With landed rocket safely back in its hangar, what's next for SpaceX?

SpaceX made history last month by safely returning a rocket after blasting off into space, but that's just the beginning of Elon Musk's master space plan.

The used Falcon 9 first stage rocket is seen in a hangar at Cape Canaveral, Fla., on Sunday. This represents SpaceX’s first successful fly back and landing of a rocket booster. This leftover booster returned to land, following liftoff on a satellite-delivery mission, on Dec. 21, 2015.

After landing upright in a spaceflight breakthrough on Dec. 21, SpaceX's booster rocket is back in its hangar. 

But what happens when the pomp and circumstance of the Falcon 9 booster's historic landing settles down?

Landing the rocket booster is just one step in SpaceX CEO and CTO Elon Musk's grand plan. Ultimately, Mr. Musk has designs on colonizing Mars.

But the two goals are not unrelated. Returning a rocket booster from spaceflight unscathed means it, or its parts, could be used again. This could dramatically cut costs of spaceflight, something that would open new doors to space exploration.

"If one can figure out how to effectively reuse rockets just like airplanes, the cost of access to space will be reduced by as much as a factor of a hundred. A fully reusable vehicle has never been done before. That really is the fundamental breakthrough needed to revolutionize access to space," Musk said in a SpaceX article in June 2015. 

During a teleconference after the Dec. 21 launch, Musk said, "The Falcon 9 rocket costs about $60 million to build — it is kind of like a big jet — but the cost of the propellant ... is only about $200,000. So that means that the potential cost reduction over the long term is probably in excess of a factor of a hundred."

Musk posted an image to Instagram of the Falcon 9 resting in its hangar on Dec. 31, announcing, "No damage found, ready to fire again."

SpaceX is not the only private spaceflight company working to make spaceflight more affordable and accessible. 

Musk, who is also CEO of the electric car company Tesla, often faces off with Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who has a private spaceflight company called Blue Origin. Blue Origin also successfully landed a rocket during a test flight late last year.

Both companies are trying to deliver what NASA's defunct space shuttle program initially promised. NASA's program promised reusable spaceflight vehicles with costs of as little as $9 million a flight and cargo costs of $118 per pound, they said, The Christian Science Monitor's Pete Spotts writes. 

But when the program ended in 2011 after three decades, a flight cost about $1.5 billion with cargo adding an additional $10,000 per pound.

Musk says he can do better, perhaps carrying cargo payloads for between $10 and $500 per pound.

Ultimately it may come down to an economic balance. As Jonathan Coopersmith, a historian at Texas A&M University whose work focuses in part on the US space program, told Mr. Spotts:

As impressive as the Blue Origin and SpaceX demonstrations have been, it still remains to be seen "how far this shifts the economic needle" in ways that increase demand for launches, Dr. Coopersmith says. "How low can you get the price, and how many customers can you get at that price?"

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

[Editor's note: Due to a transcription error, the original version of the article misquoted the cost to build the Falcon 9 rocket. It is $60 million.]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to With landed rocket safely back in its hangar, what's next for SpaceX?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today