Smallsat 2016: Shotwell Discusses Launch Plans
Gwynne Shotwell
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell spoke at the Small Satellite 2016 Conference in Utah on Tuesday.
Shotwell talked about the importance of fully reusing the Falcon boosters, SpaceX’s Red Dragon mission to Mars, and about how SpaceX could open up Earth orbit and beyond to the smallsat community. She also defended the company’s decision to abandon development of its Falcon 1e small satellite launcher.
Although I wasn’t able to attend this year, I have pulled a summary of her talk off Twitter. Information came from the following Tweeters:
- C. G. Niederstrasser @RocketScient1st
- Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
- David Hurst @OrbitalDave
- RITSpaceExploration @RITSPEX
Enjoy!
Gwynne Shotwell
President, SpaceX
- Last spoke at Small Satellite Conference in 2008 right after the third consecutive failure of the Falcon 1 launcher
- Although things looked grim, she assured crowd that SpaceX was going to make it
- (They made it)
Falcon Rockets & Reuse
- SpaceX’s most important objective is the recovery and complete reuse of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rocket (including upper stage)
- Looking at ways of recovering and reusing the second stage
- Process of reusing second stage might take another 5 years
- Might refly 2 Falcon 9 boosters this year
- Will test fire 8 to 10 recovered first stages before reflying any of them
- A lot of customer interest in flying on a reused booster
- First stage boosters returning in surprisingly good shape
- Attempting to fly rockets with airline-type operations
- “Super hard” to accept failure as SpaceX learned after losing Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule last year
- Recovery from failure is important
- Important to focus on how to solve a problem rather than on the difficulty of the challenge
Falcon Heavy
- Apologized for launch vehicle being so late (about 4 years)
- Building Falcon was more complicated than they thought
- Rocket has a lot of extra capacity to accommodate small satellites
- First Falcon Heavy mission with payload has slipped to the third quarter of 2017
Flying Smallsats
- There will be many opportunities to fly smallsats aboard Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy
- SpaceX has an agreement with Spaceflight for four dedicated smallsat flights over the next 5 years
- Forecast predicting 3,600 smallsats being launched over the next decade could be understated
- Expects to be able to fly and deploy smallsats on upcoming Red Dragon mission to land Dragon capsule on Mars
- SpaceX will help open up the moon and Mars to smallsats
- SpaceX will be happy to fly missions to the moon and cis-lunar space, but the company’s focus is on Mars
Red Dragon
- Red Dragon spacecraft will have space in its trunk for smallsats to be deployed on the voyage to Mars
- Spacecraft’s capsule will have space for payloads destined for Mars’ surface
- Red Dragon and subsequent missions to Mars will open up space beyond Earth orbit to smallsat community
Human Mars Missions
- Shipped first Raptor engine for the Mars Colonial Transporter to Texas test site on Monday night
- Nuclear in-space propulsion is promising, but a lot of development work is required
- SpaceX is examining at in-space electric propulsion
- SpaceX is not studying radiation and other human factors for Mars missions
- Other organizations are studying the long-term effects on humans
- To make human settlement of Mars feasible, need to get hardware back to Earth
- The return trip to Earth will be free because of need to get hardware back
Mining fuel for trip back to Earth will be most difficult part of sending humans to Mars - Only 5 or 10 percent of the audience raised hands when Shotwell asked who would be willing to fly on an early Mars mission
- One audience member couldn’t imaging anyone actually wanting to live on the Red Planet
- Shotwell replied that people have differing views about living on Mars
Crew Dragon
- The day they put crew aboard the Dragon will be nerve wracking
- SpaceX will be ready on that day
- Projected traffic for planned commercial stations outstrips flights to the International Space Station
Smallsat Constellation
- SpaceX is working on smallsat technology capable of bringing broadband Internet to world
- Elon Musk is heading up that effort
- Shotwell didn’t have a lot to say about it
Falcon 1 Abandonment
- Decision was made to abandon Falcon 1e smallsat launcher development because SpaceX couldn’t close business case for it
- Although market conditions have changed, unclear if there is a business case for the Falcon 1e today
- A lot of players in the small satellite launch business today who believe a market exists
- Price will be the key to making small satellite launchers work
44 responses to “Smallsat 2016: Shotwell Discusses Launch Plans”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The two big hitters here for me are the Business End of the ship that’s going to take us to Mars! And Musk also appears to have beaten Blue’s BE-4 to the Punch…
Secondly SpaceX is going to start working on reuse of the second stage!
Wonder if there is any plans to incorporate the Raptors into the Falcon Heavy?
I’m hearing numbers such as 70 tons to LEO in that configuration!
Incredible, incredible Stuff! !!
Yeah, exciting news that helps leaven the disappointment at yet another Falcon Heavy delay (I really believed them this time!).
But a completed Raptor engine shipping for testing shows the next generation is well in the works, and I am particularly glad to hear that they are definitely working on second stage re-use.
FH “with payload” slips to Q3 2017. No mention of first test launch.
I read yesterday on r/SpaceX, which itself was 2nd hand from a post by the seemingly in-the-loop Chris B of NSF, that it has been confirmed that the Falcon Heavy test launch has now slipped to “early 2017”.
Well let’s hope it is “early”. Is this about priority scheduling or technical?
I got the impression from Gwen that the delays are a combination of unforeseen technical problems and a much greater interest in proving reuse at this time. Plus they’ve got Crew Dragon and Red Dragon as really pressing projects. And the BFR/MCT talk is coming up.
I’ve got a little money riding on the Planetary Society’s Light Sail project, which is waiting to launch on a Heavy. We’re just gonna have to take a number and wait in line.
Who knows…maybe SX will end up just blowing past the Heavy and moving straight on to the Big Dogs.
keep in mind that red dragon needs FH to get to mars with any real fuel and cargo.
You are so right. Maybe Elon will address that next month.
“I’ve got a little money riding on the Planetary Society’s Light Sail project”
I guess that means you were a backer/contributor?
If so, good luck! That’s an exciting project
You guessed good…and thank you. I also threw a little money at their project to look for planets around Alpha Centauri. No news there. But my favorite contribution was to Icarus Interstellar’s Project Tin Tin which would combine the two and send a solar sail cubesat to Alpha Centauri. No news there either. But here’s a cool pic of Light Sail One in LEO. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I wouldn’t put a penny on “light” sails. Solar “wind” sails perhaps, but will it be competitive by performance/mass compared to plasma electric.
I’ve thrown a few bucks at a Kickstarter university plasma electric cubesat project, and VASIMR. Also, I kicked in on a university 3-D printed chemical engine rocket project. I enjoy giving and they enjoy getting.
Great to see her mention nuke engines again.
I just have to wonder how much work they are doing on it, and how much NASA is doing?
But, one issue is that volume on F9/FH. Are they re-designing the hammer head?
Also, for them to support all of this work, they really need to increase the launch rate.
And not much to say about Dragon V2.
What’s the “hammer head” — the payload fairing?
Yes.
Well, actually “hammer head” refers to the support tower with built-in crane for lifting payloads to the top of the rocket. Not the rocket fairing or any part of the rocket.
https://books.google.com/bo…
Hi, windbourne. Some thoughts:
Ms. Shotwell’s mentions of both nuclear power and space travel/Mars settlement health effects on humans,
“- Nuclear in-space propulsion is promising, but a lot of development work is required
– SpaceX is examining at in-space electric propulsion
– SpaceX is not studying radiation and other human factors for Mars missions
– Other organizations are studying the long-term effects on humans”
, lead me to believe that SpaceX intends to essentially supply 3 things to the endeavor to make humanity a space faring, multi-planet species:
1) grandiosity of vision (not “the vicinity of Mars [by the mid-2030‘s]”, but “a self-sustaining city on Mars”!)
2) game-changing low cost transportation (including heavy and super heavy lift from Earth, large pressurized in-space transportation habitats as well as large scale cargo transportation, human class EDL, fuel production on Mars, launch from Mars and return to Earth)
3) a sense of urgency (“human class lander launching in 2018, human missions starting in 2024”!)
This is actually in line with Musk’s original vision, privately launching and landing a greenhouse on Mars to inspire NASA and the world, and the initial adjustment to that vision when he found out that the launch costs alone made such an endeavor impossible — i.e., that the price of getting something to Mars has to drop, and drop by a lot, for significant progress to made.
He intends to light a fire under people’s imaginations, not just telling them that something *could* be done, but by actually showing them. However, the core intent is still to inspire and motivate, along with providing the low cost transportation that NASA, the nation and international partners will need to get humans to Mars in our lifetimes, especially for more than an Apollo-style “‘flags ‘n footprints; been there, done that’ half dozen missions and then call it a wrap” program. Nuclear power and human factors will require “other organizations” (DOE, NASA and others) to be well onboard for this to really work.
I think you’re exactly correct!
Here’s your ride and the basic archetecture needed to get you to Mars !
You in?
There is this comparison of who will win the race to Mars NASA or SpaceX and that’s not it… Neil deGrasse Tyson and others just don’t see the bigger picture here…
I see SpaceX as pulling NASA out of the Endless Congressional Political MUCK and directly pointing them to Mars! As Partners!
Forget the ancillary crap like Nuclear propulsion and Radiation protection which are nothing but huge distractions and endless red tape.
“Here’s your ride and the basic architecture to get you to Mars! You in?”
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up! 😀
So far, anything that Musk has spoken, are things that SpaceX is actually working on.
So, don’t be so sure that you know the answer.
SpaceX isn’t working on nuclear reactors. It’s just one of those “if it existed, we’d use it” technologies.
F9/FH payload fairing isn’t a hammerhead, it’s symmetrical.
paul,
1) How do you know what SpaceX is/is not working on?
2) do you have ANY idea what a hammerhead payload fairing is?
People track every job listing, every development, every word that Elon/Shotwell say. And SpaceX insiders leak. Between all of those, there’s not been a hint of any work on radiologicals.
Asymmetrical cross-section. Like the head of a hammer.
http://forum.nasaspacefligh…
I know some people have started using the term to refer any shroud wider than the second stage, but that’s just because they’ve never seen an actual hammerhead fairing. It was more common when fairings were customised to payloads, and dual-payload launches were side-by-side rather than stacked. One of the early Atlases had a few made for it.
Well, at ULA, they call that left fairing a hammerhead.
http://forum.nasaspacefligh…
And In 1999, the military, was calling similar fairings hammerheads
https://books.google.com/bo…
When you google for it, it basically defines it as anything bigger then the core, BUT less than 1.5x the core.
And as to insider leaks at SpaceX, they always pull off surprises every so often.
More importantly, when Shotwell and musk have talked about something, it has always shown up later.
So, you may think that you know the answer, but based on SpaceX’s past, I would bet on those two.
https://www.ohb-system.de/t…
This is a hammerhead fairing. When the term was first used, this is what it meant. It can technically refer to any fairing that is not flush with the sides of the rocket, however, that describes the vast majority of all fairings today. You’ll have less confusion if you simply say “fairing” and not “hammerhead” as that is, as can be seen by the comments, confusing.
Here’s some info on Nuclear Thermal Propulsion from a NASA paper in 2015:
“NASA and DOE are investigating a similar approach: design, build, ground and then flight test a 35 klbf-class
engine that if clustered can be used for human missions. The NTP must be optimally sized to ensure that it provides
significant benefits to a wide variety of potential exploration missions, but can be adjusted in size with minimal
changes to avoid unnecessary cost in re-development if possible.
The stage will need to leverage technologies from other programs and projects. Some specific technologies that
are important to NTP are listed below:
o Cryogenic Storage (long duration storage, cryo-coolers, zero boil-off, zero leakage)
o Automated rendezvous & docking
o Radiation hardening of electronics
o Radiation shielding
o Enhanced System Health and Status Sensor/ Post operation/test remote inspection evaluation”
She said, “Next year,” which was probably saying too much.
Frankly, I don’t know that I believe they’re actually going to be building a city on Mars any time soon; that might be a bit too ‘pie in the sky’. I’m actually more interested in Dragon 2 (including manned flights, land landings, re-use, and Red Dragon), re-flights of Falcon 9s and progress on rapid reuseability, Falcon Heavy, a Raptor-powered 2nd stage, and second stage re-use. Perhaps a Raptor powered take on a Falcon 1e-class small sat launcher…
Like everyone else though, I’ll have my ears and mind open to what Musk will have to say in September, and I do expect them to build a super heavy lifter and transportation module along the lines of BFR/MCT — they seem set on it and such a low cost super heavy lifter will be immensely exciting in and of itself. I just don’t know that there’s going to be a completely private business case for its use any time soon. I see it rather getting co-opted by NASA and supplementing and then replacing SLS as its main implementation for quite a while to come. After NASA proves out surface Habs, long term (forever) life support systems, dust mitigation, planetary protection, radiation protection, partial gravity effect mitigation, surface mobility, resource extraction, power generation, excavation and construction, possibly food production, developing and then maintaining an interplanetary supply chain that will last at least decades, etc., then I could see BFR/MCT being used to really start a full on, expanding settlement.
And all that I mentioned there was just for the surface of Mars — the in-space journey out to Mars and possibly back has its own issues, possibly involving (as Shotwell mentioned) nuclear rockets, of which I can’t imagine SpaceX has any expertise in whatsoever. It seems there’s just too much for one company to do on its own, so I can’t see SpaceX actually getting too far out in front of NASA. At least not sustainably. The best bet for both is to work together, it would seem.
Great post! You covered all the things. I believe that you may have actually been channeling Elon there for a few minutes 😉
great post, but a few things:
1) shotwell and musk keep speaking of nuclear engines, so, I’m sorry, but when ever they speak of things over and over, they end happening.
It might be that they have not started yet, but, I do believe that they WILL do it. It is just superior to other choices at this time.
2) co-opted? And SLS doing the main loads?
NASA maybe the lead player in this, but I doubt they can co-opt this work.
For starters, once BFR is built, they will need to run BFR at least quartly, if not monthly. That means that it will likely be used for lifting a large capacity to LEO and to other places. Where are they going to go? Not mars. So, it will mean that they will be providing a LOT of lift, most likely to the moon.
Who wants to go there? EVERYBODY? Who can afford to pay for this? NO SINGLE GOV. So, Bigelow, SpaceX, etc will almost certainly have a number of other commercial partners that NASA has been developing, who will go to the moon around 2020, 2022.
The American gov will NOT pay for this, because we are headed towards being as poor as any other western nation. Our manufacturing has been gutted esp during the 00s. Even now, CHina continues to gut America illegally, and O is doing little to nothing. Oddly, per WTO and IMF rules, WE CAN put up tariffs against them (more than 5% trade imbalance). But, this is a different issue. The simple fact is, that America CAN NOT pay 100% for it, therefore, they can not co-opt even the lunar attempt.
So, who will pay for it? A large number of nations will be excited to do so.
There will no doubt be many nations that will want to put somebody up there in the first year and have them explore and start setting up for more of their country men.
But, that will enable SpaceX and others to go to Mars. By 2024, SpaceX will have no issue landing a large craft on Mars, loaded with equipment and robots. Again, NASA will be part of this, but will almost certainly not co-opt SpaceX. Though NASA will likely be a lead role in all this in making sure that everybody works together, similar to what happens now with ISS.
Finally, as to lack of experience in the NTR, FEW ppl have EVER had experience in NTR.
In addition, Musk and most of his top ppl, were not rocket scientists, or Car makers, or Solar ppl, and yet, they continue to change the industry.
I am guessing that a number of top ppl inside of SpaceX are working on NTR over on the side. After all, you do not need plutonium to prove everything. You can test a lot of the system in other ways, prior to going to real nuke testing.
US GDP and per-capita GDP are both higher than before the Great Recession.
http://www.economonitor.com…
Which makes them the highest in US history.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m…
The reason Americans don’t feel as rich as their country, is because the connection between the wealth of the nation and the wealth of the average person has been broken.
https://static01.nyt.com/im…
And, close in, notice that the median income has dropped even as national “income” has fully recovered. It’s not even just flat-lining, it’s declining during national growth.
https://upload.wikimedia.or…
—
US industrial production has returned to the levels before the Great Recession, which was the highest level in US history.
(vs. Europe.)
http://www.financialsense.c…
Although manufacturing hasn’t fully recovered since the 2006/2007 peak, it’s certainly higher than 2000, or any time before 2000.
http://tradebeat.com/upload…
However, while US worker productivity is at an all-time high…
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-…
…wages are a declining part of the national wealth.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x…
So the US is still a manufacturing powerhouse, and has one of the most productive workforces (vastly more productive than China), but workers are not seeing the gains from their work.
Whining about China (or Mexico), or repeating the myth of the US manufacturing decline, just diverts attention from the real tragedy of the US. It’s an incredibly rich nation which is impoverishing it’s workers. Reverse that trend and everything else will fix itself.
Everyone who tells you “it’s China”, or “manufacturing is dead”, is trying to con you into voting against your own (and your nation’s) interests.
hmmm.
Interesting post.
Great post with the illustrative charts
Separate post because the other one was… crowded.
If MCT works the way Musk wants, if it allows affordable travel to Mars, then by definition it allows affordable travel to the moon.
And if the MCT can land anything close to the reported payload on Mars, it can land several times that on the moon (and return to Earth). Which means you can drop multi-hundred-tonne payloads on the moon in a single, low cost flight. Which means you can design “fat” payloads, where you use bulk-but-cheap instead of light-but-expensive. And routine flights makes it easier to incrementally test things at an affordable price. All of which makes the missions themselves more affordable, not just the launches.
Indeed, if Musk gets remotely close to his goal, it puts lunar habitats in the price-range of individual groups.
paul, to go anywhere with a base, requires that we have multiple redundant items in the supply chain. That means redundant launch vehicle, redundant tugs, lunar vehicles, etc.
Without that, we will end up with another skylab, only this time, it might be inhabited till the end.
The requirement for redundancy may be overstated. Most of us don’t have redundant cars or houses because we have mechanics and plumbers available. When you go from the mindset of “pipe broke, evacuate the house and call the experts” to “pipe broke, shut off the water and call the plumber” the requirement for redundancy diminishes considerably.
when Columbus sailed for India, he went with 3 ships. not because they were needed, but because they provided redundancy.
And skylab is the PERFECT example, of what happens when you do not have redundant systems.
That is also why NASA wants 2-3 human launchers ( as well as for competition), not the 1 that the GOP wanted.
And the Mayflower sailed alone. It depends on the maturity of the systems involved. A bad Dragon doesn’t require Orion as a back up. Another Dragon will do just fine.
How is that arguing against anything I said?
By radically lowering the cost of getting mass into orbit, and to the lunar surface, MCT would allow massive redundancy. If you can put 2-300 tonnes of mass on the lunar surface, routinely, regularly, via a low-cost reusable system, you will have multiple players all taking different paths and testing different ideas. With the best ideas, the best systems, filtering through to the top.
But not three types of ship. (Actually two types of off-the-shelf, proven ships. But he would have achieved the same redundancy with three ships of the same type.) MCT won’t be a single pair of vehicles. Or a limited fleet like the Shuttle. Musk wants to send dozens of BFS’s to Mars in every synod, with god-knows-how-many BFR’s supplying the orbital refuelling depots. You underestimate just how extraordinary a change it will be.
Plutonium? – don’t know what people were thinking back in the sixties/seventies, but no-one is going to use anything but Low Enriched Uranium. This is an absolute political limitation based on proliferation concerns, both on and off planet. All future nuclear technologies will have to comply with this.
Wait, what. Does she mean an actual complete engine, or just a component (like a turbo-pump, or combustion chamber.) Coz if the former, damn that’s fast work.
the parts are all tested.
I believe this is the complete engine.
it was only because we had redundant access to the ISS in the first place that we are OK.
ULA and BO can launch, but neither have true SHLV, which is where SpaceX is headed.
The only redundant LV for BFR would be a very expensive SLS.
MCT is being suggested for lunar work, but again, no redundancy, in terms of size. Personally, I love all the work that is being done by NASA with other companies on building landers.
Then we have the issue of true habitats. Bigelow looks great, esp, initially with BA-330, but then BA2100 could really happen. However, again we need redundancy. I am hopeful that if new space provides the rail line to the moon, that Europe will swallow their pride and initially focus on buildings and energy there. That would give us our redundant buildings.
And if things go well, Russia will become partner in this as well.