SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION

[Barrie]

According to Peter B. de Selding from SpaceNews:
"SES: We have decided to be inaugural customer for enhanced-version SpaceX Falcon 9 main engine, w/ our SES-9 aiming for Q2 launch."

Given SES' previously stated uncertainty about being the inaugural customer, I think it's interesting why they decided to do it (besides, obviously, being confident in data from SpaceX about any risks). I wonder if Peter B. de Selding's other tweet gives a clue:

I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of a dealing for some discount of the launch price too.

Yes, but I suspect it is money off a future launch rather than off this one, where the ink is already dry.  It's probably more than a free beanie for spending more than $50.   

[ChrisWilson68]

According to Peter B. de Selding from SpaceNews:
"SES: We have decided to be inaugural customer for enhanced-version SpaceX Falcon 9 main engine, w/ our SES-9 aiming for Q2 launch."

Given SES' previously stated uncertainty about being the inaugural customer, I think it's interesting why they decided to do it (besides, obviously, being confident in data from SpaceX about any risks). I wonder if Peter B. de Selding's other tweet gives a clue:

I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of a dealing for some discount of the launch price too.

Yes, but I suspect it is money off a future launch rather than off this one, where the ink is already dry.  It's probably more than a free beanie for spending more than $50.   :D

I agree.  I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier public statements from SES about choosing not to be the first customer for the uprated F9 were really just part of the negotiations with SpaceX to win more concessions on some future launch.

[mme]

According to Peter B. de Selding from SpaceNews:
"SES: We have decided to be inaugural customer for enhanced-version SpaceX Falcon 9 main engine, w/ our SES-9 aiming for Q2 launch."

Given SES' previously stated uncertainty about being the inaugural customer, I think it's interesting why they decided to do it (besides, obviously, being confident in data from SpaceX about any risks). I wonder if Peter B. de Selding's other tweet gives a clue:

I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of a dealing for some discount of the launch price too.

Yes, but I suspect it is money off a future launch rather than off this one, where the ink is already dry.  It's probably more than a free beanie for spending more than $50.   

I agree.  I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier public statements from SES about choosing not to be the first customer for the uprated F9 were really just part of the negotiations with SpaceX to win more concessions on some future launch.

I think they reviewed the data and decided it seemed "safe enough" and they want to start making money ASAP.  As per:

And the full write-up on the SES decision to fly first on the uprated F9

http://spacenews.com/ses-decides-to-take-the-plunge-on-enhanced-falcon-9/

[Barrie]

I think they reviewed the data and decided it seemed "safe enough" and they want to start making money ASAP.  As per:

And the full write-up on the SES decision to fly first on the uprated F9

http://spacenews.com/ses-decides-to-take-the-plunge-on-enhanced-falcon-9/

Oh, that too.  Multiple factors play into most decisions, I think.  If it was all about that rational analysis, why play hard-to-get so publicly ie tweeting 'we are not sure about this'?

[abaddon]

On the subject of SES-9 itself, the previously linked article states:

SES-9 is one of several satellites SES has ordered that will use electric propulsion to climb from the rocket’s drop-off point to final geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator. Electric propulsion accords huge savings in a satellite’s launch mass compared to chemical propellant, but at a price: The satellite takes several months, not weeks, to reach its operating position.

So far, so good.  But the previous article http://spacenews.com/ses-rethinking-being-first-to-fly-on-a-full-throttle-falcon-9/ notes:

SES-9, a Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems 702-HP spacecraft expected to weigh 5,300 kilograms at launch, is near the limit of what the current Falcon 9 v1.1 vehicle can carry and was to be placed into a subsynchronous orbit.SES-9 then would use its on-board propulsion to climb to final geostationary orbit.

5.3 metric tons is a pretty darn substantial size, and this is with "huge mass savings" due to being all-electric.  What would it have weighed with a conventional chemical engine for orbit raising/circularization?  Something north of 6 tons?

Also of note in that article:

One of the benefits of the Merlin 1D performance upgrade is that it will permit SpaceX to launch payloads with the same maximum weight as it does currently while at the same time preserving capacity so that the first stage can power itself to an unmanned oceangoing barge to be recovered and reused.

[LouScheffer]

Here's my thinking on their thinking, obviously guessing.

That gives them 150 m/s more for GTO injection, which translates (not 1:1, but not too far different) to 150 m/s less needed by the satellite.  Since GEO stationkeeping is around 50 m/s per year, that's 3 years of extra life.

Also, with the electric thruster used for apogee-raising on the sat, it takes 4-6 months to raise the sat to GSO.  If a more powerful F9 can lift it higher, not only will it save sat lifetime, it can get into a position to start earning revenue several months sooner. That will pull future revenue into 2015, making the beancounters very happy when it comes to preparing the annual accounts.

I don't think this is correct.  The overall magnitude of the orbit raising is 1500-1800 m/s.  The better F9 can only affect this by 100-150 m/sec or so.  So it only reduces the thrusting time by a week or two.  Launching earlier, on the other hand, can save months.

[swervin]

Strictly a question, not conjecture or rumor starting:

Is it possible SpX reworked the financial details of the contract; sweeting the deal for SES to 'be the first?'

I've seen no articles to date mention anything to this effect, but I believe SpX has done this in the past for 'first customers?'... I think?

Thanks,
Splinter

[Kabloona]

And the full write-up on the SES decision to fly first on the uprated F9

http://spacenews.com/ses-decides-to-take-the-plunge-on-enhanced-falcon-9/

SES Chief Financial Officer Padraig McCarthy said during the conference call that if SES-9 is launched by June, SES’s average annual revenue between 2015 and 2017 is likely to grow by 4 percent. If the launch slips beyond June, the compound annual revenue growth will be just 3.5 percent.

That was not what the stock market wanted to hear, and despite a 10 percent increase in the SES dividend and the generally positive effects on SES of the rising U.S. dollar, the company’s shares fell by some 4.5 percent Feb. 20.

Seems to me that's the crux of it right there. SpaceX may not have had to sweeten the deal at all.

[Llian Rhydderch]

Strictly a question, not conjecture or rumor starting:

Is it possible SpX reworked the financial details of the contract; sweeting the deal for SES to 'be the first?'

I've seen no articles to date mention anything to this effect, but I believe SpX has done this in the past for 'first customers?'... I think?

Thanks,
Splinter

And that is a good question. 

It is clear to me that:
1) SpaceX often changes the elements that make up the launch service product offering mix: price, product, detailed terms and conditions.
2) Most of these details are proprietary to individual launch contracts between SpaceX and their customers, and are not something a bunch of folks on the internet are privy to.  (even the folks who are enmeshed in the technical flow of launch vehicles and payloads and work for some private or government entity involved with launch services or payloads.)

But, hey, this is the internet.  So many will opine on such matters with more certainty in their locution than they have any knowledge that would support.


^{Edit:  clarified a thought.}

[wannamoonbase]

I don't think they would go for it unless they felt it was safe. This is a big bird for them, launching it on a vehicle they weren't sure about would be bad risk management.

[nicfit]

On the subject of SES-9 itself, the previously linked article states:

SES-9 is one of several satellites SES has ordered that will use electric propulsion to climb from the rocket’s drop-off point to final geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator. Electric propulsion accords huge savings in a satellite’s launch mass compared to chemical propellant, but at a price: The satellite takes several months, not weeks, to reach its operating position.

So far, so good.  But the previous article http://spacenews.com/ses-rethinking-being-first-to-fly-on-a-full-throttle-falcon-9/ notes:

SES-9, a Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems 702-HP spacecraft expected to weigh 5,300 kilograms at launch, is near the limit of what the current Falcon 9 v1.1 vehicle can carry and was to be placed into a subsynchronous orbit.SES-9 then would use its on-board propulsion to climb to final geostationary orbit.

5.3 metric tons is a pretty darn substantial size, and this is with "huge mass savings" due to being all-electric.  What would it have weighed with a conventional chemical engine for orbit raising/circularization?  Something north of 6 tons?

SES-9 is not an all-electric satellite.

[abaddon]

SES-9 is not an all-electric satellite.

Seems you are correct based on Gunter's: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-9.htm

The spacecraft will carry a xenon ion propulsion system (XIPS) for all on-orbit maneuvering and a chemical bi-propellant system for initial orbit raising.

but Space News says:

SES-9 is one of several satellites SES has ordered that will use electric propulsion to climb from the rocket’s drop-off point to final geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator. Electric propulsion accords huge savings in a satellite’s launch mass compared to chemical propellant, but at a price: The satellite takes several months, not weeks, to reach its operating position.

So, the reason it will take months to get to GSO is because it is being dropped off further from GSO than if it were to be launched on an Ariane V or Proton?  Even though it is using a chemical propellant to reach GSO?  And Space News is just wrong about electric being used to get to GSO.

[Antares]

I don't think they would go for it unless they felt it was safe. This is a big bird for them, launching it on a vehicle they weren't sure about would be bad risk management.

Good point, since it led me to another thought.  The only way a lower price would make sense, if the bird cannot be lost (note Eutelsat rolled the dice on the first of each EELV), is if underperformance is the main concern.  The SV would have to make up the underburn.  The lower price wouldn't make a measure for complete failure.  I suppose insurance costs could be moved from SES to SpaceX, and SpaceX could pay for a replacement bird and reflight; but that would be a lot of cost risk for the Hawthorneans.

[gongora]

SES-9 is not an all-electric satellite.

Seems you are correct based on Gunter's: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-9.htm

The spacecraft will carry a xenon ion propulsion system (XIPS) for all on-orbit maneuvering and a chemical bi-propellant system for initial orbit raising.

but Space News says:

SES-9 is one of several satellites SES has ordered that will use electric propulsion to climb from the rocket’s drop-off point to final geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator. Electric propulsion accords huge savings in a satellite’s launch mass compared to chemical propellant, but at a price: The satellite takes several months, not weeks, to reach its operating position.

So, the reason it will take months to get to GSO is because it is being dropped off further from GSO than if it were to be launched on an Ariane V or Proton?  Even though it is using a chemical propellant to reach GSO?  And Space News is just wrong about electric being used to get to GSO.

If you read the 702 description on that site (linked from the SES-9 page) it actually sounds like you have the option of using two different sets of thrusters for orbit raising depending on how much mass you want to end up with.

[nicfit]

If you read the 702 description on that site (linked from the SES-9 page) it actually sounds like you have the option of using two different sets of thrusters for orbit raising depending on how much mass you want to end up with.

From Boeing website http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/features.page, one can find
- SES-9 has a liquid apogee engine
- electric orbit raising, even partial, is not depicted

so my feeling electrical thrusters are only used on-station; for sure it is not an all-electric sat.

[Herb Schaltegger]

If you read the 702 description on that site (linked from the SES-9 page) it actually sounds like you have the option of using two different sets of thrusters for orbit raising depending on how much mass you want to end up with.

From Boeing website http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/features.page, one can find
- SES-9 has a liquid apogee engine
- electric orbit raising, even partial, is not depicted

so my feeling electrical thrusters are only used on-station; for sure it is not an all-electric sat.

Just to let you know, that's pretty much verbatim from Boeing's 702HP spacecraft bus stock specs. It wouldn't be the first time that a public webpage used generic data that was simply incorrect in the as-built configuration.

[Kabloona]

If you read the 702 description on that site (linked from the SES-9 page) it actually sounds like you have the option of using two different sets of thrusters for orbit raising depending on how much mass you want to end up with.

From Boeing website http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/features.page, one can find
- SES-9 has a liquid apogee engine
- electric orbit raising, even partial, is not depicted

so my feeling electrical thrusters are only used on-station; for sure it is not an all-electric sat.

This graphic for a generic 702 mission shows the liquid apogee engine being used to raise perigee, then the XIPS to circularize, so the XIPS is not just for on-station.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/wgs_flight_deployment.pdf

[nicfit]

Kabloona, Herb, thank you.

So I understand this sat may perform a partial electrical orbit raising, wait and see !

[Lars-J]

And the full write-up on the SES decision to fly first on the uprated F9

http://spacenews.com/ses-decides-to-take-the-plunge-on-enhanced-falcon-9/

Elon just tweeted about upcoming F9 performance upgrades: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/572257004938403840

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
Upgrades in the works to allow landing for geo missions: thrust +15%, deep cryo oxygen, upper stage tank vol +10%

I wonder if all 3 enhancements - including the slight upper stage stretch(?) - will debut on this flight?

[Mariusuiram]

I wonder if all 3 enhancements - including the slight upper stage stretch(?) - will debut on this flight?

I was under the impression that you need to do all 3 otherwise the enhancement is tiny. That is, you cant just increase thrust without increasing fuel and expect a significant improvement.