ROSCOSMOS logo.
Dec. 12, 2021
How to make space flights massive? The second publication in the series, devoted to the analysis of the prospects and possible directions for the development of the space industry, will focus on reusable space systems and how to reduce the cost of launching a payload into orbit.
In the early 1990s, the capabilities of space transport systems, created using technologies from previous decades, reached a ceiling due to the high cost of technology and infrastructure maintenance. Efforts to create fully reusable rockets were underway back in the 1960s, but the technology of the time did not allow the idea to be put into practice.
Introduced in 1981, the Space Shuttle was partially reusable. Later attempts to develop an economically attractive single-stage launch vehicle, such as McDonnell Douglas' Delta Clipper (Figure 1) or Lockheed Martin's X-33 / VentureStar, were canceled during the flight demonstrator phase due to technical difficulties and severe budget overruns.
Flight tests of the Delta Clipper rocket demonstrator
Only early 21st century technology has made a breakthrough in launch vehicles that reuse key components. Against the backdrop of the overwhelming cost of Boeing and Lockheed Martin's rockets, which has become too burdensome for the US budget, space carriers have emerged with a new philosophy. Among them, SpaceX stood out, which offered to go an unconventional way and showed the world the possibilities of using reusable rockets.
SpaceX's technical innovations not only showed the world a spectacular return of the first stage, but also pushed the market towards its radical restructuring. After taking a significant share of launches, SpaceX deprived many companies of income. This would not be so scary given the increase in the total number of launches. In this case, the growing market would load all companies with orders. But so far these hopes have not been justified, since even with a multiple reduction in cost, the number of launches does not change much.
Veterans are lagging behind
Huge companies and entire sectors of the economy cannot be quickly rebuilt. The United States understands this, and SpaceX's struggle with Boeing and Lockheed Martin, including for government orders, is a prime example of this. It is difficult for "veterans" to compete in the commercial market, but it is also impossible to transfer all government orders to SpaceX. The cost of launching Falcon9 on the market is 62 billion dollars (moreover, due to strong competition with Russia, the European Union and India, SpaceX introduces new niche offers (for example, Rideshare), and sometimes openly dumping, intercepting contracts).
Landing of the first stage of the Falcon 9R rocket
Missions for government organizations (to which SpaceX is admitted), carried out through government tenders, are carried out already for a price close to the cost of launching DeltaIV and AtlasV (150 billion dollars). The motive is clear: due to the high price of their products, Boeing and Lockheed Martin cannot participate in these tenders at a substantially lower cost.
Nevertheless, by creating a reversible stage, SpaceX has set the vector for the development of the space industry. And the US is giving its industry giants time to catch up with the troublemaker. But when they rebuild their business model (and possibly improve SpaceX's technology), the launch cost will, on average, drop to the Falcon9 price level or even lower. And this will lead to a new round of competition.
Summing up, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
It is possible to create missiles with a high degree of reuse of key elements with existing technologies. However, for the state, this creates a paradoxical situation: on one side of the scale there are enormous prospects, on the other - the optimization and restructuring of the industry (which, apparently, has begun in the United States).
It took SpaceX about ten years to make the reversible stage. It will probably take the aerospace giants about the same amount of time to repeat the results and rebuild their business model (perhaps a little faster, since the "path" has already been trodden).
How much is a kilogram?
For a better understanding of the evolutionary processes in rocket technology, it is advisable to introduce the concept of generations of space rockets (by analogy with military aviation). The gradation can be as follows:
- First generation - disposable rockets;
- Second generation - partially reusable rockets;
- Third generation - fully reusable rockets.
At the same time, modifications are possible for each generation ("+", "++", etc.). All existing disposable means of excretion can be safely attributed to the first generation.
Falcon9 (R; Reusable) can be attributed to the second generation. The economy of this rocket is mainly based on the fact that the use of reusable and reusable elements (first stage and nose fairing) can reduce the overall launch costs by 30-40%. At the same time, due to the need for hardening (and, as a consequence, weighting), the use of fuel for braking during a soft landing, etc. the mass of the payload delivered to orbit is reduced. This leads to the fact that the Falcon9R from a heavy-class rocket (in terms of launch weight) goes into a carrier of the "intermediate" and middle class.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the unit cost of launching the payload for launch vehicles of different generations.
If the above economic patterns persist, then the first modifications of fully reusable third-generation carriers should have a specific launch cost of about 1.5 thousand dollars per 1 kg of payload in low-earth orbit (Fig. 2).
If we compare the cost of launches in the heavy class with their number, the following trend can be traced: in the late 1990s, the commercial market for heavy launch vehicles was dominated by Ariane5 with a launch price of more than $ 150 billion. and "Zenith" (including the complex "Sea Launch") with a price of 1.5 times less. At the same time, the total number of world launches in the heavy class, if increased, is insignificant.
After 2015, a partially reusable Falcon9 rocket with a launch price of $ 45-62bn was put into operation, while the total number of launches also did not undergo significant changes (except for the launch of Starlink satellites of the same company SpaceX).
Thus, we can conclude that the specific launch cost of ~ 2900 USD / kg (Falcon9R when flying into low orbits) is still too expensive for mass space exploration (It is clear that while there are restrictions associated with loading of carriers, etc.). It is doubtful that even $ 1,500 / kg will drastically change the commercial demand for space. In this regard, we would not call the given cost estimates target - rather, these are estimates for the first modifications of reusable rockets.
Workshop in orbit
Presumably, a fundamental change in the demand for launches will not occur until the market forms a price offer that will open up new interesting opportunities for its participants. One of them may be the development of space logistics, when, instead of manufacturing and launching expensive spacecraft, it will be much cheaper to repair and refuel them in orbit, buy and restore used (or even failed) satellites right in space.
One of the variants of the American fully reusable light-class launch vehicle
By analogy with traditional transport, this can happen when the price of the carrier's services is no more than 10% of the cost of the transported cargo (as indicated in the previous article). The current figure is kept at the level of 50-100% of the cost of the satellite (if we compare the cost of a spacecraft and launch for the same countries.), Unless, of course, we consider expensive scientific spacecraft. That is, the launch cost should be reduced by about 10 times and, in parallel, an infrastructure for servicing satellites in orbits should be created, as well as a cheap and safe way to return them to Earth.
Direction of movement
Due to possible technical difficulties, it is difficult to create a completely reusable launch vehicle at once, and, most likely, you will have to move progressively. First, there will be partially reusable rockets with reusable elements in the middle or heavy classes — here the main technical solutions are already clear. Economically, it is more profitable than moving progressively from the light and ultralight class. But the first versions of fully reusable missiles are probably more correct to make in the light or ultralight class, starting from the current capabilities of the industry and gradually working out technical solutions.
Reusable launcher projects are actively developing in China
At the same time, it is desirable to simultaneously create both partially and completely reusable rockets. If we focus all our attention only on the first option, then the return stage will be closer to 2030. Even taking into account the inertia of the space industry, the United States by this time will not only restructure its entire industry, it will be able to go much further in development ...
At the same time, it is important to emphasize once again that the task of creating reusable launch vehicles must be solved together with reformatting industry approaches. For example, use the experience of civil engineering, when a significant part of the business is built not only around the production of new products, but also on the maintenance of previously produced ones. In addition, attention needs to be paid to improving the regulatory framework and restructuring the business model of manufacturers.
In the future, we will cover the following topics:
- The need to separate work on reusable systems into a separate program;
- Options for the optimal structure of the portfolio of investments in space transport systems for the most efficient achievement of the goal;
- Updated business model of device manufacturers;
- The role of interorbital tugs in the new business model of vehicles.
Source: Russian space.
Related links:
ROSCOSMOS Press Release: https://www.roscosmos.ru/33595/
Russian space: https://www.roscosmos.ru/tag/russkiy-kosmos/
ROSCOSMOS: https://www.roscosmos.ru/tag/roskosmos/
Images, Text, Credits: ROSCOSMOS/Russian space/Orbiter.ch Aerospace/Roland Berga.
Best regards, Orbiter.ch
