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."
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree about the safety point. Exploration isn't about safety. When Columbus set out to find a trade route to India he knew some motherfuckers would die on the way over. But he went anyway because he knew there would be some major dubloons in it for him if he made it. Of course it helped that he was backed by a gold-hungry monarchy and not a democracy that would rather vote for free cheese and tax breaks. But I digress.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If you're going to send people into space then reducing risks is your primary objective. Astronauts spend years in training and are a very specialized group. If you play it lose with their lives you're not going to have many 'volunteers', and the time between missions will always be increasing.
Since the shuttle was the primary means for getting people into space and delivering goods to the space station safety had to be paramount. Doing it with unmanned rockets reduces all the costs associated to the delivery. If one (or more) SpaceX rockets explodes on its way to the space station the costs of security and safety will not seem excessive.
Re:The Steve Jobs of rocketry? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I never understood the emphasis on credentials. Having a particular degree doesn't make you a good rocket builder. Launching rockets that work is a much more credible indicator of your capabilities. Musk and his amazing team have achieved that bit.
Re:This is the exciting bit. (Score:5, Insightful)
"not a major step forward in space technology"
This is both true, and completely false.
It's of course true, because little about SpaceX's designs are explicitly 'high tech'. ...
They do not use metallic thermal protection, linear aerospikes, conformal tanks,
However - it's false because it assumes those things are useful at a given stage in technology.
As an example, trying to bring in turbocharged engines into mass production at Ford in 1910 would have been a great leap forward in terms of technology - but likely an utter failure due to cost and lack of reliability.
Things that are not exciting in terms of technology can if well-implemented enormously boost whole areas of the economy.
The interstate network was an example of this, as was the invention of containerised transport.
The use of cross-feed is new.
No launcher yet has used this concept of feeding from the edge boosters to the middle, so the middle boosters tanks remain full until the outside ones seperate.
This has significant advantages over having either the middle stage light on the pad, and deplete its fuel, or light in mid-air once seperation is over - losing the thrust and increasing gravity losses.
It also has significant (in principle) cost and compatibility advantages.
If you can use most of the same parts for a Falcon 9, or a falcon heavy launch that both reduces your production cost, lowers inventory, and allows you perhaps to much more easily develop global reusability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_(rocket)#Grasshopper [wikipedia.org] is the prototype vehicle for stage 1 of falcon 9 (and if falcon heavy stages are identical...) which will if successful allow the first stage(s) to be recovered and reflown.
Again - this isn't technically interesting.
There are no new technologies in this.
But to use the old quote 'Quantity has a quality all of its own.'.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think was going on with NASA was overengineering parts for a ride with over a 1% loss rate. One can spend a lot of money making a nearly perfect part or process more nearly perfect. But if the overall system is unreliable and remains unchanged despite the improvement, then that expenditure is effectively wasted.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
"Commercial enterprises are excellent at making a proper risk assessment" - like assessing the risk of a loan or mortgage defaulting, for example?
SpaceX is doing well, but lets please drop this ideological bullshit about markets being some magic diving mechanism. They aren't - they are a clumsy metaphor for the random noise generated by transactions. Not magic.
Re:Why does this story have the NASA logo (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot, get a SpaceX icon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does this story have the NASA logo (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX has loads of NASA people and technology, and couldn't exist except as a NASA contractor backed by NASA.
SpaceX has a great many former NASA employees and has studied some of the data that NASA contractors have produced at taxpayer expense (which data is available to anybody who wants it, including China, Russia, India, and anybody else in the world). I suppose you could argue that SpaceX is using Velcro, Tang, and Space Pens.... please don't get me started on "NASA technology" as I can go off on what kind of joke that really is.
It should also be noted that the Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule that SpaceX has developed was started independently without a government contract and SpaceX is not dependent upon government funds to get either of those products produced by SpaceX completed. That NASA was handing out money under various programs and SpaceX decided to bring a bucket to catch that money only shows SpaceX has some people who are intelligent and perhaps are a bunch of money grubbers. They may even take that as a compliment, and is a good thing if you want to remain a for-profit company.
SpaceX can survive without NASA, but could NASA survive without SpaceX?