SpaceX Launches More Than 60 Small Satellites Into Orbit (bloomberg.com) 54
SpaceX notched its 19th launch of the year Monday, lofting 64 small spacecraft from 34 organizations into low Earth orbit. A Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast at about 10:34 a.m. local time. The customer was Spaceflight Industries, a Seattle-based company that organized the launch on behalf of several clients. From a report: The Spaceflight SSO-A: SmallSat Express mission includes 15 microsats and 49 cubesats from commercial and government entities, including universities, startups and a middle school, according to the SpaceX press kit. The payloads -- which vary from technology demonstrations and imaging satellites to educational-research endeavors -- are from 17 countries, including the U.S., Brazil, India and South Korea.
SpaceX said a series of six deployments would occur about 13 to 43 minutes after takeoff, then Spaceflight would command its own deployment sequences over a period of six hours. The Falcon 9's first stage has flown twice before: in May 2018 and again in August. SpaceX recovered it Monday on "Just Read the Instructions," a droneship in the Pacific Ocean. SpaceX also attempted to recover the rocket's fairing, which encloses the payload, with Mr. Steven, a boat designed to capture it in a massive net.
SpaceX said a series of six deployments would occur about 13 to 43 minutes after takeoff, then Spaceflight would command its own deployment sequences over a period of six hours. The Falcon 9's first stage has flown twice before: in May 2018 and again in August. SpaceX recovered it Monday on "Just Read the Instructions," a droneship in the Pacific Ocean. SpaceX also attempted to recover the rocket's fairing, which encloses the payload, with Mr. Steven, a boat designed to capture it in a massive net.
Lofted into orbit (Score:5, Funny)
"I heard Musk was arrested!"
"What for?"
"SpaceX launched a boat into orbit as a stunt."
"And?"
"He was arrested for shiplofting."
Thanks Rei (Score:1)
Semantics? (Score:1)
Marketing: "We are about to publish a press release about our successful satellite launch."
Engineering: "Wait! The satellite just broke up into 60 pieces!"
Marketing: "60? Hmmm..."
Press-Release: "Space X has successfully launched 60 satellites at once!"
LOL, (Score:1)
Sounds like a giant Fuck You to AT&T and Direct TV.
One can only hope the 7500 satellites Musk has planned will soon be available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Definitely. Those middle-school microsats are a direct threat to AT&T.
At least for the next 2 weeks before they deorbit on their own.... AT&T is quaking in their boot shaped cell towers...
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T/DirectTV''s satellites should be live for another two decades. They just don't plan on extending EOL.
That's a lot of notice.
Re: (Score:1)
Numbers? (Score:2)
So what do they charge per kg for a ride on a launch like that? Is it less than what the going rate was before?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
SpaceX is the cheapest government launch provider, so that is clearly untrue, since other providers charge more for the same missions.
SpaceX did hike the prices it charges the government for supply missions to the ISS recently, but they are STILL cheaper than their competition, even after raising their prices. Most of that price hike was blamed by the government's own auditors on NASA forcing mid-project design changes, not on SpaceX.
The same government auditors also recommend that NASA fly on already-flow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So what do they charge per kg for a ride on a launch like that? Is it less than what the going rate was before?
About $2700 / kg to LEO. That price is much more than SpaceX's internal costs. Since other providers charge a lot more, they have no further competitive need to lower the end-customer price until other providers drop their own costs. This is the third flight of this booster, which is expected to be good for 10 flights before need significant refurb. SpaceX's internal prices will only decline from here out.
Yes, it's less than the going rate before SpaceX got into the biz. They are shaking up the whole i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You get used to him. At least I have no problem with him although I find some of his opinions rather odd.
Re: (Score:2)
More than 60? (Score:5, Insightful)
You couldn't just say 64? It's right there in TFS and TFA -- and "Launches 64" is shorter (and more accurate) than "Launches More Than 60". Yes, I realize that's the actual title of TFA (I checked), but seriously editors, you can edit stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "SpaceX Launches More Than Two Satellites Into Orbit"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But more is better!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[i guess ISRO holds the record some 90 plus]
True Grit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3rd Launch for that booster. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most interesting, for me anyway, is that this was the 3rd launch for this booster. It was also recovered so conceivably it could be used again. Be very very interesting to know how the boosters structure is holding up to the stresses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:3rd Launch for that booster. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well Musk described the Block 5 as the final version and the plan is ten launches before any major rework/disposal, so big problems after three would be underwhelming. It's probably more a question of figuring out how much is enough, what inspections and refurbishment is necessary. I hope they've now found some kind of protocol for it though, you'd think what they do between 3rd and 4th launch should be very similar to what they did between 2nd and 3rd launch. He doesn't have to rush one booster but I hope he does so we'll see if 4th-5th-6th-7th go just as smooth. Also it's the first time I've seen SpaceX give the fairing recovery attempt so much coverage, it probably means they're getting close.
And if they finally get their crew certification then 2019 might become a very interesting year in spaceflight. Well actually they all are, recently.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While the design aim is 10 launches SpaceX is operating in essentially uncharted territory. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are some components that are wearing faster than expected and or aren't living up to design specifications.
Given they had a bracket fail on a launch way below its rated load and wreck a launch, I think having all components living up to their design tolerances under stresses previously never tried before would be downright amazing.
Why are we letting this continue? (Score:2)
Nice idea to think that clubs and schools could do something as audacious as launch a satellite, but Jeebus, SpaceX, NASA, Virgin Galactic, and everybody else are going to have to launch through a blanket of this space trash.
Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to continue on this path, given what we know about the amount of space junk out there already - at least not until we figure out how to de-orbit a bunch of this stuff whose creators didn't make any EoL plans for it.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I don't work for Jeebus Aeronautics.
Re:Why are we letting this continue? (Score:4, Informative)
Cube Sat's deorbit by themselves in weeks. These things won't be up there cluttering up anything
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how long they stay up depends on the orbit you put them in of course. In a cheap LEO or one that is highly eccentric they won't stay up too long, but at 575 km near circular orbit as with this launch they'll be up there for a while. If you put one in high geostationary orbit it will be stable for probably longer than our civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
at least not until we figure out how to de-orbit a bunch of this stuff whose creators didn't make any EoL plans for it.
Maybe you could think about some solutions, and write a letter to NASA ?