Just to be clear, SpaceX is neither the first commercial space launch provider, nor the most successful to date. The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 officially allowed commercial space launch providers, e.g. non-DoD or government agencies to provide space launch systems and services, but actual propulsion systems and launch vehicles have always been designed and built by private aerospace contractors such as Rocketdyne, Lockheed Propulsion, Thiokol, Hercules, Aerojet, Grumman Aerospace, TRW, the Glenn L. Martin Company, Douglas Aircraft, the Convair Division of General Dynamics, Orbital Sciences Corporation, et cetera. (Most of these companies have been consolidated into the few remaining major contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, et cetera.)
It is true that most of these systems were developed as progressions from various ballistic missile programs (Delta from the PGM-17 ‘Thor’ IRBM, Titan from the LGM-25 ‘Titan II’, Atlas from the SM-65 ‘Atlas’, Minotaur from the LGM-30F ‘Minuteman’ and LGM-118A ‘Peacekeeper’, et cetera) and so the cost to achieve highly capable and reliable systems was borne out of a strategic need rather than commercial value, but what SpaceX has done is not fundamentally different from other contractors that have come before. In every essential way, the Falcon family of vehicles is are conventional multistage expendable launch vehicles, and far from setting itself apart from other aerospace companies in competing in purely private industry, SpaceX has vigorously pursued contracts with NASA (COTS) and the Department of Defense (EELV, OSP) and accepted public funds for development and design.
The first launch vehicle that could be considered a purely commercial development–not developed from any previous ballistic missile or government-funded vehicle like the Saturn family or STS/Shuttle–would be the air-launched OSC Pegasus, which had its maiden flight in 1990 and has had 35 successes and 3 partial successes out of 40 launches, including 27 consecutive successes and a predicted reliability of 86%. By comparison, the Falcon 9 (v1.0) has 3 successes in 4 launches and a predicted reliability of 67% (which is pretty much the norm for a new development launch vehicle), and is going to be retired after the next launch in favor of a “v1.1” vehicle that is actually a complete redesign.
The most impressive thing about SpaceX is how well the company promotes itself as being especially innovative rather than any from particular technical achievements of the Falcon system. Elon Musk has dialed down the bombast a bit after three consecutive failures of the Falcon 1 vehicle, but all the talk about super-heavy launch vehicles, manned missions to Mars, et cetera are more boastful than practicable at this point, and the commercial success of SpaceX in reducing launch costs remains to be proven. It’s good to have another competitor to Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the medium-to-heavy lift category, and there are some desirable things about the Falcon system, such as the use of the TRW-developed (but rarely used) gas generator pintle injector engines, but SpaceX isn’t advancing the state of the art.
As for requirements for commercial space in the United States or by companies incorporated in the United States, the CSA of 84 mentioned above and follow-on legislation has been codified in 51 USC 50503, PL 105-303, 42 USC 2458, and various other laws and regulations. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA/AST) and the NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo programs promote commercial space. Licensing for space launch vehicle applications is provided by the FAA per 14 CFR 400-600, and the Eastern and Western Ranges have provisions for leasing launch facilities (Vandenberg AFB, NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Cape Canaveral AFS, Omelek Island LF ) or providing range services (tracking, telemetry, command destruct) at cost reimbursable to providers launching from private facilities such as AADC Kodiak Launch Complex.
Stranger
