Can the SpaceX Grasshopper Rocket Save Taxpayers $50 Billion or More?

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, wants to put American astronauts back in space. He wants them to go there aboard American-built rockets powered by American-built rocket engines.

And if he succeeds, American taxpayers could save billions of dollars.

Last month, SpaceX, the "space exploration" firm that Elon Musk built, released a video documenting its progress toward building our first reusable spacecraft since NASA canceled the Space Shuttle program. The video shows SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket descending to Earth after boosting a payload into orbit -- firing its reentry boosters, extending its landing gear, and then softly landing back on "Earth". Actually, as intended, the Falcon 9 rocket landed in water, so upon "landing," it promptly tipped over and sank...

It was a pretty impressive accomplishment, and you can watch it all happen right here:

Grasshopper evolves
Last month's soft landing represents the next step in the evolution of SpaceX's experimental Grasshopper program into a new Falcon 9R (for "reusable") rocket. Standing 10 stories tall, Grasshopper featured a first-stage Falcon 9 rocket powered by a single Merlin 1D engine, bound by a steel support structure, and standing perched atop four steel and aluminum landing legs with hydraulic dampers.

Falcon 9R will be bigger than Grasshopper, featuring a full-size first-stage rocket, powered by a full complement of nine Merlin rocket engines.


SpaceX Grasshopper at rest. Photo: SpaceX.

Operating off a launch pad in Texas, Grasshopper spent several months from 2012 to 2013, rocketing to higher and higher heights in successive test flights, and landing back on its launch pad each time. Grasshopper even made the job harder for itself at one point, shifting horizontally away from its pad after launch, then self-correcting and still landing back on home base.

Now, SpaceX's almost-successful landing of the mission-ready (and USAF certified) Falcon 9 shows that the project that Grasshopper began, is evolving into something nearly ready for prime time. So why is this important?

An end to disposable spacecraft
The successful, controlled reentry and landing of SpaceX's Falcon 9 shows us how the Grasshopper experiment is morphing into a true replacement for the now defunct Space Shuttle program. This is key for U.S. taxpayers.

Ever since the Space Shuttle stopped running, the U.S. government has been sending its satellites into space aboard "disposable" spacecraft. Tens of millions of dollars are spent building rockets from scratch. After launch, those rockets are jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere.

Want to launch another satellite? First, you've got to build yourself another rocket.

Reintroducing the reusable spacecraft
A "reusable" Falcon 9 would put an end to this practice. It would permit a rocket, once built, to be launched, refurbished, refueled, and launched again. According to Musk, the rocket fuel needed to put a satellite in orbit accounts for only 0.3% of the cost of a space launch. Accordingly, adding extra fuel to permit a rocket booster to make a controlled reentry and landing should only add 0.3% to the cost of a space launch.

Though, 75% of the cost of any rocket launch can be attributed to building its first-stage rocket. By making this first-stage rocket reusable, instead of disposable, Musk thinks he can drop the cost of a space launch by 75%.

Total potential savings: 75% minus 0.3% equals 74.7%.

SpaceX wants to save you some money
Now, the math is actually a bit more complicated than that. Additional costs will be involved in:

  • building a bigger rocket, or adding rocket boosters, to carry the reentry fuel
  • buying even more fuel to lift the necessary reentry fuel into space
  • the costs of recovering and reconditioning rockets for reuse

But you get the point: Even with all the added costs attendant on running a reusable rocket operation, the savings here could still be significant.

How significant? In testimony before Congress back in March, Musk suggested that at the very least, his firm can save taxpayers about two-thirds of the cost that Boeing (NYSE: BA  ) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) currently charge to launch government satellites into space. Over the next 15 years, that could add up to about $50 billion in savings.

With savings like these, the rocket that used to be called "Grasshopper" could one day save taxpayers some serious green.


One small hop for Grasshopper, one giant leap for taxpayers. Photo: SpaceX.

Editor's note: A previous version of this article was misleading about whether the SpaceX rocket's "wet landing" was intentional or accidental. The Motley Fool regrets the confusion. 
 

Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (3)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 02, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Mihauki wrote:

    Dear Mr Smith,

    IMO you miss a lot of important issues that where covered in other articles:

    1. Additional cost - not only extra fuel is needed which is very cheap, but landing legs, side thrusters etc to be able to make a controlled landing. Musk said any extra 10 ponds added to the first stage will reduce the weight of cargo, that can be carried by 1 pound. Any extra 1 pound added to the second stage i.e. heat shield will reduce the weight of cargo by 1 pound. So you might get a reusable rocket, but you need to make sure it can still carry enough cargo into space.

    2. If you make a reusable rocket that can be used 40 times, you only building 1 rocket instead of 40. That makes building this one rocket much more expensive, expecially since right now 40 flight into space are performed over a period of few years.

    3. You mentioned cost of reconditioning rockets, this is very important. Most of the Space Shuttle was reusable, but it was one of the most expensive space viehcle, becauce refurbishing the Space Shuttle did cost more than building a new one. This is the big question for Space X: will they be able to get the rocket flying without taking apart the engines and costly reconditioning. Plus will the used rockets be as safe as the new ones, the Space Shuttle wasn't.

    4. Space X can probably safe the US goverment 50 billion dollars without reusability of it's rockets. It allready is a fewtimes cheaper than it competition and it says it will be able to sell seats to the ISS for 20 million, which is also a few times less than what NASA is paying the Russians right now. Musk said cost of materials for building rockets account for 1% of total cost of rockets, while with cars the materials amount for 20% of the cost of the car. Space X was able to reduce the cost of building rockets with new production techniques and also using a smaller engine 10 times in a rocket, which allowed even with small number of launches to build large quantities of rocket engines.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 3047099, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/26/2014 6:14:35 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement