Developing new technology can take a lot of money. Depending on what you’re developing, to start low-scale can be just the perfect solution for you. Especially in case testing of new technology is related to high risk of failure. Additionally, this can help you to keep the costs down and under control.
First test successful – beginners luck?
On June 4th, we were able to watch successful inaugural flight of the Falcon 9 rocket, created by SpaceX. This 54,9 meter high launch vehicle is a serious workhorse, meeting NASA human-rating standards and capable of delivering 10,450 kg to Low Earth Orbit.
Success during the first test of such high-risk and large scale device is remarkable, considering the developer SpaceX is a start-up founded in 2002, who has designed the Falcon 9 from a scratch by itself.
But if we dig deeper, it’s clear that the luck-factor was not the leading force taking the first Falcon 9 to the orbit. It’s all about upscaling.
Genealogy of upscaling
When SpaceX started in 2002, their first goal was to get into orbit with a small vehicle. It was called Falcon 1, capable of taking 1010 kg to LEO. It wasn’t because the small payload vehicle was the initial business idea of SpaceX. Vice versa – from day one, SpaceX founder Elon Musk’s vision was helping to make humankind a space-faring nation. Which obviously can’t be achieved with the 1 metric ton lift capability. So the grand idea behind Falcon 1 was testing new technology.
The Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 are surprisingly similar. They have both two stages, they use the same in-house developed Merlin engines (accordingly 1 engine and 9 engines), structural architecture (with a wider diameter), avionics and launch system. Like Falcon 1, the interstage, which connects the upper and lower stage for Falcon 9, is a carbonfiber aluminum core composite structure. The separation system of Falcon 9 is a larger version of the pneumatic pushers used on Falcon 1. And the list continues. This results in significant cost savings in vehicle production.
Dramatic reduction of costs
Today, SpaceX is offering cheapest Falcon 9 launch for $49,9 millions, and it’s not offering Falcon 1 launches anymore, as the enhanched version Falcon 1e is going to replace Falcon 1, with the list price of $10,9 millions. The last available price for Falcon 1 was $8,9 millions. So putting the development cost aside and assuming the prices are just covering the hardware of launch vehicle, the comparable cost factor of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 is around 5,6. Which means for the cost of one Falcon 9 you can crash five Falcon 1’s.
Well, SpaceX only crashed three Falcon 1’s. But let’s forget the margin for a minute. The three failures of Falcon 1 costed to SpaceX less than $30 millions. If they had tested their technology on main vehicle Falcon 9, it would have been $150 millions. Or even more, as there are more risks related to large vehicle. And the Falcon 9 is unarguably SpaceX’s main business, as their lauch manifest today indicates more than booked 24 launches for Falcon 9 versus 4 booked launches for Falcon 1.
Low cost as a core of innovation
We cannot deny that low cost of a new technology is one of the main drivers of innovation. SpaceX has promised to reduce the space launch costs and reliability by the factor of 10. This is innovation at its best. And SpaceX`s example of upscaling gives us a valuable hint, how to reduce development costs of new technologies. Of course you can’t always use upscaling. Some technologies do not work on smaller scale, as the forces affecting the device, its structure or the process are so much different. But if you’re up building something relatively big or expensive, there’s good chance to starting at low scale can save tremendous amounts of development costs.
Image credits: SpaceX
RSS feed
Follow Flydog