For the 1U and 3U payload sizes the deployment mechanisms are well understood and have flown successfully. Is spaceflightservices providing the deployment hardware? Then for the larger sizes, is there any similarly standard deployment mechanism? Have any every been flown?
Not really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.
Quote from: Jim on 05/01/2012 12:46 amNot really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.Even so, it does explain the difference in cost we saw in the older Falcon 9 prices between full and partial payloads.If Falcon 9 is going to be serving primarily Delta II-class payloads, then there will be quite a bit of room for secondaries. Especially when the version of Falcon 9 which takes full advantage of Merlin 1D comes on line.And for ISS missions which are mostly limited by pressurized volume (though inclination is pretty limited in that case, plus the extra paperwork).
I think this PDF is appropriate for this thread:PS- I found the link, too:http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2011/37_Bjelde_Keynote.pdf
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2012 12:52 amQuote from: Jim on 05/01/2012 12:46 amNot really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.Even so, it does explain the difference in cost we saw in the older Falcon 9 prices between full and partial payloads.If Falcon 9 is going to be serving primarily Delta II-class payloads, then there will be quite a bit of room for secondaries. Especially when the version of Falcon 9 which takes full advantage of Merlin 1D comes on line.And for ISS missions which are mostly limited by pressurized volume (though inclination is pretty limited in that case, plus the extra paperwork).They won't be "Delta II" class, they will Falcon 9 class in terms of performance and use all available
There are no DeltaII class GSO operators anymore
Well, if there's enough demand for larger secondaries (I'm not saying there is), a dedicated flight for just a bunch of secondaries isn't unthinkable, either. That said, they will probably remain "missions of opportunity" for the time being.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2012 01:15 amWell, if there's enough demand for larger secondaries (I'm not saying there is), a dedicated flight for just a bunch of secondaries isn't unthinkable, either. That said, they will probably remain "missions of opportunity" for the time being.Remember that SpaceX said the same thing for Falcon 1 (ie dedicated small sat launch) but with the exception of the test flights which were essentially free never happened ( and Falcon 1 grounded, at least for now)
If you're only going to launch one of them, then you have plenty of room for large secondaries (even enough for the most profitable GSO (or deep space) secondaries with the SHERPA payload adapter/kick-stage).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2012 01:42 amIf you're only going to launch one of them, then you have plenty of room for large secondaries (even enough for the most profitable GSO (or deep space) secondaries with the SHERPA payload adapter/kick-stage).They are designed to be stacked and fly two at a time. They aren't going to be launched one at a time
Because of its lower mass and weight, two 702SP satellites can be launched on a single launch vehicle
If it is definite, any chance of them creating a variant that does not require stacking?
I see a company whose business plan relies pretty heavily on the idea that sharing a launch is going to be worth it for all the parties involved.
FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83MFH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128MF9, $54M.There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark. Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions? Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?
Quote from: go4mars on 05/01/2012 12:20 pmFH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83MFH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128MF9, $54M.There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark. Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions? Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?I can think of many reasons:1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.5)??
Quote from: baldusi on 05/02/2012 03:41 pmQuote from: go4mars on 05/01/2012 12:20 pmFH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83MFH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128MF9, $54M.There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark. Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions? Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?I can think of many reasons:1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.5)??Loss of engine out capability?
Quote from: Nomadd on 05/02/2012 04:51 pmQuote from: baldusi on 05/02/2012 03:41 pmQuote from: go4mars on 05/01/2012 12:20 pmFH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83MFH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128MF9, $54M.There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark. Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions? Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?I can think of many reasons:1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.5)??Loss of engine out capability? That wouldn't increase the cost of the booster. It probably would increase the cost of any insurance, but that's paid by the owner of the payload to the insurance company, not to SpaceX.
Anyone know if there would be room for some downmass payload on a Dragon in any of the Commercial Resupply Missions? Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?
Quote from: ClaytonBirchenough on 03/29/2013 12:47 amAnyone know if there would be room for some downmass payload on a Dragon in any of the Commercial Resupply Missions? Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?There's plenty of non-NASA payloads on the Dragon CRS flights.
Ahh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth.
Quote from: ClaytonBirchenough on 03/29/2013 01:15 amAhh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth. Yep, me too. Here's the CRS-2 cargo manifest: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729030main_spacex_2_cargo_manifest.pdfThere's Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency experiments in both up and downmass.
Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/29/2013 01:38 amQuote from: ClaytonBirchenough on 03/29/2013 01:15 amAhh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth. Yep, me too. Here's the CRS-2 cargo manifest: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729030main_spacex_2_cargo_manifest.pdfThere's Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency experiments in both up and downmass.What about a getaway special type thing that goes up and down and which is not an agency owned thing? Not allowed? (my bet would be not)
This was what I was looking for. A non-agency payload, say a science package made by a university.