Update - the Musk Factor: reducing the cost of spaceflight

Photo: Elon Musk

A new generation of rockets promises to reduce the cost of transporting cargo and people into space by 10x. But what would this improvement really mean?

UPDATE: The Rocky Mountain Mars Society chapter discussed the topic of this article on January 19th at a meeting on the CU campus in Boulder. The meeting is briefly summarized below.

The man with the Midas touch

Most space industry followers immediately recognize the name Elon Musk. Armed with a small personal fortune, an ambitious vision, one successful space launch to-date, and a top-notch team of rocket scientists under his employ, Musk galvanizes the spaceflight community like no other figure since Wernher Von Braun. He routinely speaks to packed houses at space conferences. Reporters follow every move he makes, and technology CEOs listen every time he speaks. A Google search for “Elon Musk” returns over 140,000 entries.

To be fair, some of Musk’s fame comes from non-space endeavors. He earned his substantial nest egg by creating Zip2, an on-line publishing software company, and co-founding Paypal, a dominant on-line financial transaction corporation. After selling these companies for 9-digit profits, Musk founded and funded several technology companies including Tesla Motors, which makes electric sports cars, and SolarCity, a photovoltaics startup. Musk’s efforts earned him Inc. Magazine’s 2007 Entrepreneur of the Year award. His pending marriage to British actress Talulah Riley has generated no small amount of international media coverage too.

Then there’s his other startup company, Space Exploration Technologies – better known as SpaceX. In 2002, Musk invested a substantial part of his personal fortune into building rockets. He hired a small team of engineers who shared his vision: launching heavy payloads into space for 1/10th the price of current space launches. Musk’s long-term goal remains the human exploration of Mars. Realizing that sky-high launch costs would delay his dream for generations, Musk set out to change the equations.

Question 1: Launch payload efficiency?

According to a Futron Corporation study, launching a pound of cargo into geosynchronous orbit (GEO) cost about $12,000 in the 1990’s while launching a pound of cargo non-geosynchronously (NGEO) cost about $10,000. The latter cost seems relatively high because most NGEO launches don’t utilize their full payload capacity.

With his new line of Falcon rockets, Elon Musk plans to reduce NGEO cargo transport costs from $10,000/lb to around $1000/lb. His target “Musk Factor” savings is therefore 10x. The first successful Falcon 1 launch on September 28, 2008 and an upcoming first attempt to launch a larger Falcon 9 rocket suggest Musk is once again traveling down the lucrative road to success.

However, the Futron study raises a key question: Even if SpaceX succeeds, how will payload efficiencies affect Falcon launch costs? Even with the right technology and a string of launch successes, Musk might not achieve his 10x reduction in NGEO cost per pound… or conversely, the effective savings could actually be higher for efficiently packed payloads.

Question 2: Total cost of missions?

Critics quickly point out that launch costs comprise only a small part of the total cost of any space mission. The exact fraction varies per mission and type of mission.

Space science missions tend to require high up-front development costs and back-end support costs. For example, the cost of the New Horizons mission to Pluto balloons to about $700 million when development, launch, and support costs over 15 years are included. The Atlas V launch vehicle runs about $140 million per launch. Reducing the launch cost by a Musk Factor of 10x to ~$15 million would save $125 million, reducing the total cost of the New Horizons mission to $575 million. The effective Musk Factor for the entire New Horizons mission would therefore be a modest 1.2x.

When estimating the costs of re-usable, human-rated transport systems, the calculations must include factors like amortized cost of the vehicle, variable fuel charges, insurance rates, facilities fees, and ongoing labor rates. A 2005 study by Jurist, Dinkin, and Livingston outlines the complexities. Firm conclusions are difficult to draw, but an effective Musk Factor of at least 2x seems feasible for human space missions. Speculative Mars mission studies at NASA and ESA (Hunt and Van Pelt, 2003) suggest a Musk Factor of ~1.6x, since launch costs at today’s rates would account for ~30% of the ongoing expense in a future humans-to-Mars program.

Question 3: Spacecraft redesign?

So an effective 10x Musk Factor for space missions is mostly smoke and mirrors? Not so fast! A 10x reduction in launch costs may enable dramatic savings in development and manufacturing costs for future space payloads.

At this point, Denver-area aerospace engineer Alan Mole enters into the discussion. Mole, a stress analyst with experience in spacecraft structures and solid rocket propellant analysis, makes a convincing argument for reoptimizing the design of spacecraft to take full advantage of the potential 10x savings in future launch costs. In an October 27, 2008 letter to Aviation Week magazine, Mole poses the following hypothetical example:

We now use a 1-lb. super battery that costs $10,000, plus $10,000 for launch, for a total of $20,000 for this capability in orbit. With the new SpaceX rockets, that will be $10,000 plus $1,000 for launch or $11,000 for the same thing. We can do nearly twice as much.

But perhaps a mere premium battery with the same capacity costs only $1,000 but weighs 2 lb. Then $1,000 for the battery plus $2,000 for launch gives the same capability for only $3,000.

It’s hard to argue with Mole’s logic, and the effective Musk Factor in his example is 6.7x. Much better!

Question 4: Subsystem failure rates?

Launch costs also influence the design of complex space missions in more subtle ways. Most spacecraft must operate in a harsh environment without maintenance for long periods of time. Strict reliability metrics require that each critical subsystem achieve a very low failure rate.

A typical complex-system designer uses two methods to reduce failure rates and achieve ultra-high levels of reliability: 1) integrate extremely high quality, expensive components; 2) redundancy.

In the past, high launch costs have made redundancy the more expensive of the two options for space missions. By definition, a redundant system weighs twice as much and requires twice the launch costs. A satellite-TV provider would be foolish to launch two transmitters when one higher quality transmitter would suffice. Likewise, NASA wouldn’t launch three smaller crew capsules to the International Space Station when a single larger one would suffice.

After a 10x reduction in launch costs, the option for cheaper, redundant subsystems and whole space vehicles suddenly leaps back onto the table. Future Moon/Mars missions may be redesigned from the ground-up to take greater advantage of redundancy at every level. We might also see more redundant science missions along the lines of the 1970’s Viking and 2000's MER missions to Mars.

Question 5: Impact on the local space industry?

High launch costs currently feed the salaries of many local aerospace workers. Will a 10x launch cost reduction at SpaceX force a dramatic downsizing at the United Launch Alliance in Littleton? Long-term, in a word: no.

The major aerospace companies have little to fear if they react quickly and correctly to the changing paradigms. The space technology “arms race” has barely begun. Analysts often compare the maturity of today’s spaceflight industry to that of the airline industry in the 1920’s. Boeing flew its first Model 80 12-passenger plane in 1928. 80 years later, a fleet of over 150,000 Model 80’s would be required to accommodate the daily number of American airline passengers.

A similar increase in volume is the key to prosperity for our local space economy. While we do build our share of rocket components in the Denver area, local aerospace workers also design and integrate payloads, run space missions, and conduct top-notch space science. By increasing the number of space missions and the demand for space services, a 10x reduction in launch costs at SpaceX should vastly increase the size, scope, profits, and job security of the local space industry.

As Elon Musk fares, so do we. And that’s the bottom line – literally.

Agree or disagree?? Opinions are welcomed below....

UPDATE: Alan Mole led a public discussion of spacecraft redesign possibilities at the first quarterly meeting of the Rocky Mountain Mars Society (RMMS) chapter on January 19th. He generated some lively discussion with his proposal to do an industry design study, polling the aerospace community and asking the broadest possible questions. Alan has already circulated his proposal to some local aerospace companies but has thus far not found any solid interest. If you know of a company or organization that would benefit greatly from lower launch costs and could fund a minimal study, please contact Alan through the Denver Space Industry Examiner.

Some brief conclusions: the paradigm shift IS coming. After we pass a tipping point, change will happen with surprising speed. Once designers of space missions realize that Musk has relaxed their number one design constraint, we'll see a flurry of creativity within the sector. Engineer Steven Jones phrased it best: "Once the reality of Falcon sinks in, what you're talking about (radical redesigns) will come to pass."

Some design possibilties include alternative cooling systems, more off-the-shelf hardware, redundant subsystems, systems, and missions, heavier battery tech, enhanced computer capabilities with autonomous verification, common bus architectures (like CubeSats, but much bigger), and additional propellants and other consumables to lengthen spacecraft lifetimes. DARPA will probably be a major player, since they have dabbled in related research before - and as the largest volume customer, DARPA is strongly motivated to lower mission costs.

Participants also identified some concerns. The half-empty launch scenario may muddy the waters, diluting the end cost savings but allowing launch planners additional flexibility. The lack of a low cost launch vehicle between a Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 means that some Falcon 9 launches might be underutilized at first. Also different requirements per destination will continue to complicate design choices (for example, the need for additional radiation shielding on a Europa science orbiter).