Falcon Heavy Impact on NewSpace

Falcon Heavy Impact on NewSpace

Sepatuads.com   April 06, 2011   Comment  

With the announcement from SpaceX yesterday about the Falcon Heavy, I went back over the recent missions I had been analyzing here at Space Business Blog to determine if any of them would benefit directly from the Falcon Heavy’s superior performance and reduced per pound launch cost.

The Answer: No. Well, mostly no.

Let me explain. Most of the innovative missions I had been considering were near term missions that could be performed on a single launch without the added capability of the Falcon Heavy.

• CubeSat “Observers” of LEO/GEO assets – too small, mission may benefit from cheaper secondary payload prices
• A NEO prospector mission – too small, mission may benefit from cheaper secondary payload prices
• Nanosat Launchers – if anything, as launchers get larger, the need for a very small/responsive alternative grows, not decreases
• LEO/GEO/L1 tug – a Falcon Heavy launch capability may actually harpoon this whole idea of a transfer tug (at least in the near term). Probably worth a new post on how the Falcon Heavy illuminates/reduces the value for such a capability
• Refueling of Iridium’s constellation - too small, mission may benefit from cheaper secondary payload prices

But here are a few humble thoughts on why a Falcon Heavy changes the game:

• Further NewSpace validation: Still a lot of doubt in congress that a commercial company can do rocket science – one more answer to these critics. New Space firms benefit from the validation that SpaceX creates.
• Cheaper Secondary Payloads: With 53 metric tons to LEO available for each mission, smaller payloads could be combined to take advantage of all of that capability. This would allow more users to benefit from the $1000/lb price point, not just the big payloads.
• Cheaper Falcon 1 and 9 missions: The Falcon family of launchers use the Merlin engine. Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and the Falcon Heavy (which could be called Falcon 27 since it uses 27 Merlins for each mission). In the announcement yesterday, Elon eluded to economies of scale coming from SpaceX making so many of these Merlin engines - 100’s per year. If the Falcon Heavy flies frequently, SpaceX will get even more experience about making many, many, many Merlin engines. The more Merlins you make, the more ways you find to make them cheaper. Yay economies of scale! The hope is that these savings result in lower prices for Falcon 1 and 9 over the long-term.
• New mission potential: And now the obvious benefits – you can do more with any mission (more mass lifted at a lower cost). Think of the missions you can do with the raw ingredients being developed. Humans to NEOs, L1, Moon flybys, Venus/Mars flybys, and science missions to Mars and back – limited new hardware needed. The reality that a rich private citizen will soon be able to leave LEO for some impressive destinations has not been grasped by the population at large and will surprise many when such a mission is actually launched:
• Falcon Heavy
• Bigelow Modules
• Dragon
• CST-100
• Even the Orion, and ISS
• Commercial beats contracting: ULA could have built the rocket that SpaceX is building – they have a lot of very smart engineers. But they won’t build it (IMHO). They will wait for a contract to build one – which won’t come. Yes, they will spend their own small R&D budgets to enhance their current offerings. But they won’t spend hundreds of millions to develop a vehicle independently. And because of this, the only reason ULA will be offering launch services at all in ten years will be:
• SpaceX can’t keep up with demand or
• SpaceX has an accident or
• The US govt insists on multiple launch providers to ensure access (funny they lacked that once ULA was formed) or
• ULA’s political clout keeps them in the game – even if overpriced
• ULA changes from a contractor to acting more like a commercial provider (the hardest switch to make)

**UPDATE:
Next Big Future offers this great cost comparison between the EELV launch costs of ULA and SpaceX:

Even if you DON'T have $80M+, the Falcon Heavy announcement changes how the whole world plans their space missions - even New Space.

Low Costs. Rapid Testing. Right-Sized Processes.

Low Costs. Rapid Testing. Right-Sized Processes.

Sepatuads.com   Maret 22, 2011   Comment  

XCOR 5K18

Why work with a New Space firm? As a major Prime, why not just build it yourself?  New Space firms won’t have access to the equipment you do.  New Space firms won’t have as diverse of a workforce as you do.

ULA had reasons for working with New Space.

In their announcement this week, United Launch Alliance (LM and Boeing) described the reasons for working with XCOR on a new innovative Aluminum rocket engine technology:

• Lower Costs: “performance and reliability our customers need at a more affordable price.” The overhead/G&A cost burdens for large companies often makes one hour of effort for a smaller company cost less than at larger aerospace firms - even when you factor in the smaller firm's profit margins. 
• Faster to Test and Re-test: “rapid turnaround for build and test cycles that drive innovative learning.” A culture built on the idea of “when in doubt, build” rather than a culture built on “when in doubt, PowerPoint”.
• Right-sized Processes: “small company project management approach.” Larger companies often times have a one-size-fits-all set of processes that may work well for large development efforts but may need to be rethought for smaller, more risk-tolerant efforts. Kudos for ULA/XCOR recognizing the need to match the processes with the effort.

Every industry is replete with examples of large firms working with/buying innovative smaller firms to gain the advantages mentioned above: lower costs, rapid testing, right-sized processes. But first you need to get invited to the dance.  New space firms need to demonstrate enough independent success to get noticed by these larger companies.  But how do you demonstrate that type of independent success? Lower costs. Rapid testing. Right-sized processes.  Congrats, XCOR.

Plymouth Rock - Asteroids here we Come

Plymouth Rock - Asteroids here we Come

Sepatuads.com   Agustus 31, 2010   Comment  

Lockheed Martin this week pitched a Manned Asteroid mission utilizing two linked Orion Spacecraft currently being developed by the company. Although LM admits asteroid mission planning is 100% internally funded, many within NASA have expressed an interest in the Plymouth Rock presentation. The basics:

• Two linked Orions
• 6 month round trip
• 100kg sample return
• 3 Astronauts
• No new tech required
• With funding could make the trip within 10 years
• Several asteroids being considered for the 2015-2030 time frame from small to very large

The proposal is intriguing. A space entrepreneur has only has to read Mining the Sky to salivate over the potential of extraterrestrial resources available to us on asteroids. But in the near term, what I am most interested in as an entrepreneur is Lockheed’s plan to leave one of the two Orions in orbit after the manned asteroid mission - able to reused over multiple trips. This “stretch” Orion would forgo the heat shield in favor of modifications making it more conducive to long duration space flight. One Orion capsule (the one with a heat shield) would reenter with Crew and samples after each mission. The stretch Orion would remain in orbit ready for future asteroid missions or to serve as a long duration space lab in LEO.

This trend towards reusability is important and I am glad to see it promoted for three reasons:

1. Philosophical Logic: The debate over “reuse” or “launch new” continues to rage (or at least simmer). For LM to recommend a solution that contains such a large reusable component, this means the largest defense contractor on the planet has given the nod toward near-term technologies like depots and space tugs as well. Although not mentioned in the Plymouth Rock presentation, such technologies like propellant depots and space tugs would be needed in order to prepare the stretch Orion for a follow-on mission. We have already seen companies like ULA and Boeing make recommendations for depots and tugs, but to date we have not seen much from Lockheed Martin on the subject.
2. Altruistic Logic: For humans to become truly space faring, cost minimization of permanent space logistics must become more important than capability maximization. Reusable components are essential to create sustainable space logistics solutions.
3. Profit Logic: A clever risk-tolerant company could make a lot of money with a reusable man-rated asset in orbit (especially if LM retains ownership after the primary mission with NASA concludes).

Here are a few secondary missions for a stretch Orion (with profit potential):

• Become a Lunar/Mars cycler ferrying missions to and from the moon or Mars (the stretch Orion will already be capable of remote rendezvous and docking)
• Analyze the earth using the same instruments used to analyze Asteroidal surfaces and sell the data to the science community
• Sell experiment space on-board as a long-term space lab (much less vibration than on the ISS) – dock with ISS to take on experiments, but fly remotely without crew for long durations.
• Fly to the moon: Commercial Lunar fly by’s (One Stretch Orion and one Dragon or Soyuz attached)

How would you make money from a stretch Orion?