Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Intelsat Signs Launch Contract With SpaceX 167

New submitter jamstar7 writes "Following the success of the Falcon9/Dragon resupply test to the ISS comes the following announcement: 'Intelsat, the world's leading provider of satellite services, and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), the world's fastest growing space launch company, announced the first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. "SpaceX is very proud to have the confidence of Intelsat, a leader in the satellite communication services industry," said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer. "The Falcon Heavy has more than twice the power of the next largest rocket in the world. With this new vehicle, SpaceX launch systems now cover the entire spectrum of the launch needs for commercial, civil and national security customers."' As of yet, the Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, but all the parts have been tested. Essentially an upgunned Falcon 9 with additional boosters, the Heavy has lift capability second only to the Saturn 5. On top of the four Falcon Heavy launches planned for the U.S. Air Force this year, the Intelsat contract represents the true dawn of the commercial space age."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intelsat Signs Launch Contract With SpaceX

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Informative)

    by captainpanic ( 1173915 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @05:55AM (#40153313)

    I am quite happy with the commercialization of space flight. I've always thought that the national space agencies were on the wrong path for decades. They always seem to aim for increased security and safety. I think spaceflight has gone over the top: the costs of increased safety are just not worth it. Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment: certain risks are simply acceptable. This attitude is likely to reduce costs, which is what we need.

    Obviously, NASA or ESA can still ask SpaceX to launch a couple of thousand tons of material into orbit, to assemble a Mars rocket and lander in orbit. :-)

    When launching from Earth becomes easy, the next step can be considered.

  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @06:17AM (#40153399)

    The statement "The Falcon Heavy has more than twice the power of the next largest rocket in the world" is true but somewhat misleading. Both the USA [wikipedia.org] and Russia [wikipedia.org] have had rockets in the past with more than twice the power that the "Falcon Heavy" will.

    Also, since this is in development, maybe the comparison should include other systems in development. Russia has a rocket with similar capabilities as the Falcon Heavy [wikipedia.org] scheduled for launch at the same time, and China has a system under development" [wikipedia.org] which has a lower low-earth orbit capability but similar lifting capability to geostationary orbit that is scheduled to launch a year later.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @07:45AM (#40153749) Journal
    Well, just to point out, the delta IV-H already takes 13 tonnes to GEO. As such, FH, along with DIV-H, will likely double the size of sats to 10-12 T.
    And Astrium is working on the 5ME,Though, SLOWLY is the word. I did notice that earlier this year, the ESA coughed up another 100M euros for it. However, Astrium/ESA suffers the same issues as old space: lots of money to accomplish anything. IOW, 100M Eu is more of a study than actual work being done.

    Regardless, I think that the new norm will become 10-12T for sats. And with FH charging about 1/3 of Delta and 1/2 of China, Russia or ESA, I suspect that the prime launch system will become FH.
  • Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)

    by amstrad ( 60839 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @09:29AM (#40154425)
    You're an idiot.

    First, launch escape systems only work if activated prior to an explosion. It won't save the lives of astronauts after the fact, the abort has to be done prior to the catastrophic event.

    Second, of course the the Space Shuttle had Launch abort system. It had "Abort to Landing Site", "Transoceanic Abort Landing", "Abort Once Around", and "Abort to Orbit". Only Abort to Orbit was used in the program (STS-51-F):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes [wikipedia.org]

    Additionally, there was equipment and flight software for crew inflight bailout:

    http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/inflight.html [nasa.gov]

    This was not available during powered flight.

  • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

    by El Torico ( 732160 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @09:34AM (#40154473)
    Isn't that the best kind of maniac? Seriously, it takes someone of Herculean audacity to break into an entrenched market. SpaceX doesn't have hundreds of retired, formerly high-ranking military officers and former civilian employees of NASA to provide contacts, business intelligence, and influence. They may have lobbyists and "influence" over politicians, but definitely not to the same degree as the names you mentioned.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...