IAARS (I am A Rocket Scientist) and I have worked with Space X on this very project and it is really nothing to get that excited about, not yet anyway.
Let me explain what exactly the RSS contract does, and what it doesn't do. RSS is a contract that will allow GOVERNMENT agencies to go to the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP, based at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque NM), which is part of the Space and Missile System Center, based at LA AFB, and choose the Falcon I booster to lift their payload. RSLP then supplies the experience and expertise of working with the space range and getting the vehicle launched. (RSLP has been doing launch for the past 40+ years and since 1993 has had 144 successful spacelift missions, we are the small spacelift experts.)
However, this contract does not help the civilian market all that much. RSS is for use by the US Gov't (and selected friends) and not open to use by commercial entities. How this does help the civilian market is that it will give SpaceX many more chances to launch, prove the technology and start getting out of the red (Falcon I cost over $120M to develop). Eventually this will be great for the civilian market as it will mean another capable and responsive rocket. (Right now launch contracts take 18-24 months to fulfill, RSS would establish that 12 months is doable no matter who the customer is.) How this does not help the civilian market is that it is not providing a $6M dollar launch. SpaceX provides a rocket, they do not provide any interface to the government or the space ranges as some of their competition can and does. This is a buyer beware situation because while $6M is a great cost for a rocket you have to know what you do not get. Their can be another $6M-$10M in additional launch costs which real quickly brings you back to the same cost as the competition who have proven and reliable vehicles.
I realize some of you will say that saving $4M-$8M a pop sounds like a great deal and you would definately use SpaceX (or anyone else that can under cut the competitions price by that much). You are in the wrong mindset if that is the case. The companies and governments with money to burn don't care about a few million, so the cost is not that big an issue. Those companies and governments that are strapped for cash want a rocket they know will work because this is likely to be the only satellite they have and can't afford to rebuild. In both cases they will spend the extra money if it gets them a rocket that has flown 100 consecutive successful missions, they aren't going to gamble. What is SpaceX's appeal then? They are fast, if they can launch in 12 months they will be one of 2 companies that can do that and time saves lots of money, about a million a month if you are sitting on the pad.
Please don't misunderstand me though, I wish SpaceX (and the rest of the small rocket companies out there) the best of luck in their coming endevours. What they have accomplished in the last few years is phenomenal. SpaceX has overcome huge supply problems, learned to cast their own metals and make their own composites. They have started to develop a mature core build around veterans of the space business with a tremendously enthusiastic and skilled group of younger engineers. Granted that this mission is going to be 2 years late BUT it is going to be late because they wanted to do it right. This shows a great amount of maturity for such a young company, they understand what it would cost them if they fail. Small space is the future and SpaceX will lead the way to revolutioning this industry in the next 10 years. Just don't expect to be hoping a ride on a Falcon V to a Virgin Space Habitat for summer vacation next year, you will be disappointed.
Slashdot Mirror
IAARS (I am A Rocket Scientist) and I have worked with Space X on this very project and it is really nothing to get that excited about, not yet anyway. Let me explain what exactly the RSS contract does, and what it doesn't do. RSS is a contract that will allow GOVERNMENT agencies to go to the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP, based at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque NM), which is part of the Space and Missile System Center, based at LA AFB, and choose the Falcon I booster to lift their payload. RSLP then supplies the experience and expertise of working with the space range and getting the vehicle launched. (RSLP has been doing launch for the past 40+ years and since 1993 has had 144 successful spacelift missions, we are the small spacelift experts.) However, this contract does not help the civilian market all that much. RSS is for use by the US Gov't (and selected friends) and not open to use by commercial entities. How this does help the civilian market is that it will give SpaceX many more chances to launch, prove the technology and start getting out of the red (Falcon I cost over $120M to develop). Eventually this will be great for the civilian market as it will mean another capable and responsive rocket. (Right now launch contracts take 18-24 months to fulfill, RSS would establish that 12 months is doable no matter who the customer is.) How this does not help the civilian market is that it is not providing a $6M dollar launch. SpaceX provides a rocket, they do not provide any interface to the government or the space ranges as some of their competition can and does. This is a buyer beware situation because while $6M is a great cost for a rocket you have to know what you do not get. Their can be another $6M-$10M in additional launch costs which real quickly brings you back to the same cost as the competition who have proven and reliable vehicles. I realize some of you will say that saving $4M-$8M a pop sounds like a great deal and you would definately use SpaceX (or anyone else that can under cut the competitions price by that much). You are in the wrong mindset if that is the case. The companies and governments with money to burn don't care about a few million, so the cost is not that big an issue. Those companies and governments that are strapped for cash want a rocket they know will work because this is likely to be the only satellite they have and can't afford to rebuild. In both cases they will spend the extra money if it gets them a rocket that has flown 100 consecutive successful missions, they aren't going to gamble. What is SpaceX's appeal then? They are fast, if they can launch in 12 months they will be one of 2 companies that can do that and time saves lots of money, about a million a month if you are sitting on the pad. Please don't misunderstand me though, I wish SpaceX (and the rest of the small rocket companies out there) the best of luck in their coming endevours. What they have accomplished in the last few years is phenomenal. SpaceX has overcome huge supply problems, learned to cast their own metals and make their own composites. They have started to develop a mature core build around veterans of the space business with a tremendously enthusiastic and skilled group of younger engineers. Granted that this mission is going to be 2 years late BUT it is going to be late because they wanted to do it right. This shows a great amount of maturity for such a young company, they understand what it would cost them if they fail. Small space is the future and SpaceX will lead the way to revolutioning this industry in the next 10 years. Just don't expect to be hoping a ride on a Falcon V to a Virgin Space Habitat for summer vacation next year, you will be disappointed.