It's a pretty obvious question. The world leader is leaving the business, leaving a massive hole in the supply in a period when demand is surging. Any company that can fill that hole stands to make a lot of money. The dramatic drop in launch capability has the US government scrambling to find replacements; that's a sure indication they see the workhorse rocket’s retirement as a national security risk.
The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital has twice in the last two weeks announced it was sending cash to two of SpaceX’s competitors in the launch business. First, on October 26, the office announced a $150 million conditional loan commitment to Stoke Space. Military officials revealed a second $150 million Pentagon loan Tuesday for Rocket Lab.
Rocket Lab isn't surprising to me - I've long thought they were one of the top few launch companies in the world. The obvious drawback is their flagship rocket is The Electron which is small payload vehicle (660 lb to Low Earth Orbit). That automatically means there's a large number of payloads launched every year that they can't get off the pad. We all know, though, that they're closing in on the first launch of their Neutron; that's currently looking to be in the first quarter of '27. Neutron is a medium/heavy reusable launcher rated at 13,000 kg or 28,660 lb.s to LEO.
Stoke Space, however, is a surprise to me. I've been following them as best as I can for a few years now, and they've been working on their own reusable rocket, the Nova. I see them as fairly far behind Rocket Lab. The rate at which they can catch up to Rocket Lab isn't knowable. At least not to me.
Stoke Space and Rocket Lab are the first two launch companies to receive significant support from the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), an organization established in 2022 to infuse companies developing “vital” national security technologies with capital. OSC has been on a loan spree in recent weeks, committing hundreds of millions of dollars to companies specializing in batteries, drones, and semiconductors. In the space sector, the office also provided a $150 million loan to LeoLabs, a commercial satellite tracking company, for production and deployment of radar units.
Military space officials have held to a policy of assured access to space since the 1990s, with the Pentagon paying to support at least two US rocket programs capable of launching national security satellites. The two companies currently swapping off missions for the Space Force are SpaceX and United Launch Alliance (ULA).
Alongside SpaceX and ULA, Space Systems Command has tapped Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Stoke Space, Relativity Space, and Impulse Space for eligibility to compete for some of those national security launches. Blue Origin is the only company that has flown a rocket that could meet the Space Force’s requirements. Rocket Lab, Stoke Space, and Relativity Space are developing their own medium- and heavy-lift launch vehicles, while Impulse Space is working on in-space propulsion.
...
Stoke Space’s loan is tailored to support the buildout of the company’s second launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. The second launch site would support flights of Stoke Space’s Nova Block 2 rocket, an upgraded version of the company’s fully reusable Nova Pathfinder, which is set to debut sometime next year.
A test-firing of Stoke Space's methane-fueled Zenith engine. Seven of these
engines will power the company's Nova Pathfinder rocket, and 14 will fly on
the booster of Nova Block 2. Credit: Stoke Space
The reactions of both Stoke Space and Rocket Lab show they think the loans are a pretty good idea. Yes, they're loans that need to be paid back, but they're going to speed up the improvements they're aimed at. The DOD will most likely get the increase in launch capacity they're pushing for, they'll just get some of what they spent paid back to them.
I also have been shocked to see that they intend to phase out Falcon, but if they do it correctly there is no actual problem. It is expected that SS/SH will be an order of magnitude cheaper per launch, and carry an order of magnitude (at least) more cargo.
ReplyDeleteIf the transition is managed right, overall capacity will simply grow over time. Yeah, demand has outstripped supply. For the moment. Unless the Democrats succeed in destroying Musk, customers will be scrambling to fit their payloads into a new cargo bay shape...realizing they can launch nine more of them for the same price.
I wonder if, in the interest of national security, fedgov will move to acquire the launch services currently provided by SpaceX. A benefit to those who would aspire to that, such a move would revitalize/redirect NASA.
ReplyDeleteDepending on how that is done, it may not look like collectivising a private corporation. Perhaps license built without liability to SpaceX.
Does NASA, contractors inclusive, have the ability to assemble, say a Falcon 9?
I'll leave this in online because I think both of your comments are related to the same question of the awkward years between Falcon9 and the Starship era.
ReplyDeleteThe Falcon 9 operation is pretty much a subsidiary of SpaceX and I could imagine someone - company or individual - buying it as a standalone company. The Merlin engines and Falcon 9 bodies are built in California, tested in Texas, built into the bodies back in California, then shipped to the facilities on Cape Canaveral and back in California. The people who have worked on maintaining the older boosters are probably the only people on the planet who could do that for a new company.
So that probably means hiring away the people who know what they're doing or contract them temporarily for training the new employer's people. Some engineers who keep everything running are going to have to be haggled over, as are the assembly line leaders, but my guess is that anyone who has assembled other rockets at ULA, or Boeing, Mac D's, ULA, probably Blue, and more would fit right in once they get some exposure to the hardware. What do engines that have flown 30 or more times look like? When do they pull them for refurbishment or rebuilding?
I don't think this is a good thing for NASA itself to do. I don't think they have anyone that could step into any of those shoes and haven't had anyone for decades. As for who would buy the Falcon 9 business, from what I know of Jeff Bezos I don't think he would do it. I think his ego would be too reluctant to buy Elon Musk's "throwaways". I guess billion dollar companies buy each other with some regularity, so it's easier to think another Big Tech Billionaire would be a better fit.
'Elon Musk's "throwaways".' Love that.
ReplyDelete