Even though the second demonstration flight of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)’s Falcon 1 failed to reach orbit and was presumed lost at sea only moments after its launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, the company’s CEO Elon Musk deemed it "a very good day" for the fledgling launch provider.

SpaceX’s rocket reached an altitude approximately 50 miles below the International Space Station’s orbit, the company estimated, yet fell short of its planned full orbital velocity and fell back to Earth after experiencing a roll excitation which took it off course. Musk described the anomaly as "a comparatively easy fix" once the flight data is examined, and noted with similar optimism that the anomaly was "something that would have been very hard to determine without a test launch… since it is impossible to ground test the second stage under the same conditions it would see in spaceflight."

In his post-demonstration remarks, Musk said "the launch was not perfect, but certainly pretty good. Given that the primary objectives were demonstrating responsive launch, and gathering test data in advance of our first operational satellite launch later this year, the outcome was great. Operationally responsive launch has become an increasingly important national security objective, so demonstrating rapid loading of propellants and launch in less than an hour, as well as a rapid recycle following the first engine ignition, are major accomplishments."

He added that "all in all, this test has flight-proven 95-plus percent of the Falcon 1 systems, which bodes really well for our upcoming flights of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9." He said that SpaceX expects no significant delay to scheduled flights; a U.S. Department of Defense satellite launch is slated for late summer, and a mission with a Malaysian satellite is planned for fall.

"I feel very confident 10 years from now that we can be putting both satellites and people into orbit, and maybe beyond (Earth) orbit," Musk explained. "I feel very confident in the future of commercial spaceflight, private spaceflight and I think this bodes very, very well, actually, for achieving some of the goals that I mentioned. It is really an excellent indicator that a small company can achieve great things…. We had what I would call a relatively minor issue with the roll-control very late in the flight. But all the really big-risk items, the ones we were most concerned [about], have been addressed."

Musk averred "If you look at the early history of rocketry, I think they had something like 12 Atlas failures before the 13th one was successful. To get this far on our second launch being an all-new rocket — new main engine, new first stage, new second stage engine, new second stage, new fairing, new launch pad system, with so many new things — to have gotten this far is great."

Anomalies aside, the argument can be made that the accomplishment is impressive for a company which officially is not yet five years old. SpaceX was founded by Musk in June 2002 as the cofounder, chairman and CEO of PayPal prepared to cash in as the electronic payment system (with 20 million customers in 38 countries) was acquired by eBay the following October for $1.5 billion.

As Marco Caceres, an analyst with Fairfax, Va.-based Teal Group, said, "It’s only the second flight. You have to put a positive spin on it, without its being a failure. The fact that it took off and didn’t blow up; I’d agree it’s a success."

And it was a success for reasons both practical and philosophical, Caceres considered.

"His contract with NASA means that they need to be flying by 2009," the analyst noted. "So now he’s got a jump on Rocketplane Kistler," in their competition for NASA’a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract, one worth an estimated $207 million.

"It would be different if he lost an expensive payload," Caceres continued. "But any demonstration has a bit more latitude [than a delivery launch]. It demonstrated that it can take off. These days, you see a lot of people trying to get into the industry and rush to try and make money right away. This is well-funded, so there’s less pressure on him. He has a NASA contract."

Taking a historical view, Caceres suggested that SpaceX is in good stead.

"You look back at [Boeing’s] Delta 3, that was supposed to be a transitional vehicle that only had two or three launches, and two were failures [with] some satellite aboard" in the late 1990s.

The lone Delta 3 success – in its last mission – carried a dummy payload after the ill-fated examples of Hughes’ Galaxy-10 satellite (which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean) and its Orion-3 (which ended up in a useless orbit).

Caceres also recalled that the Brazilian VLS failed three times between 1997 and 2003 with satellites aboard, and the failed Conestoga EER system had a NASA payload when it failed in 1995.

"In the old days, back in the ’60s,"Caceres said, "[satellites] were tested numerous times. But now [would-be launch providers] want to make money right away. When you put a payload on there, it can hurt you more when a failure happens, just through bad publicity. Once you say [that] your vehicle is carrying a government payload, you’re saying it’s ready."

Learning from its own hard lesson – almost exactly one year ago, SpaceX saw four years’ work, three launch delays and $100 million literally go up in smoke when a Falcon 1 carrying a U.S. Air Force Academy research satellite was lost just moments after launch due to a fuel leak – the company took a step back for its latest round.

"SpaceX the first time had a small satellite on there," Caceres recalled. "Again it’s a perception; you lower expectations when you call it a demo and have no payload. Otherwise you get hurt."

Clients, of course, are keenly wary of getting hurt when multimillion-dollar investments are at stake.

"I think the clients might be nervous if it wasn’t perfect," Caceres surmised. "Maybe they’d want another demo flight. If they got one up right after a nearly successful flight, you might allay those fears. But otherwise a client is probably going to be nervous until after it’s worked four or five times."

As a bottom-line matter, all concerned among the industry should want the program to work, Caceres said, since alternatives get pricey.

"The price [of a Falcon 1] is a third or a quarter of a Pegasus [from Orbital Sciences Corp.]. That’s significant, that you don’t spend all your money on the launch service. Vehicles like SpaceX’s are just good for the industry.

"The industry has been a little stagnant because it’s expensive to get to space," Caceres said. "That’ll jump-start the industry and create some enthusiasm, especially if it works. There’s just not that many new vehicles launching, so when you see one that’s launched twice within six months, they’re in an elite crowd."

SpaceX is "serious, and Musk has money. He’s young and hungry, and not answerable to a lot of shareholders. This keeps him excited and trying again for a third or fourth launch."

While finances dictate that "at some point [Musk] has to reach a rhythm and some kind of success," Caceres concluded "so far, so good."

— J.J. McCoy