Author Topic: SpaceX Signs Launch Agreements with Asia Broadcast Satellite and Satmex  (Read 34830 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

SpaceX Signs Launch Agreements with Asia Broadcast Satellite and Satmex

 

Hawthorne, CA – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has signed contracts with Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) and Satélites Mexicanos (Satmex) for two launches aboard SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket.

 

“This announcement marks SpaceX’s first launch contract in Mexico.  It is also the second launch contract in Asia that we have signed in the last month,” said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and Chief Technology Officer.  “Asia and Latin America represent two of the world’s hottest markets for commercial satellite operators.  SpaceX is ready to provide them with the solutions they need to add capacity and meet growing demand.”

 

“We are very pleased to have SpaceX, the world’s fastest growing space launch company, as our launch partner for Satmex 7. Satmex is positioned for a new era of growth with the anticipated launches of Satmex 8 in 2012 and Satmex 7 in late 2014 or early 2015. The addition of Satmex 7 (C and Ku band satellite) will expand our fleet to three satellites covering the Americas. Satmex 7 will be a cornerstone of the Satmex fleet designed to provide direct-to-home (DTH) and data services with increased power levels and improved elevation angles from any location within the coverage. These benefits will provide better performance to deliver media content directly to homes as well as broadband services,” said Patricio Northland, CEO of Satmex.

 

“Over the past decade, we have seen launch prices increase dramatically, making access to space out of reach for many programs.  As one of the fastest growing satellite operators in the world, ABS requires access to space that combines affordability and lift capacity for our future satellite programs,” said Tom Choi, CEO of ABS. “Together with Satmex, our co-launch partner, we embark upon an innovative prospect of dual launching four medium-powered satellites on two launches on the Falcon 9. We are extremely happy to be working with Satmex and SpaceX to dramatically realign the cost structure of space access in order to bring the affordable capacity demanded by our customers.”

 

SpaceX will launch the two companies’ geosynchronous telecommunications satellites on two separate launches from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The launches will take place in late 2014 or early 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2015.

 

About SpaceX

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches the world’s most advanced rockets and spacecraft.  With a diverse manifest of launches to deliver commercial and government satellites to orbit, SpaceX is the world’s fastest growing space launch company.  In 2010, SpaceX became the first commercial company in history to put a spacecraft into orbit and return it safely to Earth.  With the retirement of the space shuttle, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft will soon carry cargo, and one day astronauts, to and from the Space Station for NASA.  Founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and Valor Equity Partners. The company has over 1,600 employees in California, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Florida. For more information, visit www.SpaceX.com.

 

About Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS)

Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) is one of the fastest growing premium satellite operators in the world. ABS offers a complete range of End-to-End solutions including direct-to-home (DTH) and cable TV distribution (CATV), cellular backhaul, VSAT and Internet backbone services with diverse IP transit through its European and Asian internet gateways. ABS’s satellite fleet includes four operational satellites with a fifth satellite (ABS-2) under construction and expected to be launched in 2013, providing coverage over Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and CIS countries.  For more information, visit www.absatellite.com

 

About Satmex

Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. (Satmex) is a significant provider of fixed satellite services (FSS) in the Americas, with coverage of more than 90% of the population of the region across more than 45 nations and territories. As one of only two privately-managed FSS providers based in Latin America, Satmex (together with its predecessors) has designed, procured, launched and operated three generations of satellites during a period of over 25 years. Satmex’s current fleet is comprised of three satellites in highly attractive, contiguous orbital slots that enable its customers to effectively serve its entire coverage footprint utilizing a single satellite connection.

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
I thought that passing through the Van Allen Belt with electric propulsion required the sort of hardening and thermal stress that was associated with military satellites, and was sort of out of the question for commercial payloads. Could they use military spec parts, as long as they launch from the US and the clients only get to use the sat?

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
"Satmex is positioned for a new era of growth with the anticipated launches of Satmex 8 in 2012 and"

Who's doing the 2012 launch? 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

"Satmex is positioned for a new era of growth with the anticipated launches of Satmex 8 in 2012 and"

Who's doing the 2012 launch? 

ILS with a Proton.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
"Satmex is positioned for a new era of growth with the anticipated launches of Satmex 8 in 2012 and"

Who's doing the 2012 launch? 

ILS with a Proton.

That might be significant then, if a US LV is now doing the work that the low cost Russian LV's used to do.  I am of course assuming that Satmex 8 and 7 are identical and have similar mission profiles in that statement.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306

That might be significant then, if a US LV is now doing the work that the low cost Russian LV's used to do.  I am of course assuming that Satmex 8 and 7 are identical and have similar mission profiles in that statement.

There is a space news article on it in the duplicate thread that I assume Chris is merging into this one.

http://spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120313-abs-satmex-banding-together-buy-boeing-all-electric-satellites.html

4 sats, Two launches, Electric propulsion only from the transfer orbit all the way to the final GSO orbit.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2012 03:31 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Will have to see their dual payload fairing and the horizontal processing of it.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
BTW, they will use LEO, GTO or what? If I'm not mistaken the F9 to a 1800m/s GTO should have something like 4200kg. And here it get's interesting. I've noticed that they are doing dual in pairs of each company. Will it be like Proton's dual payload, where one sat is designed to carry the second one, or like Ariane's, with a SYLDAS analog? Besides, 2000kg per bird is sort of "small".
I also wonder, since electric is so much more efficient, if it wouldn't be better for them to do LEO and go up all the way electric. That could give each sat something like 4500kg. If they use 1000kg of fuel, they could have a lot of delta-v.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm really worried about schedule overreach on SpaceX's part. It's great to get contracts but, for a company of just 1,500 employees total, they really have a lot on their plate. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on Falcon 9 and FH  along with Dragon development and the satellite contracts they already have? From a casual observer, things are getting mighty crowed over at SpaceX. Somethings got to give and that could be manned Dragon or reuse if they don't watch themselves.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
FYI

Boeing Presser: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2168

702SP Bus,

Boeing page for the older 702MP: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/intelsat/intelsat.html

The older 702MP's weighed between 5,700 kg to 6,400 kg at launch, and 3,500 kg to 3,800 kg on station. *Falcon 9 Excel results and guess's at 702SP launch weight will vary ;)

As far as I can tell, nothing yet on the ABS and Satmex websites.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I thought that passing through the Van Allen Belt with electric propulsion required the sort of hardening and thermal stress that was associated with military satellites, and was sort of out of the question for commercial payloads. ...
You thought wrong, then. ;)

I notice a pattern of people kind of automatically assuming radiation issues are worse than they actually are. And I definitely don't think you think this way, but many of those people then feel sort of proud of themselves for pointing out radiation issues as a sort of conversation stopper.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2012 04:55 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Boeing 702SP http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.html

Not much new information, save that the contract includes an option for four extra satellites.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
I thought that passing through the Van Allen Belt with electric propulsion required the sort of hardening and thermal stress that was associated with military satellites, and was sort of out of the question for commercial payloads. ...
You thought wrong, then. ;)

I notice a pattern of people kind of automatically assuming radiation issues are worse than they actually are. And I definitely don't think you think this way, but many of those people then feel sort of proud of themselves for pointing out radiation issues as a sort of conversation stopper.
Hey, I didn't said it couldn't be done. I said I thought it was more expensive than economically viable. And, there was talk about the solar panels as the binding constraint. Apparently there's a way to avoid this by using in space annealing on the cells. And the GTO design might be different to minimize the passages through the belt. They might have also used mil hard parts, since they have already developed, and it's not like the users will take them down. In other words, the interesting part is how this smart cookies did it (or are going to do it).

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
In other words, the interesting part is how this smart cookies did it (or are going to do it).

So who is going slip the schedule to the right first, Boeing or SpaceX?

SpaceX has it's hands full.

Boeing is introducing a new platform (though it is an existing platform with a bunch of ugly plumbing removed).
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Seer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
I thought there wasn't enough thrust from electric propulsion to do gto transfer. I.e it would fall back to leo and the atmosphere.

I also asked about electric from leo and was told the radiation from the van allen belts made it to expensive.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Raising the apogee of your orbit is more efficient if you do it while going fast - you can search for "Oberth Effect".  But in an elliptical orbit you spend a little time going fast near perigee and a lot of time going slow near apogee.  And since in-space electric propulsion has low thrust, this means you either do a bunch of small burns near perigee and spend the rest of your orbit soaking up radiation and paying interest on your satellite, or you give up efficiency.  Not to mention that in LEO you are probably going to spend more time in the earth's shadow so you don't have power and the thermal environment is very different from GEO because the warm earth is filling a lot of the sky.

At the end of the day, using electric propulsion to transfer from GTO to GEO is a smaller change from previous practice and has a greater cost-to-benefit ratio than going all the way from LEO.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I thought there wasn't enough thrust from electric propulsion to do gto transfer. I.e it would fall back to leo and the atmosphere.

I also asked about electric from leo and was told the radiation from the van allen belts made it to expensive.
I don't think the satellites are going all the way from LEO. They are going from a geosynchronous transfer orbit which does go through the Van Allen belts to a certain extent (well, even ISS does that to a limited extent... the belts are continuous), but the belts only are most intense in a narrow band (which the satellites will only spend a relatively small amount of time in for each orbit).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
I don't think the satellites are going all the way from LEO. They are going from a geosynchronous transfer orbit

What makes you think an F9 will have enough oomph to send *two* (albeit lighter weight) comsats all the way to a GEO apogee?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I don't think the satellites are going all the way from LEO. They are going from a geosynchronous transfer orbit

What makes you think an F9 will have enough oomph to send *two* (albeit lighter weight) comsats all the way to a GEO apogee?
I don't. I mean GTO in the general sense, not in the sense of a benchmark 1500m/s-to-GSO orbit. Because they are using high-Isp propulsion for insertion, they aren't terribly sensitive to small performance shortfalls. Any extra oomph the F9 can give them will allow them to reduce the time until they can start service. (They can trade delta-v for delta-t or vice versa by changing what part of the orbit they thrust, even given a fixed amount of propellant for that part of the flight.)
« Last Edit: 03/13/2012 08:42 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 36
Ah, the launch manifest keeps growing and growing and yet the launch rate stays the same.  Not sure how this'll work out.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
That was a part of my question. What alternate GTO profile (than the 185km x 36576km) can you do, that allows more payload, minimizes the Belt passages, and keeps the sat alight as long as possible?
May be you can optimize the GTO for solar exposure. Or go through where the Belt is less "dense" in harmful particles.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Ah, the launch manifest keeps growing and growing and yet the launch rate stays the same.  Not sure how this'll work out.
No one thinks the launch rate will stay the same indefinitely.

(Either it increases or it drops to zero...)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Same deal as AEHF but intended this time.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
That was a part of my question. What alternate GTO profile (than the 185km x 36576km) can you do, that allows more payload, minimizes the Belt passages, and keeps the sat alight as long as possible?
May be you can optimize the GTO for solar exposure. Or go through where the Belt is less "dense" in harmful particles.

You can't optimize for solar exposure other than to maximize the apogee, which they are doing anyways.   I guess they could pick an argument of perigee that puts the orbital axis along the Sun vector to shade the perigee, where the velocity is highest and the shadowed time is minimum. 

The GTO process drives the inclination to zero, unless you do something extraordinary like looping around the moon, so that wouldn't be modified.

The only other adjustable parameter would be to launch near one or the other solstice, and they're not going to wait several months for that trivial gain.

edited to remove specious sentence
« Last Edit: 03/13/2012 10:14 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-satellite-contract-20120314,0,1776487.story

"At launch time, the 702SP will weigh just under 4,000 pounds, as opposed to 13,000 pounds for the larger satellite."


Offline Galactic Penguin SST

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-satellite-contract-20120314,0,1776487.story

"At launch time, the 702SP will weigh just under 4,000 pounds, as opposed to 13,000 pounds for the larger satellite."



Wow! That's light enough to send one of them to a standard GTO with a Delta II. Wonder if this technology would change the launcher market by favoring smaller launchers?
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105

Wow! That's light enough to send one of them to a standard GTO with a Delta II. Wonder if this technology would change the launcher market by favoring smaller launchers?

It might, but not right away of course. As well as the spectacular missions like Dawn and Hayabusa, electric propulsion has been slowly, almost stealthily, changing the way some aspects of spaceflight are done. I think it shows great promise.

Edit: should also have mentioned SMART 1 which started its flight to the Moon from GTO.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2012 09:03 am by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Don't forget Deep Space 1.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Yeah, the pioneer.
Douglas Clark

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-satellite-contract-20120314,0,1776487.story

"At launch time, the 702SP will weigh just under 4,000 pounds, as opposed to 13,000 pounds for the larger satellite."



A 13,000 pound spacecraft placed in GTO, usually weighs around 6,500 lbs on station in GSO.
So the real comparison that is needed is the EOL weight for both types of spacecraft.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Well, the older 702MP's weighed between 3,500 kg to 3,800 kg once they reached GSO. (from Boeing, http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/intelsat/intelsat.html ). But the telling thing is 702SP (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.html) is 3-8 KW, while the deployed 702MP's are 11.8 kw

Assuming (and this is a stretch) that the 702SP is really a 702MP without the traditional fuel and plumbing and a smaller solar array I could see them weighing a little less than a 702MP when they arrive on station.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
4000lbs are about 1820kg. That's a lot smaller, and at GTO.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
If the &02SP is 1000kg lighter than the 702MP putting thier weight at ~ 2.5-2.8t then two would fit (weight wise) on a F9 Block II with a GTO capability of just less than 6t. You would need a few hundred kg for the dual sat structure.

Question: will two 702SP fit volume wise in a F9 faring?



Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Question: will two 702SP fit volume wise in a F9 faring?

From the AvWeek article:

"With the 702SP, Boeing is offering a van-sized spacecraft—15 ft. high and 7 ft. wide—that weighs 4,000 lb. at launch."

So they should be able to fit inside.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Question: will two 702SP fit volume wise in a F9 faring?

From the AvWeek article:

"With the 702SP, Boeing is offering a van-sized spacecraft—15 ft. high and 7 ft. wide—that weighs 4,000 lb. at launch."

So they should be able to fit inside.
Would that fit them side by side or one on top of the other? Both ways should do it. But on top requires more hardware. Side by Side might have more separation risk (interference, plume impigment, etc.)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Question: will two 702SP fit volume wise in a F9 faring?

From the AvWeek article:

"With the 702SP, Boeing is offering a van-sized spacecraft—15 ft. high and 7 ft. wide—that weighs 4,000 lb. at launch."

So they should be able to fit inside.
Would that fit them side by side or one on top of the other? Both ways should do it. But on top requires more hardware. Side by Side might have more separation risk (interference, plume impigment, etc.)
Regarding plume impingement... remember we're talking about satellites that only have very low-thrust electric propulsion (using Xenon, a noble gas).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online McDew

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 51
Question: will two 702SP fit volume wise in a F9 faring?

From the AvWeek article:

"With the 702SP, Boeing is offering a van-sized spacecraft—15 ft. high and 7 ft. wide—that weighs 4,000 lb. at launch."

So they should be able to fit inside.
Would that fit them side by side or one on top of the other? Both ways should do it. But on top requires more hardware. Side by Side might have more separation risk (interference, plume impigment, etc.)
The spacecraft are stacked one on top of the other.  Just like the Russians.  Only need an additional adapter between the two spacecraft.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

The spacecraft are stacked one on top of the other.  Just like the Russians.  Only need an additional adapter between the two spacecraft.

Not this spacecraft design. 
a.  It makes an additional panel of one spacecraft unusable for payload systems.
b.  It makes the same spacecraft heavier since it has to support the other spacecraft

Online McDew

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 51

The spacecraft are stacked one on top of the other.  Just like the Russians.  Only need an additional adapter between the two spacecraft.

Not this spacecraft design. 
a.  It makes an additional panel of one spacecraft unusable for payload systems.
b.  It makes the same spacecraft heavier since it has to support the other spacecraft
Trust me...it is what it is.  Two different customers for the top and bottom spacecraft.
a. Yes
b. Yes

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Are the two spacecraft to be built to different designs or will the top one just the stronger than it needs to be? Also, could anybody explain why "a." is true. I'm having trouble picturing it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Ah, the launch manifest keeps growing and growing and yet the launch rate stays the same.  Not sure how this'll work out.

Just contracts, and they can be broken.  Maybe we should watch the IPO thread, this might be just about the $$.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Online McDew

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 51
Also, could anybody explain why "a." is true. I'm having trouble picturing it.
Most of the real estate on the earth deck of the lower spacecraft is used to accommodate the adapter and upper spacecraft.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
I was reading this:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?headLine=Electric%20Satellites%20For%20Commercial%20Satcom&storyID=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p28-436631.xml

...and the following quote stood out to me:

Quote
“We think this might expand the market quite a bit,” says Steve O’Neill, president of Boeing Satellite Systems International, who spent the past five months negotiating the deal. “The total cost to market will be significantly different for a satellite operator than it is currently."

I am assuming he means that satellites based on this will be significantly cheaper in the future, but it isn't clear to me why.  Does anyone have any insight into this?

If true, it interests me because you now have a significant drop in both launch costs (via SpaceX) and the payload itself.  This will consequently also mean a drop in insurance costs.  Could this new combined price point result in a significant uptick in the market?
« Last Edit: 03/17/2012 02:40 pm by Blackjax »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Interesting article but this part confused me:

Quote
The new technology has long-term implications for the industry, not the least of which is that equatorial launch sites, such as the Guiana Space Center operated by Arianespace, would no longer boast a decisive advantage over a spaceport located far from the equator. Given a modest supply of lightweight xenon fuel, an all-electric satellite could easily make up the distance it must travel from the equator if it is launched, for example, from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, or Cape Canaveral.

That's not quite how it works, is it? I thought equatorial launch was principally about velocity, not distance.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Actually, I'd say it's principally about a cheaper plane change maneuver than a slight velocity gain at equator, when it comes to GTO launches.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Interesting article but this part confused me:

Quote
The new technology has long-term implications for the industry, not the least of which is that equatorial launch sites, such as the Guiana Space Center operated by Arianespace, would no longer boast a decisive advantage over a spaceport located far from the equator. Given a modest supply of lightweight xenon fuel, an all-electric satellite could easily make up the distance it must travel from the equator if it is launched, for example, from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, or Cape Canaveral.

That's not quite how it works, is it? I thought equatorial launch was principally about velocity, not distance.

I agree with you and ugordon.  This is quite poorly worded at best.  There are other errors in the article, like "most geostationary telecom satellites are dropped off in an equatorial parking orbit after separating from their launch vehicles".  The most efficient division of plane change maneuvers between GTO injection and circularization was a problem in Orbital Mechanics 101, and it did NOT result in an equatorial transfer orbit.  That answer changes again, in favor of later plane changes, if you have the low thrust, high ISP of ion engines.  Which is essentially what the author is trying to say.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
And very eccentric orbits. See how the Proton will improve performance by doing supersynchronous missions. The plane change maneuver is proportional to the cosine angle of the vector delta-v difference. I.e. a 90 degrees plane change on a circular orbit would basically be the same as a launch (save drag and gravity losses). But since at apogee your potential energy is at maximum and the speed at minimum, the plane change is much cheaper. Is easier to transform potential energy than speed.
I'm pretty sure that for MTI almost any place is the same, save for launch windows.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
More form AvWeek...

Electric Satellites For Commercial Satcom

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p28-436631.xml&headline=Electric%20Satellites%20For%20Commercial%20Satcom&channel=awst
You know, this is great for electric propulsion in general... It should provide an extra market driver for developing higher power and more efficient elements, since doubling the specific power can mean halving the time-to-market of the satellite (from 6 months to 3 months, for instance). That should provide a more direct incentive to invest in higher specific power solar electric elements. Also, in order to be competitive, more satellite manufacturers will be wanting to advertise their firm's competitive advantage in electric propulsion elements, thus driving the development of new electric thrusters (longer life, lower mass, higher power, higher reliability, etc).

And by using electric propulsion for more and more of the delta-v needed to get to GSO, this should also help reusable launch vehicle developments (which would have a hard time getting stuff beyond LEO by themselves).

A very good development, IMHO.

(Of course, the flip side of this is that, if the market doesn't expand, it would reduce the annual launched IMLEO of the comm-sat market... On the other hand, by providing more value for the same price, it may have the effect of expanding the market which is good for everyone in this business...)
« Last Edit: 03/19/2012 09:34 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
loan has gone through:

Quote
NAPLES, Italy — The U.S Export-Import Bank on Nov. 19 agreed to make $461 million in direct loans for the construction of three satellites for Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) of Hong Kong and the launch and insurance of two of them aboard Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Falcon 9 rockets.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/spacex-boeing-among-beneficiaries-of-461m-satellite-export-deal#.UKw26IbPaSo

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Sounds like Margarita and Tequila time on the Party thread. Excellent News!
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Looks like Falcon 9 might be busy for awhile with the 702SP bus:

Quote
Boeing is reviewing 14 separate requests for information or bid solicitations for commercial telecommunications satellites from prospective customers interested in the company’s new all-electric 702SP satellite design, Boeing officials said March 19.

http://www.spacenews.com/new-boeing-satellite-platform-drawing-lots-of-customer-interest#.UUpod1dUbSg

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Spaceflightnow is reporting that Boeing has sold three more all electric 702SP satellites to an undisclosed US government customer...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/#.UyGm6_ldUuc

I wonder if they will fly on Falcon's or go for a single launch on a large EELV...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Spaceflightnow is reporting that Boeing has sold three more all electric 702SP satellites to an undisclosed US government customer...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/12boeing702sp/#.UyGm6_ldUuc

I wonder if they will fly on Falcon's or go for a single launch on a large EELV...

I suppose the target orbits will be the driver of that one.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Are you implying something other than GSO, like Tundra or Molniya?

I think it will be more, how risk adverse is the customer.

Put all the satellites on one launch (Could be done with an Atlas v541, v551 or Falcon Heavy)

or

Spread it out across multiple launches (Could fly or ride share on a Falcon 9 v1.1, Delta IV Medium, Atlas v401, or even an Antares).
« Last Edit: 03/13/2014 01:49 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I think you can fit two on a Falcon 9.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
The undisclosed customer ordered three....
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
The undisclosed customer ordered three....
Two operational sats dual manifest with one spare in storage.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1