Carried Away

Jim Maser Moves to Rocketdyne

According to a Pratt & Whitney press release, Jim Maser, the current President and Chief Operating Officer of SpaceX, is being hired as President of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, the rocket propulsion shop.  Maser was with SpaceX for only about 9 months, and I wonder what prompted him to make the move.  By way of background, recently Rocketdyne was acquired by United Technologies for $700 million, so Rocketdyne would represent at least a slight move up the current space business hierarchy.  However, I have the sense that SpaceX would be a more rewarding employer for an aerospace engineer of high ambition.

As far as I can recall, this move is notable as the first and only major defection from SpaceX.

It's November; Any SpaceX News?

Time flies when you're having fun.  All of the sudden, it's the middle of November, but I haven't heard any news on SpaceX's next launch attempt.  In August, Elon Musk put the schedule as November (test firings) and December (launch).  Any bits and pieces of information on the launch would be appreciated.

11/15/2006 Updates:  hopeful in the comments gives a link to the JPL space calendar which puts the launch at January 12, 2007.  This morning, Clark Lindsey received word from Elon Musk that the launch will be mid to late January.

EELV Monopoly Approved -- Should We Care?

There have been several private space news items over the last month that warrant attention:  (1) Robert Bigelow's announcement about the schedule and details for his space station devolopment; (2) Robert Bigelow's announcement that he is working with Lockheed-Martin to study the feasibility of manned flights on the Atlas V; and (3) the approval of the Boeing-Lockheed-Martin EELV (military/intelligence expendable rocket) launch monopoly.

With regard to the Boeing-Lockheed-Martin EELV launch monopoly, I have never understood what Lockheed-Martin hoped to gain by entering into the joint venture and enduring the distraction of changes in its manufacturing chain.  Manufacturing of Lockheed-Martin's Atlas V and Boeing's Delta IV rockets is to be consolidated at Boeing's Delta IV plant in Decatur, Alabama.  Further, due to a pricing scandal, Boeing has had trouble obtaining orders from the military through the program, leaving Lockheed-Martin the lion's share of business.  Lastly, if the military were wishing to downselect from two rocket models to one, the Atlas V would be the surviving model.

(Lockheed-Martin's Atlas V)

Also, I have wondered why the military would allow the joint venture.  It is true that both of these rockets are underutilized.  Each rocket has launched only two payloads this year.  All things equal, combining the efforts of the two rocket programs would save on fixed costs.  However, I am very skeptical that costs will be reduced overall.  In a cost-plus contracting environment, a company is constrained on cost only by its competition in the market and its reticence to ask for more money from the government.  Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are no blushing virgins when it comes to asking for more money, so removing the competition between the two programs would only serve to uncap the cost demands.

In the end, I think the significance of the joint venture to private space launch may become minimal.  If SpaceX can execute its business plan, then the need for the EELV program may be called into question.  Lockheed-Martin may be able to sustain the political support for Atlas V for a while, but the difference in price between Atlas V and SpaceX's Falcon 9 eventually should lead the military to phase out the EELV program.  To be sure, a half dozen launches per year or so would be a golden piece of business for SpaceX in the medium term, but its order book is healthy in any event.

SpaceX/NASA Contract Valued at $500 - $600 Million

On Friday, Elon Musk posted an update on SpaceX's recent activities.  There are lots of details there.  One item that I don't think was reported so explicitly elsewhere is that as part of the station resupply demonstration contract, NASA has purchased an option on 3 demonstration flights for station recrewing.  In other words, this is not merely a resupply demonstration contract with a vague plan for recrewing.  Musk states that, if exercised, the option is of a similar value to the resupply demonstration agreement ($278 million).  My math therefore puts the total value of the contract in the $500 - $600 million range.  Reading between the lines, and given that the cargo and crewed versions of Dragon are very similar, it seems likely that SpaceX will invest its $200 million in the next several years for R&D in hopes of being paid back quickly by NASA once the agency exercises the recrewing demonstration option.

Musk goes on to give a broad outline of his operational business plan with regard to NASA station resupply and recrewing.  I'm uncertain about the precise price figures, in that he describes the resupply business as worth between $300 million and $500 million per annum from 2011 to 2015.  Perhaps he means resupply and recrewing?  With NASA estimated demand of about half a dozen flights per annum, the per flight price implied in a $300 - $500 million total seems a little high compared to SpaceX's published pricing of about $27 million per flight.  One possibility is that he is charging a premium for the Dragon capsule, given that it's not a standard satellite payload.  Another possibility is that he also is including services performed by other companies in the team.  In any event, it might make sense to review what NASA said in its press conference to see of what that half dozen flights per annum demand consists.

Robert Bigelow on Launch Demand

On Thursday, The Space Show had a very informative, wide-ranging, over two-hour long interview with Robert Bigelow, of Bigelow Aerospace.  I'll leave the summarization of the discussion to somebody else, but one interesting detail on which I focused was the magnitude of the launch demand that Bigelow expects to generate.

In year 3 of operations of Bigelow's first structure, his business plan calls for 16 crewed launches (6 - 8 crew apiece) and 4 cargo launches to the structure, or 20 launches total.  If we assume that the Dragon will use the 3.6 meter fairing version of Falcon 9 -- with capacity of 20,000 lbs. to LEO, $27 million list price -- and that the cargo flights use roughly the same configuration, that's at least $540 million per annum in business at list prices.  Bigelow aptly described this demand as an "unbelievably huge number" in comparison to today's manned spaceflight demand, and helped give context to his opinion that Bigelow's $50 million America's Space Prize is no longer relevant.

(The view from Genesis I.)

Bigelow went on to describe the implications of such an increase in rigidly-scheduled demand.  20 launches per annum is a frequency of about once every 2 weeks.  Currently, all U.S. launches can be "bumped" by Department of Defense or NASA requirements.  Sometimes, those delays can last many months.  Even at SpaceX's facility on Omelek in the Marshall Islands, launches are sometimes scrubbed due to Department of Defense missile tests.  Given these constraints, Bigelow suggested that in the next 4 or 5 years, American launch companies would need to secure non-Department of Defense launch facilities where they would control the launch schedule completely.  Even though not mentioned by Bigelow, I note that there has been some small discussion about using Johnston Atoll as a private launch facility.  Other possibilities include using a mobile sea platform, as Sea Launch uses.  Jim Maser, SpaceX's new President, has extensive experience with the mobile sea platform logistics, owing to his past experience as President of Sea Launch.

With crews of 6 - 8 per flight, Bigelow needs to establish a substantial astronaut corps.  Since Bigelow will be offering ample opportunities for spaceflight, it seems likely that in short order, NASA will find that its astronaut corps has been picked clean by the company.  Bigelow did not give any detail regarding an astronaut corps, but it wouldn't surprise me to see an announcement at the beginning of next year regarding its formation.  I would like to see further opinions about what it would take to create and maintain an astronaut corps of this type.  It sounds expensive.

The discussion covered a lot of ground, so I recommend listening to the interview in its entirety.   I'm thankful that the previously reclusive Bigelow decided to give an interview to The Space Show, and I hope that the experience was positive for him.  I'm rooting for his success.

Dragon Development Will Be Expensive

After several days of reading and thinking about SpaceX winning a NASA space station resupply/recrewing demonstration contract, I have come back to Alan Boyle's thorough article that he wrote for MSNBC right after the award.  Buried near the back of the article is the fact that Musk expects to invest $200 million on Falcon 9/Dragon development in addition to the $278 million to be provided by NASA, or a total of $478 million.  Even though I probably shouldn't be, I'm a little shocked at the development price tag and the scale that it implies.

Will SpaceX be a 400 employee max operation -- a small, lean company, with low operating costs?  Or will it be something on a different scale, with the bureaucratic trappings of a large company?  To burn through a half a billion dollars cash in 4 years would seem to require a larger organization, even considering the partners that SpaceX brought on board.  So far, SpaceX has burned through about $100 million so far and might have 200 or 250 employees.  How much should you budget for rocket personnel nowadays?

One thing is for sure:  I have confidence that SpaceX will resist the temptation to spend too much money on launch infrastructure.  Two years ago, I wondered at the extreme infrastructure that I assumed would be required for manned launch capability (things have changed in the last two years so that now it's funny to read what I wrote at that time).  But Musk recently stated that not much more infrastructure is required on Omelek island for Falcon 9.  If SpaceX decides to launch out of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, we will see whether the infrastructure requirements are more extensive.  Also, perhaps SpaceX will take the opportunity to purchase more manufacturing and test facilities.

In the half billion dollar figure, perhaps Musk is including development already completed  -- i.e., the total investment for Falcon 1/9/Dragon will be nearer $500 million instead of $600 million.  Another possibility is that he is including some development work on the Merlin 2/3 engines or the high energy upper stage engines.  It doesn't seem likely that Musk will idle his engine design team, now that he has assembled it.  Or maybe he is including some facilities and tooling that would be required for the BFR.  This is fun speculation.

Props go out to Jon Goff for beating the drum about NASA's bloated "Stick" launcher program (or Shaft, as Jon puts it).  But are the above numbers making it clear that alt.space also is going to be spending money on a scale not previously envisioned?

SpaceX and RPK Win Station Resupply Demonstration Contracts

By now, several articles have been written about SpaceX and RocketPlane-Kistler winning space station resupply/recrewing demonstration contracts from NASA.  Clark Lindsey has a nice rundown, so I will not cover the basic news here.  First off, congratulations are due to SpaceX and RPK.  The prospect of cash now for development ($278 million for SpaceX and $207 million for RPK) and a further 6 flights per annum for resupply/recrewing of the International Space Station must be very attractive to each company.  After all, 6 flights per annum is over 10% of the global space launch market.  However, I hope that especially SpaceX's larger goals don't become caught in a bad business relationship with NASA.

(An artist's rendering of the SpaceX Dragon crew capsule.)

First and foremost, NASA is a political animal that is funded by annual appropriations by congressmen from states and districts that will benefit from the federal contracts.  Secondarily, NASA has a manned space flight mission that burnishes the prestige of the United States and its allies.  Well down on the list of priorities is expanding our scientific knowledge and technological know-how.  Hardly on the list of priorities at all is price-effectivene contracting, and as such, any relationship with NASA will tend not to cultivate it.  Any program that promises to decrease the price of these federal contracts seems likely to suffer from lack of political support.

In order to win the contract, RPK banked on this trait of NASA, and acted in a manner well suited to an old-line NASA contractor.  It spread the subcontracts among a number of companies with facilities in politically well connected states and congressional districts.  It partnered with Orbital Sciences and Lockheed-Martin, the old guard of the aerospace business with absolutely no interest in price-effectiveness.  I understand this cynical approach, especially since much of the management of RPK are retirees from Lockheed-Martin.

I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that SpaceX didn't take this approach, and won 3/5ths of the money in the program anyway.  RPK can take care of the political cover for the program while the real action is concerning whether or not SpaceX can deliver.  After all, Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, was the lead on Elon Musk's feasibility study for the Falcon.  We can surmise where Griffin's bet is placed.

At the end of the day, at a minimum, it seems prudent for SpaceX to plan for NASA being a poor customer and leaving SpaceX in the lurch.  Congress may kill this program at any time, so SpaceX should treat each check from NASA as if it's the last.

Bigelow's Intriguing Half-Announcement

On Friday, Bigelow Aerospace published an intriguing half-announcement.  The post hints at an ambitious time-frame for space station module development.

What's the impetus behind this announcement?  My speculation is that Bigelow signed a substantial customer for its modules.  The announcement includes a paragraph that states that Bigelow is cutting its "Fly Your Own Stuff" program short -- the program will begin and end with Genesis II in early 2007.  The program was an experiment meant to open up an additional revenue stream for Bigelow, so apparently the need for that sort of revenue stream is no longer considered a priority.  But who would be a substantial customer for Bigelow?  I don't imagine Bigelow predominately to be a U.S. government contractor -- or at least predominately a NASA contractor -- so it seems likely that an unannounced entity of some size made an order.

The reference in the announcement to the U.S. launch deficit could be due to a quantity order of SpaceX Falcon 9 flights at a suitable price.  SpaceX has been moving up its plans for manned spaceflight to enable it to deliver on a possible NASA space station resupply contract due 2010.  It seems odd that Bigelow would place an order only months after SpaceX's failure on the Falcon 1 maiden flight.  Perhaps Bigelow saw that Elon Musk had the fortitude to work through SpaceX's problems.

Overall, this announcement points to some fun possibilities.

Electric Cars and Investor Clusters

For several months, I have been keeping an eye on Tesla Motors, which unveiled an electric-only roadster a couple of days ago.  I am not in the market for a car, electric or otherwise (I don't need one here in D.C. and don't have one), but the combination of investors in this company is interesting.

Elon Musk, the founder and majority owner of SpaceX, is the principal non-founding investor of Tesla, is the Chairman of the Board, and appears to be the primary person who is selling other investors on the company.  I note that Musk co-led the placement of Tesla's 3rd round of financing ($40 million), even though individual investors leading a round at this stage is slightly unusual.  Normally, I would expect to see only investment banks lead a 3rd round of this magnitude.  This suggests that Musk brought his friends along for a large portion of this round.  Kimbal Musk, Elon's brother, is also an investor in the company and is on the Board of Directors.  As you may know, Kimbal is also a minority investor in SpaceX.

The investor friends of Elon Musk appears to include Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who participated as individuals in the latest round of financing.  This is important for SpaceX, considering that Musk will be looking for deep pockets for its round of financing for Falcon 9 and the Dragon manned capsule, as well as for its long-range plans for a Saturn V-class rocket.  The Falcon 9 and Dragon probably are within Musk's means, although I bet he would like to share the load.  The Saturn V-class rocket would require pockets that few on Earth have.  Page and Brin are among those few.

In any event, even though I am not a lover of fine cars, I wish Tesla Motors well in its endeavors.  The name choice brings warmth to my heart (there's a good biography available).  And the car is a beauty!

Investigative Panel Re Falcon 1 Issues Report

According to the AP, the investigative panel for the failure of the maiden Falcon 1 flight has issued its report.  In pertinent part...

The Falcon 1 rocket, built by Space Explorations Technologies, launched March 24 from the Pacific island of Kwajalein Atoll. But the fire caused the rocket to fail 34 seconds after liftoff, investigators found.

The review determined that "the only plausible cause" of the fire was a corroded aluminum nut that allowed fuel to leak onto the main engine. The fire then caused a loss of pressure that shut down the engine.

The salt water mist of Kwajalein must be a killer.  Apparently, it wasn't launch crew error, after all.  The solution?

[A]luminum nuts have now been replaced with ones made of stainless steel.

Seems pretty straightforward.  Next launch expected in November.