability is more public relations than
reality... although things may have changed since then, I haven't had a
recent update.

I get the impression that the "Falcon" first stage recovery
attempts are for engineering research purposes, at best. I
wonder if the tugboat guys won't be fishing aluminum
fragments out of the water.

I'm looking forward to seeing what SpaceX puts on display
next week. Are we going to see a real flight article, or
a repeat of the Roton rollout, where a hover test vehicle
was presented with much hype?

I'm also wondering about the $6 million per launch price, the
projected 2-3 launches per year market, the 30+ full-time
SpaceX employees, and the 35+ contract employees used during
launches. If you figure 2 weeks of contract employees per
launch, you get the equivalent of about 35 full-timers.
$150K employment cost for each (salary plus overhead) gets
you to $5.25 million fixed costs. Three launches brings in
$18 million. For $12.75 million, you've got to pay the rent
and utilities, pay the site fees, pay for expert enviromental
impact statements and so forth, build/assemble three bonafide
two-stage rockets that reportedly carry as much payload as
an early Thor-type, and launch 'em into predictable orbits.

Maybe it is not about money. Or, maybe, it is about creating
a company to sell to your undercut competition later for a
big profit.

We'll see.

- Ed Kyle

Maybe it is not about money. Or, maybe, it is about creating
a company to sell to your undercut competition later for a
big profit. BRBR

I can't see that here. This isn't PayPal: there's no mass market. Musk says
he thinks he can sell 4-5 launches/year once the government believes he's for
real and the vehicle is flight proven. Also, $6M is without range costs, so
expect a creep to near $7M, still way lower than any other US provider.
I had the chance to ask Musk if he expected to turn a profit on the small
Falcon, or if it was just a useful stepping stone towards larger rockets. He
replied that he would like to make money on the small vehicle and thought he
would, but he didn't have to do so in the first year or two.

Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

(MattWriter) wrote in message ...
Maybe it is not about money. Or, maybe, it is about creating
a company to sell to your undercut competition later for a
big profit. BRBR

I can't see that here. This isn't PayPal: there's no mass market. Musk says
he thinks he can sell 4-5 launches/year once the government believes he's for
real and the vehicle is flight proven. Also, $6M is without range costs, so
expect a creep to near $7M, still way lower than any other US provider.


I like what SpaceX is trying to do and I wish the company
well, but Mr. Musk has picked a tough nut to crack. His
first hurdle is the past 35 years of small-launcher history.
Scout only flew an average of about two times per year for
25 years before its 1995 finale. Pegasus has flown an average
of about 2.7 flights per year since 1990 and less than twice
per year since 2000. This includes both government and
commercial missions.

If all goes well and SpaceX doesn't trip itself up with a
series of launch failures, the company will have to all but
put Pegasus and Taurus out of business to get to the 2-3/year
rate, then will still have to compete with the likes of
low-cost Minotaur for some government business. On the
commercial side, there is Eurockot, which offers a more
powerful launch vehicle than Falcon for probably about the
same amount of money, yet still has only won about 1-2
launches per year.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
We'll know soon enough.


- Ed Kyle

Reading their website and other press on SpaceX ,
they say launch cost will be 6 million.
That would be interesting, and maybe can be done.
But the only mention I see for development cost is
100 million, that really seems low, even using off-the-shelf
stuff , I find this hard to believe.

In article , Al Jackson wrote:
(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
We'll know soon enough.


- Ed Kyle

Reading their website and other press on SpaceX ,
they say launch cost will be 6 million.
That would be interesting, and maybe can be done.
But the only mention I see for development cost is
100 million, that really seems low, even using off-the-shelf
stuff , I find this hard to believe.

Random thought - to what degree are development costs constrained by
launch cost, and how does it scale?

I mean, you'd rationally expect Pegasus to have lower development costs
than, say, Delta IV. But is there a relationship? Interesting thought.

(It no doubt depends on testing regimens - I'd hate to see the
development cost of one of the EELVs if they'd used a V2-scale
test-firing program) Might go and dig up some numbers here...

--
-Andrew Gray

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...

If all goes well and SpaceX doesn't trip itself up with a
series of launch failures, the company will have to all but
put Pegasus and Taurus out of business to get to the 2-3/year
rate, then will still have to compete with the likes of
low-cost Minotaur for some government business. On the
commercial side, there is Eurockot, which offers a more
powerful launch vehicle than Falcon for probably about the
same amount of money, yet still has only won about 1-2
launches per year.

- Ed Kyle

In one of his updates, Elon stated that one of the initial customers
was only purchasing a launch because SpaceX had such a low price.
(i.e. They would not have launched anything otherwise)

If this kind of market elasticity truly exists, there will be more
opportunities than past results would indictate.

-S