Reusable rocket Space X, a false good idea? – The echoes

Ok, the SpaceX engineers have achieved a technological feat by managing to re-land on the place of take-off, the first floor of an orbital rocket, after the latter has placed 11 communication satellites in orbit. But beyond the technical achievement, the question remains: is this a good idea? On paper, the concept seems very appealing. The first floor is the most expensive part of a launcher, which alone accounts for 50% of its total value. Or in the case of a Falcon 9 rocket, some $ 30 million. To use a formula dear to Elon Musk is a bit as if we used an airliner once. Hence the efforts of Space X – whose whole strategy is based on reducing the launch costs – to develop a partially reusable launch vehicle. According to its CEO, it would divide “by a factor of two” the price of launches.

Craze for reusable

Elon Musk apparently not the only one to believe. Its main competitors, Airbus and Safran launchers ULA US joint venture, which combines Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have also said they are working, they too, on partially reusable rocket concepts. However, this enthusiasm for recovery is far from unanimous among industry experts, many of whom doubt the profitability of such a concept. “In the best case, the gain will only be marginal,” said an industry expert who is not a competitor of Space X .. “It is not enough to fill retrieve the first floor; it is still necessary to ensure that it can be reused safely, he explains. This represents costs of verification and restoration that are difficult to estimate. Furthermore, to smooth down a part of the launcher requires a lot of fuel. About 40 tonnes for the Falcon 9. This represents a loss of 30% to 40% of the performance of the launcher. In the end, to save a little over 50% of the value of the launcher, I can run that 60% of the mass of a conventional pitcher. “

Sell customers reluctant

One can also add that the success of the recovery remains, at this stage, very uncertain. In the case of solid rocket motor, the load on the materials is such that they can not be reused. Finally, even if successful, it will still convince the customer – and his insurer – a pitcher using a first stage of “Recycling” is as reliable as a new launcher. Which is not a foregone conclusion.

The cons-example of the space shuttle

In case, Space X has not in fact intend to reuse the recovered first floor yesterday. “It will be for the next rocket,” provides Elon Musk. We can believe it or continue to doubt. However, this would not be the first time that a technical feat proves to be a commercial failure. In the space sector, the most known example is of course the space shuttle. Again, the main objective of the Americans was to have a reusable spacecraft set for satellite orbits, to reduce the cost of access to space. It is ultimately the opposite has happened. The space shuttles have proved less reliable than traditional Proton launch vehicles, launch a cost of four times higher, about $ 500 million per shot. And that, not counting development costs, which totaled $ billion. Finally, lack of competitiveness, the US space industry has made blow his “leadership” on the satellite market by Europeans.