Update 5-4-17: They've done it again, this time launching a recon satellite for the military, and once again they successfully recovered the first stage booster for reuse. This was their first launch in the launch business sector that was previously a de-facto monopoly for ULA.
Original Article:
Spacex’s seemingly-routine successful launch on 30 March 2017, of a satellite to geosynchronous transfer orbit is a bigger deal than it first seems. The Falcon-9 first stage booster rocket was a used item landed before, and now landed again.
Original Article:
Spacex’s seemingly-routine successful launch on 30 March 2017, of a satellite to geosynchronous transfer orbit is a bigger deal than it first seems. The Falcon-9 first stage booster rocket was a used item landed before, and now landed again.
This has never-before been done with a rocket capable of
reaching orbit. It portends a near-term dramatic
drop in launch costs to space, but only if
the technology proves out the way hoped.
Reusable launch to orbit is more demanding than reusable launch
into suborbital flight. This is because
the conditions when the used stage returns to the atmosphere are far harsher
for an orbital launcher.
In the suborbital arena,
it isn’t widely publicized yet,
but Blue Origin has flown and landed the same New Shepard booster rocket
some 5 times now. That, too,
has never before been done.
More To Come
There’s more reusable firsts waiting in the wings. Virgin Galactic’s “Spaceship Two”, and XCOR Aerospace”s “Lynx”. Both are reusable suborbital spaceplanes for
the tourist industry.
There is also Sierra Nevada’s orbital “Dreamchaser”
spaceplane, which is undergoing its
initial tests. And, Spacex’s “Dragon” capsules were designed from
the beginning to be re-used.
Blue Origin does plan to enter the orbital market with its
New Glenn rocket, which is to be
reusable. That activity is just
beginning: the new big engine for it has
begun ground testing.
Spacex plans to fly soon a much larger reusable rocket called
Falcon-Heavy, that is based on its
Falcon-9 hardware. As I understand
it, the first flight of Falcon Heavy is
deferred, until pad 40 at Cape Canaveral
is repaired after last year’s explosion.
This is wise, because a problem
test-flying Falcon-Heavy off of pad 39 then cannot stop commercial Falcon-9
launches off pad 40.
Spaceship Two is about to resume flight testing after an
accident in test a while back. It will carry
about half a dozen passengers, and a
crew of two pilots. It is launched from
a large carrier plane.
Lynx is smaller: one
passenger, one pilot. But it simply takes off from a runway, flies into space, and returns to that runway, perhaps up to 4 times per day. The first flight test article is nearing
completion.
A Look Behind the
Curtain
What is so remarkable about all this is not so much what
is being done, but who is doing
it! Not one of those names is part of
the industry that worked with NASA or the USAF all these decades, which is sometimes called “old space”. This is entirely what we might call “new
space”.
That is not to say that these “new space” companies don’t
work with NASA or USAF, because many
do. Spacex has NASA contracts to deliver
cargo with its Dragon to the space station,
as does Orbital ATK with its Cygnus.
Spacex has a NASA contract to develop a crewed variant of “Dragon”
to deliver astronauts to orbit, as does
Boeing with its CST-100 “Starliner” capsule.
Sierra Nevada’s “Dreamchaser” spaceplane was also contracted by NASA for
this, got dropped for a while, but may now get contracted again.
NASA and USAF are also interested in Blue Origin’s New Glenn
orbital rocket, especially the engines
that will push it. These engines may be
candidates for a follow-on launch rocket to the Atlas-V, that both agencies routinely buy from the
Boeing / Lockheed-Martin venture ULA (United Launch Alliance).
And Spacex now has contracts from USAF to launch some of its
satellites. Before, only ULA had any of that business. (See update 5-4-17 above.)
Why This Is Happening
What broke this market open for “new space” entrants was their
lower prices. And that came from
competition in the commercial satellite launch business, something neither NASA nor USAF does. These American companies and a variety of
foreign companies all had to learn how to reduce price, competing in that growing commercial satellite
business.
Up to now, the “secret”
was simplification of the logistical “tail” that supports production and flight
of these rockets as expendable vehicles.
Reducing that support tail from the size of a major city to the size of a
small town reduced the “typical” per-launch price from many hundreds of
millions of dollars to only several tens of millions of dollars: almost a factor of 10.
Reusability promises to reduce that by at least another
factor of 10! Maybe more!
It is fundamentally the large size of the commercial
satellite launch market that can support so many companies competing in
it. That has taken decades to grow. But the competition that is inherent with
many companies is what spurs the innovation that cuts costs, allowing lower prices.
Consolidation into one,
or a few, stops that
competition. That kills downward
pressure on prices, and thus
dis-incentivizes innovation.
Amazing what the truly-competitive market can do for
you, given time and opportunity.
I wonder if there is room on the market for multiple 'new space' competitors touting reusability as the solution to beating the costs of each other?
ReplyDeleteI pretty much think that will be inevitable, as long these new space entrants do not agglomerate into a new oligopoly. -- GW
Delete