SpaceX and Iridium Sign $492M Launch Contract 96
FleaPlus writes "Following up on the successful first launch of their Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has signed a $492M deal for launching several dozen satellites for the Iridium NEXT constellation, the biggest commercial launch deal ever (teleconference notes). This is a needed boost for the US launch industry, which has dwindled to a fraction of the international market due to problematic ITAR arms regulations and high costs. SpaceX's next launch is scheduled for later this summer, carrying the first full version of the Dragon reusable capsule, which will run tests in orbit and then splash down off the California coast."
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Hi, you must be new to the internet. One of our rules here is "don't feed the trolls".
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
TOTAL NONSENSE (Score:1, Offtopic)
And before you pretend to be some literary scholar and tell me that English is a living language,
While it is true that Slashdot is not the place for living languages, it is the place for abominations to nature. How are we ever going to get "splashdowned", if we don't support this noble work?
Re: (Score:2)
SPLASHDOWN IS NOT A VERB.
It begs the question: whose the one that put these guy's in charge?
Re: (Score:1)
And all words have been used first somewhere.
Most people accept splashdown as a verb. Live with it.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Nice, the old ad populum logical fallacy. Would you like to cite your reference on where you found out that most people accept splashdown as a verb, or would you rather toss my salad instead?
I doubt he could find a cite for that specific verb, but there's no need. One need only demonstrate that most people accept verbing nouns. I can't provide a cite for that, either, but I know from experience it's true for nearly everyone I know. I would venture to say, at this point, one is not a competent speaker of the English language is you cannot comprehend sentences with verbed nouns, as the practice quite widespread.
Re: (Score:1)
A google search for "will splashdown" gives a lot more hits. Even "Splashdowned" gives a few.
Re: (Score:1)
You got any evidence that I'm wrong. I mean it's all well and good to dismiss my arguments. They're pretty weak. However, I'll take a weak argument over the none whatsoever that you've presented so far. And I'll advise you that insults just make you look stupid - at least to 50% of the people still paying attention to this thread.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But just go ahead and mod *this* post down (troll) after sucking my balls (after licking them, of course). I figure, why not waste two or three more modpoints while I'm at it. Oh, and please have a bad day, fartknocker.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
We need private space industry to really start hummin' and making more deals like this. The only way we are going to make space travel actually doable and useful within our lifetimes (or maybe even our kid's lifetimes) is if the private industry really ramps things up.
Considering how far things have come in just the last decade (hell, even just the last five years) I have high hopes.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I did do a Google search to be sure and some article said they wer ein GEO.
SpaceX Falcon 9 costs to LEO are $3,500 per kilo. So still a 3 to 1 cost savings.
Iridium not in GEO (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to cost, you have to enter the market at below the market rates if you are to carve yourself a niche - Boeing, Lockheed and others have an established success rate, while SpaceX does not. Its typically difficult to insure a satellite, so Iridium have to take the chance that SpaceX can give them a good launch success rate, when they can go to Boeing et al
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, no plans have changed, as I posted elsewhere I did a quick google search on Iridium and GEO and got a hit so I kept on writing my post with GEO costs, still SpaceX LEO costs are dirt cheap too.
SpaceX does have a track record with the Falcon 1, its not so great, but each time they got over their engineering challenges and the next launch was better than the last. the Falcon 9 launch was flawless except for the momentary loss of video as they crossed the horizon.
If you read TFA, Musk says they have 30 l
Re: (Score:2)
What is really exciting is that Bigelow still has yet to make a major move with SpaceX. They are busy trying to "second source" a vehicle with Boeing (understandable.... Robert Bigelow doesn't want to be hung out to dry by Elon Musk and SpaceX) and are also generally trying to see a broad and robust launcher industry, but it is possible that they may go ahead and sign another contract with SpaceX in the not too distant future.
The real exciting stuff that is going to happen will be with Virgin Galactic and
Re: (Score:1)
Except that ULA (Boeing, Lockheed Martin) wouldn't really be in the running to launch for Iridium even without SpaceX because of cost. Iridium would likely go with a launch on Russian rockets. Inexpensive AND Proven (even moreso than the American launchers)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do they? I thought they got deals to build satellites, not launch them. Got a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As of June 3 this year only $350-400M has been invested into SpaceX total, less than just this one contract. Less than 1/4 their current NASA contract. They have 30 launches booked right now, lets see how many days they can go without an accident.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Rockets first:
Next, Launch Capabilities:
I don't know if LM or Boeing still provide launch services outside of the scope of ULA.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference with SpaceX, supposedly, is that they are much less expensive than the incumbents. Their stated goal is to reduce costs by a factor of 10. Which if they achieve their goal is significant. Boeing, LM and ATK are competing with the Russian Soyuz and ESA Ariane for launch contracts and losing badly because of high costs and ITAR restrictions. So SpaceX is very important to US commercial launch. Perhaps the new competition will encourage Boeing, LM and ATK to figure out how to reduce their costs or lose the market entirely.
Some of the ways SpaceX reduce costs are using in house designs and production for everything. So they are no beholden to subcontractor cost overruns and communications issues. Another way they keep costs down is the designs themselves which are based on well proven ideas that should prove reliable and inexpensive to build and maintain (comparatively speaking).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Updated: Like dude, ever heard of Google?
Re: (Score:2)
They're not just a new entrant. With their significantly reduced launch costs they are a game changer. The Falcon 9 has the big guys sweating bullets and the Falcon 1 has the little guys doing the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you say that. What defines "proven" and how many launches does that take?
I don't see SpaceX failing on their next 10 launches, although they may indeed lose a vehicle in the next 10 along the way. The ESA has lost Ariane vehicles after several successful launches too, as has RKK Energia with the Soyuz and Progress vehicles, so yeah you may have a point here.
What makes statements like the one here ("once they have proven their launcher with a valid success rate") is that it is a moving goalpost
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
{{Citation Requested}}
Seriously, this is simply trying to be critical of somebody because of their success. More to the point, why is it a problem if an actual payload is on a test flight. This was done by NASA and others on early test flights... unless they had money to burn and were on a cost-plus contract where money was not an object.
In the case of SpaceX, the people buying the slots knew full well that the hardware was not considered "proven" or flight worthy when they signed up for a flight.
Besides,
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, Lockheed and Boeing exclusively offer launch services through ULA now, and ULA exclusively deals with DoD payloads.
As the article points out, commercial launches in the US have dwindled to nothing, largely due to ITAR restrictions -- its difficult to tell a customer how to interface with the LV when you have to ensure that only US citizens can see the documentation. Only because SpaceX is relatively inexpensive is it worth the hassle. The commercial launch business in the US is all but dead
Lockheed and Boeing (Score:1)
They're priced too expensive for commercial customers. Nearly all of their launches are for the U.S. Government. Commercial launches generally use Russian or Ukranian rockets. From what I've read, there have been about 5 launches with Russian rockets to every 1 launch of an american rocket over the course of the last several decades.
The U.S. govt started the EELV program to upgrade the American rockets in about 1995. The American rockets had fa
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, why? Space is still gonna be empty.
Space won't be empty with an Iridium constellation there. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome! Who needs air, water, food, gravity? It's for losers!
You need air, water, food, gravity? Bring it with you! Problem solved!
I'm a SPACE NUTTER and I demand UNLIMITED SPACE!
Unfortunately, I still have to share that UNLIMITED SPACE with you. How about you kill yourself? Problem solved!
Those life extension freaks who want more time are mentally ill! *I'M* normal!
Why be a SPACE NUTTER xor a LIFE EXTENSION FREAK when you can be both? Problem solved!
Re: (Score:1)
Your right! This being the second Iridium constellation, there will be alot of stuff up there. Let's hope there isn't going to be another one of these collisions! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
First launch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"We will pay your price" the joy of DoD (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1358430.htm [abc.net.au]
The contracts to help the DoD show real growth for some with connections. Some interesting numbers and private sector deals with the US DoD are listed.
Re:"We will pay your price" the joy of DoD (Score:4, Funny)
SIR RICHARD BRANSON: Three years from now we'll be sending paying passengers into space. We'll be sending them - you know, our spaceships will be launching every day.
Maybe he was a little early with his estimation... (link is 5 years old)
Re: (Score:2)
All older facts, but it does point to very healthy aspects of the US space industry.
Hidden and well connected
reusability potential (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
especially considering the first stage can complete its mission even with a engine failure at any point during its flight.
Please explain this to me, in my mind, if the first stage conks out halfway through its use-cycle, how is that not a problem? I might be missing something, but how is losing a significant portion of your delta-v not a problem?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has nine engines in the first stage (and another similar engine in the second stage, to save on research and production costs)
Losing one engine is no longer a reason to detonate the rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah i see, so basically the first stage can run on 8 engines without having to compromise on the flight-path?
Interesting, although i would think that it all engines are made equal, and starting out with a first stage with all new engines, that once one fails, others will also be very close to their usefull life..
Anyway, good to read this, i hope SpaceX does really well
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it compromises the flight path a little. You have to burn longer and hotter, and probably decrease the lifetime of the other engines a bit. However, you get to the same orbit, which is what really matters.
Also, what causes an engine failure isn't that it wears out, but is usually a failure to ignite or some other 'gremlin.' This is the same capability that Saturn V had, and they made use of that capability (it was in the Apollo 13 movie, if you remember).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, the shuttle engines COULD be reused without teardowns between each flight if the controls apparatus had been designed differently.
If you go to the MIT OpenCourseware site and look for the Aerospace Engineering classes lectures on the shuttle, the shuttle was designed before CAD, and if the wiring had been included to test the engines, they could put the whole shuttle in the test harness to test fire the engines.
There is a lot they would do differently if they were trying to redesign th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the thing im really excited about is if spacex can get to the point where reusing the first stage merely involves fishing it out of the atlantic after it parachutes down, putting it back on the launch pad, and fuelling it back up.
I was really impressed by this bit of the teleconference notes linked in the summary, which shows just how dedicated Elon Musk is about reusability:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574 [transterrestrial.com]
I asked him if they knew yet why the first stage didn't survive entry, or if they would have to wait for another flight to get better data (because they didn't get the microwave imaging data they wanted). He said that they still didn't know, and might not figure it out until they try again. I followed up, asking if he could conceive of a time that they might just give up on it, and pull the recovery systems out to give them more payload. I was surprised at the vehemence of his answer (paraphrasing): "We will never give up! Never! Reusability is one of the most important goals. If we become the biggest launch company in the world, making money hand over fist, but we're still not reusable, I will consider us to have failed." I told him that I was very gratified to hear that, because I like reusability.
What about junk? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a needed boost for the US launch industry
With a boost of commercial launches, won't there also be a boost of space junk when these orbiting things are decommissionned 15 years from now? How does that increase collision risks, like the 2009 Iridium/Kosmos collision [wikipedia.org]?
Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life, instead of trying to make money out of launching things only...
Re:What about junk? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life
Already done. Everything up there aside from a few nuclear powered Soviet satellites has a plan for coming down (such as stuff in LEO which can reenter Earth's atmosphere without much difficulty) or getting boosted to a more remote orbit (such as stuff in geostationary orbit).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way we always have. We track each one and if something's out of line we move it. Sure we get an occasional dead satellite but I'm pretty sure in 15 years it'll be trivial to deorbit or destroy those.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life, instead of trying to make money out of launching things only...
There's low-orbit sats and geosync sats and a whole range of orbits in between. There's different amounts of propellant involved for moving one versus another. Is it safer to try to deorbit the old sats or push them up into graveyard orbits? Is there any chance of the graveyard orbits filling up or is that crazy talk?
The shuttle tested a power tether device that drags through the planet's magnetic field. Draw power from the tether and the orbit drops, add power in and the orbit boosts. Maybe something like
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the big problem with your plan is that you're over a decade too late to propose/implement it. Debris reduction (I.E. minimizing the amount of stuff jettisoned) has been the standard since the 90's, as has been the requirement for satellite operators to place them in a parking orbit or deorbit them at end of life.
The FCC Mandates this already (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What in the blazes is the FCC doing by regulating that sort of mess? The FAA, yeah, I could see them having regulatory oversight over spacecraft design and requirements for deorbiting put into mission requirements, but the FCC? That is about as silly as NOAA requiring private citizens to register when they want to take a picture of the Earth from space.
I knew space law was rather mucked up, but this is borderline insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly seems within mission scope to regulate broadcast frequencies and to regulate equipment that may interfere with others who are trying to broadcast on those frequencies (such as how the FCC has regulatory authority over computer manufacturing equipment). Even there, however, the scope of their activity is strictly to make sure that such equipment minimizes such interference to within "reasonable" technical parameters.
This sounds more like there was a regulatory void, and because the FAA simply r
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life, instead of trying to make money out of launching things only...
And since you are the one proposing this, I recommend the satellites de-orbit and land on your house.
Iridium, commercial? (Score:2, Troll)
Calling Iridium a "commercial launch" is a bit of a stretch. Iridium failed as a commercial venture and the company that runs it now appears to be a transparent pawn of the DoD.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Take a look at Iridium's 10-Q filing [businessweek.com] where they state that one of the challenges and uncertainties is related to their "ability to maintain ... relationship with U.S. government customers, particularly the DoD."
There is an entire paragraph devoted to their Government Services Revenues:
Iridium is not a commercial success (Score:2)
I already answered this question in a previous thread, so I will repost it here:
Yeah, funny how it gets a lot easier to run the business when Motorola assumes the 5 billion of debt and sells it to you for $25 million. The success of Iridium Satellite LLC is subsidized by the ashes of the original company.
Proper management made the difference after the sale removed the debt, but even if the company had been properly managed from the beginning, it still would have folded. Even 300k subscribers is not going to