Iridium and SpaceX Sign Major Commercial Launch Contract

[Chris Bergin]

IRIDIUM AND SPACEX SIGN MAJOR COMMERCIAL LAUNCH CONTRACT
Contract for Launch of Iridium NEXT Satellite Constellation Represents a New Benchmark in Value for Commercial Launch Services

 

MCLEAN, Va. and HAWTHORNE, Calif. – June 16, 2010 – Iridium Communications Inc. (Nasdaq:IRDM) and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) are pleased to announce that the Falcon 9 will be a major provider of launch services for Iridium NEXT, Iridium’s next-generation satellite constellation. The $492 million contract, while being the largest single commercial launch deal ever signed, nonetheless represents a new benchmark in cost-effective satellite delivery to space.

 

Iridium operates the world’s largest commercial satellite constellation, and is the only communications company to offer mobile voice and data services across the entire globe. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle will carry multiple Iridium NEXT satellites per vehicle, inserting the satellites into a low-earth orbit (LEO) as Iridium replaces its current satellite constellation. The Iridium NEXT satellites are set to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California between 2015 and 2017.

 

The contract stipulates that SpaceX will provide launch services to Iridium over a two-year period starting in early 2015. Iridium is also in discussions with, and expects to contract with, at least one additional launch services provider. Launch services are included in the total estimated cost of $2.9 billion for Iridium NEXT.

 

“This is the third major building block on the road to Iridium NEXT,” said Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium. “Two weeks ago, we announced our fixed-price contract with Thales Alenia Space. We also announced our Coface-backed financing plan, and today I am pleased to announce our partnership with SpaceX for extremely cost-effective launch services.”

 

Added Desch, “We are proud to be partnered with SpaceX, and want to congratulate Elon Musk and the entire SpaceX team on its successful inaugural Falcon 9 launch. Hands down, SpaceX offered us the best value coupled with an unwavering commitment to flawless performance and reliability. SpaceX has combined the best of aerospace and commercial best practices to design reliable and cost-effective access to space, and Iridium will be the beneficiary of that effort.”

 

Desch further commented, “SpaceX also offered dedicated Iridium NEXT launch slots within its manifest, which currently has 24 Falcon 9 flights scheduled ahead of us, including those for commercial and government customers, during the coming five years. Clearly, SpaceX has established itself as a significant player in the launch industry, and we have great confidence that SpaceX will build on its recent success and continue to cement an impressive track record of successful space flight in advance of our mission.”

 

The June 4 inaugural launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 achieved 100 percent of its mission objectives, culminating in a near b ull’s-eye insertion to its targeted 250km circular orbit. SpaceX has been working with Iridium and Thales Alenia Space, the prime contractor for Iridium NEXT, to ensure compatibility between the satellite design, the Falcon 9 vehicle and the Iridium NEXT program schedule. This full coordination positions Iridium, SpaceX and Thales Alenia Space for a successful multi-year process of designing, building and launching Iridium NEXT.

 

“Iridium NEXT is now our largest commercial satellite launch customer and we are excited to play such an integral part in the most significant commercial space program underway today,” said Elon Musk, CEO, SpaceX. “We are impressed by Iridium’s comprehensive approach and diligence in its planning as the company prepares for the design, build and launch of Iridium NEXT. SpaceX greatly appreciates Iridium’s efficient approach to satellite production – an approach we share when it comes to our launch vehicles. As the next generation of the world’s only global satellite constellation that reliably covers 100 percent of the Earth’s surface, the implementation of the Iridium NEXT satellites will mark a significant achievement in mobile satellite communications, and SpaceX is looking forward to making it happen.” 

 

The SpaceX Falcon 9 is a medium-to-heavy lift, two-stage launch vehicle capable of lifting approximately 11 tons to LEO. Designed to the highest levels of reliability and performance, NASA selected Falcon 9, along with the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, to resupply the International Space Station starting in 2011. This $1.6 billion contract represents 12 flights to and from the International Space Station. Further validating the reliability and robustness of commercial launch, President Obama recently decided to turn over astronaut transport to the U.S. commercial sector, specifically mentioning the example of Falcon 9 in his historic speech at Cape Canaveral. The U.S. government’s confidence in SpaceX provided further validation for Iridium’s decision.

 

About Iridium Communications Inc.

Iridium Communications Inc. (www.iridium.com) is the only mobile satellite service (MSS) company offering coverage over the entire globe. The Iridium constellation of low-earth orbiting (LEO) cross-linked satellites provides critical voice and data services for areas not served by terrestrial communication networks. Iridium serves commercial markets through a worldwide network of distributors, and provides services to the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. and international government agencies. The company’s customers represent a broad spectrum of industry, including maritime, aeronautical, government/defense, public safety, utilities, oil/gas, mining, forestry, heavy equipment and transportation. Iridium has launched a major development program for its next-generation satellite constellation, Iridium NEXT. The company is headquartered in McLean, Va., USA and trades on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbols IRDM (common stock), IRDMW ($7.00 warrants), IRDMZ ($11.50 warrants) and IRDMU (units).

 

About SpaceX

SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles and spacecraft intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of both manned and unmanned space transportation, ultimately by a factor of 10. With the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 vehicles, SpaceX offers highly reliable/cost-efficient launch capabilities for spacecraft insertion into any orbital altitude and inclination. Starting in 2010, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft will provide Earth-to-LEO transport of pressurized and unpressurized cargo, including resupply to the International Space Station.

[kevin-rf]

Good job spaceX. Is that 10 launches?

[Nomadd]

Good job spaceX. Is that 10 launches?

 2 launches per plane of six each. If it's the same as the present configuration, 11 operational and one spare each. Just as someone predicted a few pages back.

[kevin-rf]

Good job spaceX. Is that 10 launches?

 2 launches per plane of six each. If it's the same as the present configuration, 11 operational and one spare each. Just as someone predicted a few pages back.

From the presser:

Iridium is also in discussions with, and expects to contract with, at least one additional launch services provider.

Means they are not planning on getting the "whole" contract, and you are assuming they can lift 6 birds per launch. The first time arround Delta II lifted 5 per launch, Proton 7 per launch, and Long March lifted 2 per launch.

So how many launches and how many can they lift in a shot? We don't know yet, but at "current" spaceX without discount published prices that is 10 flights.

[simonth]

Good job spaceX. Is that 10 launches?

 2 launches per plane of six each. If it's the same as the present configuration, 11 operational and one spare each. Just as someone predicted a few pages back.

From the presser:

Iridium is also in discussions with, and expects to contract with, at least one additional launch services provider.

Means they are not planning on getting the "whole" contract, and you are assuming they can lift 6 birds per launch. The first time arround Delta II lifted 5 per launch, Proton 7 per launch, and Long March lifted 2 per launch.

So how many launches and how many can they lift in a shot? We don't know yet, but at "current" spaceX without discount published prices that is 10 flights.

The contract is for 2015-2017. SpaceX will have negotiated an "industry inflation adjustment". So I highly doubt the 10 flight number, it will be more like 8 if not less launches. IMO only of course.

[Skyrocket]

The contract is for 2015-2017. SpaceX will have negotiated an "industry inflation adjustment". So I highly doubt the 10 flight number, it will be more like 8 if not less launches. IMO only of course.

According to this article, it "could involve as many as nine launches"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-20100616,0,1577199.story

[kevin-rf]

Which gets the number from an outside consultant... not SpaceX or Iridium

The latest contract, with Iridium Communications Inc. of McLean, Va., could include eight to nine launches in order to take 72 telecommunication satellites into space from 2015 to 2017, said Tim Farrar, president of consulting and research firm Telecom, Media & Finance Associates.

[Nomadd]

 They probably don't want to bet the farm on any launch provider's guess as to availability, so it wouldn't be surprising for them to sign multiple agreements with options to avoid three year delays because someone's schedule was overly optimistic.
 I know SpaceX can't just increase production by whipping the workers harder, but if their business really takes off I imagine they'll be looking at bumping up rates.
 Despite the speculation, I'm sticking with 12 launches, since everything I've heard says they're sticking with the same six plane, 11 + 1 per plane configuration. That greatly simplfies the transition to the new birds.
 

[SIM city]

 We don't know yet, but at "current" spaceX without discount published prices that is 10 flights.

Current SpaceX prices are $56M per launch, paid at signing.  If not, financing charges are added.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#pricing_and_performance

[SIM city]

More information in the SEC disclosure from Iridium:

Contract for Launch Services with SpaceX
On March 19, 2010, we entered into a Contract for Launch Services with Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”), which will become effective upon the closing of the credit facility which will be drawn down to fund Iridum NEXT, our next-generation satellite constellation. Pursuant to this agreement, SpaceX will provide us launch services in connection with our deployment of Iridium NEXT. The agreement contemplates multiple launches on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, with up to nine satellites on each launch, and has a maximum value of approximately $492 million. The launches are scheduled to be performed over a two-year period. SpaceX will also provide satellite-to-launch vehicle integration and launch support services, as well as specified optional services.

We have made an advance payment to SpaceX, which will be credited against the amounts subsequently due under the agreement. This advance payment is fully refundable if we have not, within six months after execution of the agreement, closed a credit facility for the funding of all or a part of the costs of Iridium NEXT.

[mmeijeri]

Hmm, they haven't got the funding yet. Not quite the breakthrough I thought it was.

[simonth]

1. The agreement contemplates multiple launches on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, with up to nine satellites on each launch, 3
2. and has a maximum value of approximately $492 million.

Which means Iridium has the option of flying all 72 satellites on F9 ("maximum value") and has contracted for 8 flights maximum.

[Blackstar]

Hmm, they haven't got the funding yet. Not quite the breakthrough I thought it was.

There's an article on Iridium's financing situation in last week's Space News.  It's a rather convoluted and complicated situation.  They need to get more financing to go with some that they recently acquired.  The article indicated that further financing was not guaranteed.  In fact, they hinted that Iridium might not get the financing, but that the company had in the past defied expectations regarding financing, so it was not safe to bet against them.

Bottom line: they may or may not get the required financing.  It's not assured.

[ugordan]

There apparently is/was a SpaceX press conference on the contract and Rand Simberg is posting notes: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574

[Pheogh]

So who "lost" this business then?

[AdamH]

There apparently is/was a SpaceX press conference on the contract and Rand Simberg is posting notes: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574

Not sure if this should be discussed in another thread but that conference has some very interesting quotes such as the one saying (paraphrased):
"The one question that I didn’t capture was mine. 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."

Very cool to hear that.

[SpacexULA]

There apparently is/was a SpaceX press conference on the contract and Rand Simberg is posting notes: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574

Not sure if this should be discussed in another thread but that conference has some very interesting quotes such as the one saying (paraphrased):
"The one question that I didn’t capture was mine. 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."

Very cool to hear that.

20+ attempts should be fun to chat about on the forums over the next few years.

"Falcon 9 1st stage recover system mark 17 was tested today, they have now added wings, flaps, and a vodoo tasiman to try to recover the stage."

[Robotbeat]

There apparently is/was a SpaceX press conference on the contract and Rand Simberg is posting notes: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574

Not sure if this should be discussed in another thread but that conference has some very interesting quotes such as the one saying (paraphrased):
"The one question that I didn’t capture was mine. 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."

Very cool to hear that.

20+ attempts should be fun to chat about on the forums over the next few years.

"Falcon 9 1st stage recover system mark 17 was tested today, they have now added wings, flaps, and a vodoo tasiman to try to recover the stage."

LOL!

I am also glad that Elon think reusability is so important. Hopefully, they will launch enough to make reusability really make sense. It'll be a while, though, most likely (though if they can pull off reusability very simply, then even 10 flights a year will make reusability make sense, a flight rate which they may reach within a decade... though Jim disagrees!).

[neilh]

So who "lost" this business then?

Well, the first Iridium constellation was apparently launched with the Delta II, Russian Proton K, and Chinese Long March IIC. I actually suspect Russia and China might still be getting a few of the Iridium NEXT launches for diversification/scheduling purposes, so they haven't lost quite yet. It looks like SpaceX is the primary launch provider, though.

[Jim]

(though if they can pull off reusability very simply, then even 10 flights a year will make reusability make sense, a flight rate which they may reach within a decade... though Jim disagrees!).

When I made that statement there were no VAFB launches, so the statement is amended to ten launches from one pad.

[Robotbeat]

(though if they can pull off reusability very simply, then even 10 flights a year will make reusability make sense, a flight rate which they may reach within a decade... though Jim disagrees!).

When I made that statement there were no VAFB launches, so the statement is amended to ten launches from one pad.

Ah!
It may be very difficult to do 10 launches from a single pad, since now SpaceX will have 3!

[Lars_J]

3 pads? They'll only have 2 F9 capable pads once the VAFB pad conversion is completed, whenever that will be.

And since they plan on launching from VAFB, that would probably rule out a Kwaj F9 pad as well, since there would be no point to have it.
(equatorial launches from CCAFS, and polar launches from VAFB)

[sdsds]

It's difficult to imagine the DoD will overlook the "Operationally Responsive Space" implications of a new U.S. launch system that provides polar-orbit capability, especially when the system will have a high launch rate for commercial payloads.  The ability to swap out an Iridium payload for a high-priority DoD payload "on demand" must make a contract with SpaceX look awfully tempting.

[Robotbeat]

3 pads? They'll only have 2 F9 capable pads once the VAFB pad conversion is completed, whenever that will be.

And since they plan on launching from VAFB, that would probably rule out a Kwaj F9 pad as well, since there would be no point to have it.
(equatorial launches from CCAFS, and polar launches from VAFB)

There was an earlier wager that someone made with Jim that SpaceX would, in ten years, have more annual launches than ULA, no matter the launch vehicle.

[SpacexULA]

3 pads? They'll only have 2 F9 capable pads once the VAFB pad conversion is completed, whenever that will be.

Mr Robot beat said SpaceX would have 3 pads not just Falcon 9.

With those 3 pads SpaceX now has the ability to launch LLV and MLV to all inclinations.

[simonth]

So who "lost" this business then?

Well, the first Iridium constellation was apparently launched with the Delta II, Russian Proton K, and Chinese Long March IIC. I actually suspect Russia and China might still be getting a few of the Iridium NEXT launches for diversification/scheduling purposes, so they haven't lost quite yet. It looks like SpaceX is the primary launch provider, though.

Iridium said they will contract with at least one other launch provider. Their contract with SpaceX is not a fixed contract, but one with a maximum number of launches and of course an option for Iridium to cancel it if SpaceX does not prove to be reliable. I fully expect the other launch provider(s) to get a contract that has an option to deliver all 72 sats if the primary launch provider does not deliver.

[Jim]

It's difficult to imagine the DoD will overlook the "Operationally Responsive Space" implications of a new U.S. launch system that provides polar-orbit capability, especially when the system will have a high launch rate for commercial payloads.  The ability to swap out an Iridium payload for a high-priority DoD payload "on demand" must make a contract with SpaceX look awfully tempting.

Not really.

A.  Falcon 9 doesn't have the performance
b.  It hasn't demonstrated operations with a complex spacecraft
c.  Spacecraft themselves are not responsive.
d.  The DOD payloads will have mission unique requirements.
e.  It is no more responsive than Atlas.  The time in the hangar is no different than the time Atlas spends in the VIF.  Atlas rolls out to pad a day before launch.

[kevin-rf]

An additional article mentioned in the Direct thread that I had not seen in the SpaceX threads. Sorry if I'm duping it.

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100617-spacex-undercut-competition-clinch-492m-iridium-deal.html

Relevant quotes to me:

To put SpaceX’s declared intentions in context, an official with one non-U.S. company planning a telecommunications satellite intended for geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator said he recently sought price quotes from SpaceX, from the Indian Space Research Organisation and from China Great Wall Industry Corp.

SpaceX, he said, was the least expensive of the three.

Jean-Jacques Dordain, director-general of the 18-nation European Space Agency (ESA), said during a June 8 press briefing in Berlin that Europe needed to learn from what SpaceX is doing. He acknowledged that part of the company’s recipe — a single manufacturing and production facility — would be difficult to replicate in Europe because each ESA member nation wants work for its own industry in return for helping financing the Ariane system.

So they are having an impact.

[sanman]

SpaceX and Iridium: Deja Vu?
Will this be another bubble for the launch industry?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/deltav/25344/

[mlorrey]

3 pads? They'll only have 2 F9 capable pads once the VAFB pad conversion is completed, whenever that will be.

And since they plan on launching from VAFB, that would probably rule out a Kwaj F9 pad as well, since there would be no point to have it.
(equatorial launches from CCAFS, and polar launches from VAFB)

There was an earlier wager that someone made with Jim that SpaceX would, in ten years, have more annual launches than ULA, no matter the launch vehicle.

Kwaj maximizes payload to orbit over VAFB and CCAFS

[mlorrey]

It's difficult to imagine the DoD will overlook the "Operationally Responsive Space" implications of a new U.S. launch system that provides polar-orbit capability, especially when the system will have a high launch rate for commercial payloads.  The ability to swap out an Iridium payload for a high-priority DoD payload "on demand" must make a contract with SpaceX look awfully tempting.

Not really.

A.  Falcon 9 doesn't have the performance
b.  It hasn't demonstrated operations with a complex spacecraft
c.  Spacecraft themselves are not responsive.
d.  The DOD payloads will have mission unique requirements.
e.  It is no more responsive than Atlas.  The time in the hangar is no different than the time Atlas spends in the VIF.  Atlas rolls out to pad a day before launch.

Count the number of DoD payloads that meet the performance of F9 and those that don't.

Besides, we are talking about responsive spacelift and responsive spacecraft. Huge behemoth sats don't qualify for that market.

Can Atlas recycle a launch count within hours of an abort?

And what is the launch price of an Atlas vs F9?

[beancounter]

All good questions.  Anyone know the answers together with this one:  What's the launch manifest for ULA over the next few years?  SpaceX is about 5 per year through to 2014 with a couple of ISS Resupply in 2015.  That's F9 and F9/Dragon.  There's a few F1e in there as well. 
Think they're going to be quite busy!   Wonder what else is in the pipeline since Elon mentioned new contracts to be announced following the successful maiden F9 flight or have we heard about them all?
And we don't yet know what's going to happen with either COTS-D or some other variant for human transport.

[mlorrey]

All good questions.  Anyone know the answers together with this one:  What's the launch manifest for ULA over the next few years?  SpaceX is about 5 per year through to 2014 with a couple of ISS Resupply in 2015.  That's F9 and F9/Dragon.  There's a few F1e in there as well. 
Think they're going to be quite busy!   Wonder what else is in the pipeline since Elon mentioned new contracts to be announced following the successful maiden F9 flight or have we heard about them all?
And we don't yet know what's going to happen with either COTS-D or some other variant for human transport.

Since Elon says with funding he can close the gap in 2013, this presumes evidently at least one unmanned test flight of the full system with LAS, Dragon, F9, probably some time in 2012.

Once Dragon is man rated, it could be doing 2 ISS crew flights per year. At least one per year. Then Bigelow is on the F9 manifest to launch Sundancer in 2014 so a crewed flight to his space station each year at least seems likely, possibly more frequently.

I suspect we will see something coming out of Bigelow in the coming months on them manifesting some crew flights on Dragon.

Anybody who says US space dominance is over is simply crazy.

[MP99]

Kwaj maximizes payload to orbit over VAFB and CCAFS

Certainly, for GTO.

Is it also true for Polar, eg Iridium?

cheers, Martin

[rklaehn]

Kwaj maximizes payload to orbit over VAFB and CCAFS

Certainly, for GTO.

Is it also true for Polar, eg Iridium?

cheers, Martin

No, for polar it does not make a difference.

Building a falcon 9 launch pad in kwaj would give spacex a major advantage over other companies, but it would be a major undertaking. Even converting the existing titan pads cost them ~50 million usd. Building a completely new one in the middle of nowhere would probably be triple digit millions, so it will only be worth it if they get a huge contract.

[kevin-rf]

You would also have to build the payload processing facilities that already exist at other sites.

[Jim]

1.  Count the number of DoD payloads that meet the performance of F9 and those that don't.

2.  Besides, we are talking about responsive spacelift and responsive spacecraft. Huge behemoth sats don't qualify for that market.

3.  Can Atlas recycle a launch count within hours of an abort?

4. And what is the launch price of an Atlas vs F9?

1.  none
2.  Fantasy.  There are no responsive spacecraft.
3.  Not a usable feature.  Spacecraft launch windows are typically less than a couple of hours.
4. By the time F9 will be viable for DOD missions, the cost difference will be in the noise.

[kevin-rf]

4. By the time F9 will be viable for DOD missions, the cost difference will be in the noise.

Jim, as much as most of the sane posters on NSF hate to argue with you. I think that point is up for debate. I say that for several reasons.

1. They are trying to build a cheaper rocket.
2. As you know the price they quote is not how much it costs to make the rocket, but everything else including profit. They can low ball it, or sell at reduced margin just to get the work.
3. They are vertically integrated, so they are able to do some things cheaper and still have healthy margins.
4. They will hopefully have a healthy commercial and COTS buisness that will do what GPS did to Delta II driving down launch costs.
4. At the same time, they just have to come in enough cheaper than ULA to get the DOD to notice them. There is no case for something at one tenth the cost if you can get ten times the money.

Tell you what, if and when the DOD announces a spaceX EELV class contract if they are not significantly cheaper (Lets say 3/4's the price) I'll send you a crate of Gravenstein Apples out of my orchard (When they are in season). *Considering that will be several years from now, Assuming the orchard is still healthy. The flip, otherwise you owe me a crate of Oranges from Harvey's. *Assuming they are still around.

I think it is a fair apples to oranges wager.

I will not give you 1/2 since the current spaceX list prices are 1/2 what you can get an Atlas 401 for...

[joboggi]

With SpaceX ramping up to 40 flights on their manifest, I think that is enough, for now anyway. They are proving themselves. Give them too much business, and they will have trouble delivering.

This MUST mean that they will be hiring....directed to you guys who keep laughing at them, but obviously are worried about your jobs. I noticed the contractors had more than 1500 engineers on Ares and Orion.

I do not believe that SpaceX is over 1000 employees yet. Of course, this is also why they are quoting a lower price. 

[cuddihy]

2.  Besides, we are talking about responsive spacelift and responsive spacecraft. Huge behemoth sats don't qualify for that market.

3.  Can Atlas recycle a launch count within hours of an abort?

2.  Fantasy.  There are no responsive spacecraft.
3.  Not a usable feature.  Spacecraft launch windows are typically less than a couple of hours.

Let me second Jim on this from inside the DOD: ORS is regarded within the Pentagon as a subset of the larger "transformation" OSD agenda that became Dead Man Walking the minute Donald Rumsfeld walked out the door.

The office is still there and there are even still satellites to be launched under the program. But their POM has ended, these are all tail-end of procurements and for the forseeable future the Air Force again has total control over space procurement. (actually to some degree they have even more control than they've ever had before).
 
In fact SpaceX had a hand in killing the concept since by the time they were ready to launch TacSat 1 -- more than 2 years after the satellite was ready--the defenders of the status quo had largely won the argument by forfeit.

It never really added up as a concept, because the capability that small responsive spacecraft can provide are largely already available and underutilized today via commercial and international means. Meanwhile the truly critical "responsive" needs are in GEO, MEO, and high LEO and comms and power budgeting mandates that they be big expensive complex machines that can't afford to build more than we need or sit on a shelf unused. It'd be like building an additional Aegis destroyer to sit in port "just in case" another Cole incident happened.

just another example of the reality not being as pretty as the concept.

[Jim]

Orbital mechanics has a lot to do with ORS not really being viable for the battlefield commander.  Constellation replenishment is a different issue.

For imaging, it only works for the first pass, afterwards, the spacecraft is not in position for hours to days for another pass

for sigint, the space needs to be in an HEO (GEO or 12 hr)  orbit to have some dwell time over the area of interest.  Same goes for surveillance.

[Patchouli]

I will not give you 1/2 since the current spaceX list prices are 1/2 what you can get an Atlas 401 for...

I think F9 will be half the price of Atlas even after the price stabilizes but it won't eat in to DOD contracts any time soon.
The EELVs were designed around the DOD's requirements which probably is one reason you don't see DOD payloads on Ariane.

Instead F9 will probably get a lot of payloads that would have normally flew on Russian and Chinese LVs if at all.
Plus a lot of stuff in the Delta II payload class where you just cannot justify the purchase of an EELV.
Some of these will fly on Taurus II as well.
It also will likely get a lot of science payloads that once flew on the Shuttle as Dragonlab missions.

[Jim]

1.  I think F9 will be half the price of Atlas even after the price stabilizes but it won't eat in to DOD contracts any time soon.

2.  The EELVs were designed around the DOD's requirements which probably is one reason you don't see DOD payloads on Ariane.

Wrong

1.  It is already greater than 1/2

2.  It has nothing to do with technical requirements, it a policy decision.  The DOD uses commercial spacecraft buses and the Atlas V uses the Ariane 5 fairing.

[Patchouli]

Wrong

1.  It is already greater than 1/2

Spacex has a max GTO mission listed at 56M while an Atlas 401 is 138M.

The old cost for the low end Atlas V was 77M in 1998 which would be 100M in 2009.

So it's slightly more then half the 1998 estimate for an Atlas V 401.

Spacex employs what is considered common sense in other industries by eliminating unnecessary middlemen in the supply chain.
It's what Intel and AMD do,what Walmart does and so on.
So yes it will automatically be cheaper.

http://www.pehub.com/74756/elon-musk-on-why-his-rockets-are-faster-cheaper-and-lighter-than-what-youve-seen-before/

Most of Spacex's price increases seem to be simply matching inflation remember the USD took a real beating during 2007 through 2009.
The record oil prices of 2008 were esp devastating.

[sdsds]

ORS is regarded within the Pentagon as a subset of the larger "transformation" OSD agenda that became Dead Man Walking the minute Donald Rumsfeld walked out the door.
[...]
the truly critical "responsive" needs are in GEO, MEO, and high LEO and comms and power budgeting mandates that they be big expensive complex machines that can't afford to build more than we need or sit on a shelf unused.

Thank-you for explaining this!

just another example of the reality not being as pretty as the concept.

So is it then fair to conclude that the Iridium deal, even though it includes development of polar launch capability, still doesn't give SpaceX the ability to meet _any_ DoD needs?

[Jim]

Wrong

1.  It is already greater than 1/2

Spacex has a max GTO mission listed at 56M while an Atlas 401 is 138M.

Again, do you know what you are talking about?  No. 

Neither price is correct for the same customer.  The commercial price of an Atlas is not 138 and the gov't price of a Falcon 9 is not 56

[SpacexULA]

Most of Spacex's price increases seem to be simply matching inflation remember the USD took a real beating during 2007 through 2009.
The record oil prices of 2008 were esp devastating.

Go check Archive.org.  SpaceX's prices for Falcon 9 stayed a steady 35M to LEO from almost the beginning till 2009, then it jumped 10M to around 45M to LEO, and has floated up as you indicated ever since.  It's floated up an additional 10M since 2009

[cuddihy]

Orbital mechanics has a lot to do with ORS not really being viable for the battlefield commander.  Constellation replenishment is a different issue.

For imaging, it only works for the first pass, afterwards, the spacecraft is not in position for hours to days for another pass

This is the ORS = rapid SLV subset of ORS.

Where the TACSATs have succeeded is in justifying launch of R&D payloads on SLVs vice as tertiary payloads on real operational sats.

[Jim]

Where the TACSATs have succeeded is in justifying launch of R&D payloads on SLVs vice as tertiary payloads on real operational sats.

That already existed in STP.  The issue was money.

[psychocandy007]

Besides, we are talking about responsive spacelift and responsive spacecraft. Huge behemoth sats don't qualify for that market.

Aww, c'mon ....

I know it's short notice, but I have this $2 billion spy satellite that I need laucned NEXT WEEK!!  Totally my fault for not planning this out, but you know how things are in the intel biz.

In all seriousness ... assuming that the F9 can indeed provide near on-demand launch services ... then if the DoD ** doesn't ** have some quick turn payloads that can fit into the F9 performance envelope they better start considering developing some.  Isn't that kinda the same mission profile for the OTV?

[Jim]

1.  In all seriousness ... assuming that the F9 can indeed provide near on-demand launch services

2... then if the DoD ** doesn't ** have some quick turn payloads that can fit into the F9 performance envelope they better start considering developing some. 

3.  Isn't that kinda the same mission profile for the OTV?

1.  Define on-demand launch services?  Anyways, that is not what Spacex offers. Also, Spacex's launch ops are no more responsive than Atlas.

2.  No, there is no need and it is too small.  Also, it is Spacex's job to accommodate the payloads not the reverse.

3.  That is no where near the OTV mission profile.  OTV is not ORS.

The most responsive ORS is to have spares on orbit.

[kevin-rf]

As we go off the rails on the OffTopic Train, correct me if I am wrong, but the best place to store a satellite is in orbit. So the best way to do responsive space missions is to already have the bird waiting on orbit.

Also, pre-ULA, didn't Lockheed keep a spare Atlas in the flow, just so they had one to sell if a customer came knocking? At this point it sounds like SpaceX is struggle to keep up with current demand.

[zaitcev]

As we go off the rails on the OffTopic Train, correct me if I am wrong, but the best place to store a satellite is in orbit. So the best way to do responsive space missions is to already have the bird waiting on orbit.

Which only works if the lifetime of satellites is long enough and if you know the orbit it's going to be in.

-- Pete

[DanielW]

Quick response launches are a great idea that customers, the government or commercial satellites, will most likely never need.  The best reason to have the capability to put a bird in the sky on short notice is if your astronauts are running out of air.

Aside from that if you can launch at the drop of a hat, your system is probably streamlined and efficient enough to give real operational savings during standard missions.

[Jim]

1.  Which only works if the lifetime of satellites is long enough

2.  and if you know the orbit it's going to be in.

1.  which they are.

2.   the spare spacecraft are already in their operational orbit but just lacking some phasing.

[beancounter]

1.  In all seriousness ... assuming that the F9 can indeed provide near on-demand launch services

2... then if the DoD ** doesn't ** have some quick turn payloads that can fit into the F9 performance envelope they better start considering developing some. 

3.  Isn't that kinda the same mission profile for the OTV?

1.  Define on-demand launch services?  Anyways, that is not what Spacex offers. Also, Spacex's launch ops are no more responsive than Atlas.

2.  No, there is no need and it is too small.  Also, it is Spacex's job to accommodate the payloads not the reverse.

3.  That is no where near the OTV mission profile.  OTV is not ORS.

The most responsive ORS is to have spares on orbit.

I wouldn't normally get into a disagreement with Jim however must take exception to point 2 above regarding payloads.  To use an analogy, commercial aircraft don't go out of their way to make major changes to accommodate cargo so why should launch providers.

There's a paper that I've got regarding an examination of costs of launch systems and I'll dig it out sometime, but one section deals with payloads and how launch providers go to considerable lengths, sometimes at great cost to accommodate particular payloads. 

I believe SpaceX, as part of their cost efficiency drive, is providing standard interfaces and I also think that this is the way to go in many areas if the cost of launch is going to come down.

[Jim]

There's a paper that I've got regarding an examination of costs of launch systems and I'll dig it out sometime, but one section deals with payloads and how launch providers go to considerable lengths, sometimes at great cost to accommodate particular payloads. 

I believe SpaceX, as part of their cost efficiency drive, is providing standard interfaces and I also think that this is the way to go in many areas if the cost of launch is going to come down.

There are already standard interfaces.  The EELV SIS (standard interface spec).  Both Atlas V and Delta IV meet it and to fly DOD payloads, Spacex is going to have to do the same thing.   The same thing applies for commercial payloads, the Boeing 601 spacecraft bus can fly on Atlas V, Delta IV, Proton, Ariane, Sealaunch, etc.

The launch vehicles have done their part, and Spacex doesn't provide any advantage here.

The issue is the spacecraft, they want more than the standard interfaces.

[beancounter]

Ok so they pay for it, not the launch provider.  Is this unreasonable?  What's driving these additional requirements?

[spacetraveler]

Jim, do you know what the commercial price of an Atlas would be?

[beancounter]

Jim, do you know what the commercial price of an Atlas would be?

In the Q&A section, I've been trying to understand whether or not anyone in the US launch industry is 'commercially' competitive.

I guess commercial prices from the players for the same payload into the same orbit would provide some guidance.  But whether that info' is available or not I can't determine.  SpaceX is pretty open with it's pricing but don't know if the others are.

I consider price over time to be the true measure of competitiveness so long as there's no cross-subsidisation going on or other measure that creates price distortion in the market.

The Iridium contract with SpaceX is a case in point.  These launches are for a specified number of sat's and one can fairly readily deduce the price being charged per launch.  One further interesting fact here is that included in the payments from Iridium is money for the the development of a specialised payload launch mechanism (multi satellite dispenser).

On reading the above, I've suddenly realised that anyone is commercially competitive if there is a commercial customer willing to pay the price being offered for a particular launch service.  The amount of business available at different price points is a different matter and much harder to determine.  Have to think more about this one.

Cheers

[kevin-rf]

I guess commercial prices from the players for the same payload into the same orbit would provide some guidance.  But whether that info' is available or not I can't determine.  SpaceX is pretty open with it's pricing but don't know if the others are.

Are they? or are those just list prices and the real price charged to the customer for the launch line item being somewhere south of that, but then other costly line items are added in providing us a carnival house of smoke and mirrors on what the real price is?

[Jim]

Bingo

[spacetraveler]

The Iridium contract with SpaceX is a case in point.  These launches are for a specified number of sat's and one can fairly readily deduce the price being charged per launch.  One further interesting fact here is that included in the payments from Iridium is money for the the development of a specialised payload launch mechanism (multi satellite dispenser).

On reading the above, I've suddenly realised that anyone is commercially competitive if there is a commercial customer willing to pay the price being offered for a particular launch service.

Yes, and the fact that commercial has never expressed a very strong interest in Atlas/Delta just makes me think that, while they might be able to offer cheaper launches than they do for government payloads, they probably can not do so at anywhere near Spacex's price point.

[mlorrey]

The Iridium contract with SpaceX is a case in point.  These launches are for a specified number of sat's and one can fairly readily deduce the price being charged per launch.  One further interesting fact here is that included in the payments from Iridium is money for the the development of a specialised payload launch mechanism (multi satellite dispenser).

On reading the above, I've suddenly realised that anyone is commercially competitive if there is a commercial customer willing to pay the price being offered for a particular launch service.

Yes, and the fact that commercial has never expressed a very strong interest in Atlas/Delta just makes me think that, while they might be able to offer cheaper launches than they do for government payloads, they probably can not do so at anywhere near Spacex's price point.

Quite right. The enthusiastic response of the commercial sector for SpaceX launch vehicles is a rather stark contrast to the utter dearth of business that EELV gets from anything but US government clients. It can only be due to a rather significant difference in prices that makes SpaceX competitive with the cheapest foreign launch vehicles which EELV is incapable of reaching.

[kevin-rf]

Odd that ESA is talking about using Atlas V EELV's for a joint mars sample return set of missions ( http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/20sample/ ). I thought the Ariane V was "cheaper" and why everyone flew on it.

[hop]

Odd that ESA is talking about using Atlas V EELV's for a joint mars sample return set of missions ( http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/20sample/ ). I thought the Ariane V was "cheaper" and why everyone flew on it.

Are they talking about buying it, or bartering ? I would guess the latter, in which case the commercial price is irrelevant.

Also OT for spacex thread.

[Jim]

The Iridium contract with SpaceX is a case in point.  These launches are for a specified number of sat's and one can fairly readily deduce the price being charged per launch.  One further interesting fact here is that included in the payments from Iridium is money for the the development of a specialised payload launch mechanism (multi satellite dispenser).

On reading the above, I've suddenly realised that anyone is commercially competitive if there is a commercial customer willing to pay the price being offered for a particular launch service.

Yes, and the fact that commercial has never expressed a very strong interest in Atlas/Delta just makes me think that, while they might be able to offer cheaper launches than they do for government payloads, they probably can not do so at anywhere near Spacex's price point.

Quite right. The enthusiastic response of the commercial sector for SpaceX launch vehicles is a rather stark contrast to the utter dearth of business that EELV gets from anything but US government clients. It can only be due to a rather significant difference in prices that makes SpaceX competitive with the cheapest foreign launch vehicles which EELV is incapable of reaching.

What "enthusiastic response"?  They have yet to land a major comsat.  Iridium doesn't count.  They have yet to receive financing.

Also Spacex prices will keep climbing

[Skyrocket]

What "enthusiastic response"?  They have yet to land a major comsat.  Iridium doesn't count.  They have yet to receive financing.

They already have contracts to lauch Amos-4 and one SSLoral built comsat.

[kevin-rf]

They already have contracts to lauch Amos-4 and one SSLoral built comsat.

Has an actual Loral payload been identified or is it a placeholder?

[Skyrocket]

They already have contracts to lauch Amos-4 and one SSLoral built comsat.

Has an actual Loral payload been identified or is it a placeholder?

Currently, it is a placeholder

[kevin-rf]

Which is more than we may use it if it works, but less than a firm contract (one only has look the number of similar bookings for the Delta-III for a historical perspective).

[beancounter]

Ok with placeholders (if that's what they are), is there some sort of letter of intent, deposit or something else that sets the placeholder in place so to speak.  I mean, contractually speaking otherwise what's the point of the manifest?  Is it just spin? If so, then instead of creating confusion why not just put up those customers with contracts signed?

[beancounter]

Ok with placeholders (if that's what they are), is there some sort of letter of intent, deposit or something else that sets the placeholder in place so to speak.  I mean, contractually speaking otherwise what's the point of the manifest?  Is it just spin? If so, then instead of creating confusion why not just put up those customers with contracts signed?

Expected some response to this one. 

When is a contract not a contract?  Apparently when it's between Iridium and SpaceX!!

Both parties use the term 'contract'.  Even if it's conditional on financing and maybe other factors, it can still be a contract and legally binding on the parties should the contractual conditions be met.

Therefore the use of the term 'placeholder' is inaccurate and misleading.

[Jim]

Therefore the use of the term 'placeholder' is inaccurate and misleading.

It is very accurate term.   Iridium doesn't have the financing to build the spacecraft much less launch them.  So until the financing is secured, these launches are placeholders.

[agman25]

Didn't COFACE cover the satellite financing costs. I thought they only lacked financing for the launches.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225300165

[hop]

Both parties use the term 'contract'.  Even if it's conditional on financing and maybe other factors, it can still be a contract and legally binding on the parties should the contractual conditions be met.

Sure it's a contract. That doesn't mean it's a firm contract to actually put some specific hardware on a rocket and launch it into space.

Therefore the use of the term 'placeholder' is inaccurate and misleading.

Not if it accurately describes the contractual conditions.

Whatever you call it, the fact is that much of SpaceX commercial launch manifest consists of things that have a significant chance of not resulting in hardware being sent into space.

[beancounter]

Both parties use the term 'contract'.  Even if it's conditional on financing and maybe other factors, it can still be a contract and legally binding on the parties should the contractual conditions be met.

Sure it's a contract. That doesn't mean it's a firm contract to actually put some specific hardware on a rocket and launch it into space.

Therefore the use of the term 'placeholder' is inaccurate and misleading.

Not if it accurately describes the contractual conditions.

Whatever you call it, the fact is that much of SpaceX commercial launch manifest consists of things that have a significant chance of not resulting in hardware being sent into space.

Sorry can't even begin to agree with that statement.  For starters define 'significant' and in addition, precisely what evidence do you have to suggest that SpaceX manifest won't result in hardware in space.
As to the comments regarding 'placeholders', that's just playing with semantics.  If you've got a contract, then it's a contract regardless of what conditions are placed on it.  A 'placeholder' is simply a slot in a manifest.  The things which might be placeholders are the DragonLab as there's been no statements regarding contracts for these but that's about it.
Cheers.

[hop]

Sorry can't even begin to agree with that statement.

Reality is indifferent to your agreement.

precisely what evidence do you have to suggest that SpaceX manifest won't result in hardware in space.

As you should know, Iridium isn't fully funded and they are trying to find investors for a business model that already bankrupt them once. You think is as likely to fly as the stuff on ILS or Arianespace manifests ? For the others, you can dig through the previous threads yourself. SpaceX has more than once described as orders things their customers described as options.

edit:
Ok, I'll do a little of your home work for you
e.g. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/09/swedish-space-corporation-swit.html once appeared on SpaceX manifest.

So did  http://spacefellowship.com/news/art3042/spacex-and-avanti-communications-sign-launch-contract.html

  If you've got a contract, then it's a contract regardless of what conditions are placed on it.  A 'placeholder' is simply a slot in a manifest.

It's a contract, but not necessarily a firm contract for a launch. It could instead be a contract for "a slot on the manifest", which could be converted (or not) to a firm launch contract for a specific piece of hardware at a later date.

In reality, if SpaceX has a couple of failures you will see those launches evaporate faster than LOX on a hot day. OTOH if they fly out their COTS and early CRS missions without dropping a payload, then many of those placeholders will turn into firm contracts and the real money will flow.

[beancounter]

Sorry, didn't say it was any particular sort of contract, only that they had signed a contract.  Senantics again.  Also didn't mention any conditions anticedent or otherwise relating to the contracts on the manifest.

So I'll stand by my previous statements on contracts as opposed to placeholders and I'll also disagree with your statement regarding failures.  All of today's current launch vehicles have had failures not only during development but with actual payloads as has SpaceX with their F1 vehicle.  The companies haven't ceased operations and I doubt SpaceX would either.

This line of argument is a bit along the lines of commercial airlines going bust when they have an aircraft disaster.  Happened many times with large loss of life but the companies keep going. Why should a different situation apply when loss of life isn't even involved.  Just sounds like a bunch of political spin.  And you question my grasp on reality

Cheers

[hop]

Sorry, didn't say it was any particular sort of contract, only that they had signed a contract.

Oh please. Up to this point, you've been arguing that the contracts represented stuff that would actually get launched into space. Presented with evidence that this isn't always the case, you suddenly don't care what it's a contract for ?

No one has claimed that those placeholders aren't connected to some kind of a contract. Of course there's a contract, the whole point is what it's a contract for: An option (placeholder) or an actual launch. This whole thing started when you claimed

The enthusiastic response of the commercial sector for SpaceX launch vehicles ...

and proceeded to use SpaceX manifest as "evidence" of this enthusiastic response.

Regarding failures, you might want to learn some recent history of the industry you are commenting on. And note I said "a couple" for good reason. A single failure probably wouldn't do it.

[beancounter]

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

In the end, the only real test (which I'm sure you will agree with ) will be what does actually flys and when however several in the commercial sat' industry have been 'enthusiastic', those being ORBCOMM and the latest Iridium contract.  Can't say their reaction has been anything but that when you read their press releases.  Iridium in particular, was glowing in their appraisal of SpaceX but you could say that was to be expected given that they were now in bed together. 

It was interesting to note that ESA's comments on the SpaceX approach and how they probably wouldn't be able to do the same given their distributed manufacturing, testing, etc.  There seem to be implied (my interpretation) that they were a bit worried about getting cost reductions to match SpaceX but maybe I was reading too much into it.

My view - a couple of failures probably isn't going to do it either but again time will tell.

Cheers.

[beancounter]

Next step in this saga:

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/100805-iridium-secures-loan-commitments.html

[docmordrid]

There goes most of the 'no funding' argument, at least enough to get things started and part of the cluster up.

Next?

[neilh]

Next step in this saga:

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/100805-iridium-secures-loan-commitments.html

Press release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iridium-receives-commitments-for-18-billion-credit-facility-for-construction-of-iridium-next-2010-08-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp

[Robotbeat]

Next step in this saga:

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/100805-iridium-secures-loan-commitments.html

Press release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iridium-receives-commitments-for-18-billion-credit-facility-for-construction-of-iridium-next-2010-08-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Congratulations, Iridium! BTW, that url suggest $18 billion, which is a LOT more than reality. The actual amount is $1.8 billion. Still a lot. And a very low interest rate... less than 6%! Good for them, though it's still a big part of their annual revenue (about a third!). I'm sure they will have customers once the new constellation goes up. The new constellation is supposed to have flexible bandwidth.

[cuddihy]

Next step in this saga:

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/100805-iridium-secures-loan-commitments.html

Press release: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iridium-receives-commitments-for-18-billion-credit-facility-for-construction-of-iridium-next-2010-08-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Congratulations, Iridium! BTW, that url suggest $18 billion, which is a LOT more than reality. The actual amount is $1.8 billion. Still a lot. And a very low interest rate... less than 6%! Good for them, though it's still a big part of their annual revenue (about a third!). I'm sure they will have customers once the new constellation goes up. The new constellation is supposed to have flexible bandwidth.

Yes, the biggest customer will continue to be Iridium's #1 customer -- the US Military.

[bolun]

Iridium Signs Backup Launch Deal with ISC Kosmotras

Wed, 22 June, 2011

LE BOURGET, France — Mobile satellite services operator Iridium Communications, whose contract to launch its 72 next-generation satellites with startup launch services provider SpaceX features an exceptionally low price, has signed a backup launch agreement with the builders of the Russian-Ukrainian Dnepr rocket, Iridium announced June 20.

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110622-iridium-launch-deal-isc-kosmotras.html

[Nomadd]

 I've been a SpaceX fan for a while now, and I use a lot of Iridiums in the business, but I wouldn't bet the farm on the new system being successful. I think they're waiting way too long to deploy it. By 2015 there will be half a dozen systems with small S-band handsets with high speed data capability. The only iridium market will be the few people who need the short propogation delay or are outside normal coverage areas.

[synchrotron]

Wrong

1.  It is already greater than 1/2

Spacex has a max GTO mission listed at 56M while an Atlas 401 is 138M.

Again, do you know what you are talking about?  No. 

Neither price is correct for the same customer.  The commercial price of an Atlas is not 138 and the gov't price of a Falcon 9 is not 56

And a GTO doesn't always mean the same thing. SpaceX typically cites a GTO that is several hundred meters/second lower than other providers.

[Prober]

I've been a SpaceX fan for a while now, and I use a lot of Iridiums in the business, but I wouldn't bet the farm on the new system being successful. I think they're waiting way too long to deploy it. By 2015 there will be half a dozen systems with small S-band handsets with high speed data capability. The only iridium market will be the few people who need the short propogation delay or are outside normal coverage areas.

Don't know what it is but Iridium has been such a "problem child".  The first round didn't go well, the 2nd isn't much better.

[antonioe]

I'm not sure if anybody noticed but Iridium's condition for giving Thales the contact for the spacecraft is that final integration and testing, as well as spacecraft-LV integration and launch ops be carried by a US company (lots of reasons why, but you can guess some, I'm sure).

Anybody care to guess which US company gets to do it?

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/Event.aspx?id=15154

Can't wait for SpaceX's IPO so I can buy some stock...

[baldusi]

I'm not sure if anybody noticed but Iridium's condition for giving Thales the contact for the spacecraft is that final integration and testing, as well as spacecraft-LV integration and launch ops be carried by a US company (lots of reasons why, but you can guess some, I'm sure).

Anybody care to guess which US company gets to do it?

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/Event.aspx?id=15154

Can't wait for SpaceX's IPO so I can buy some stock...

Congratulations Antonio!

[Robotbeat]

I'm not sure if anybody noticed but Iridium's condition for giving Thales the contact for the spacecraft is that final integration and testing, as well as spacecraft-LV integration and launch ops be carried by a US company (lots of reasons why, but you can guess some, I'm sure).

Anybody care to guess which US company gets to do it?

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/Event.aspx?id=15154

Can't wait for SpaceX's IPO so I can buy some stock...

Congratulations!

BTW, if SpaceX is successful in lowering launch costs by an order of magnitude, it'll be Orbital stock I'm buying...

[antonioe]

BTW, if SpaceX is successful in lowering launch costs by an order of magnitude, it'll be Orbital stock I'm buying...

No need for an order of magnitude... just beat the foreign GEO launches (Ariane, Proton, Soyuz) by a reasonable amount...

[baldusi]

BTW, if SpaceX is successful in lowering launch costs by an order of magnitude, it'll be Orbital stock I'm buying...

No need for an order of magnitude... just beat the foreign GEO launches (Ariane, Proton, Soyuz) by a reasonable amount...

Does it help in the total bidding not to have to do any ITAR paperwork? Does it allows you to make lower bids? I.e., do you bid X for Ariane/ILS and Y (<X) if within USA (EELV, SpaceX)? I'm assuming that if you launch the whole thing there might be an extra discount. But current Taurus II can't launch your GSO payloads, can it?

[Prober]

BTW, if SpaceX is successful in lowering launch costs by an order of magnitude, it'll be Orbital stock I'm buying...

No need for an order of magnitude... just beat the foreign GEO launches (Ariane, Proton, Soyuz) by a reasonable amount...

I hate to bring this up (don't care for being spamed) but why isn't spaceX picking up the small launches from the island of 1's.  Pricewise how much is a Dner compared to a Falcon 1?
 

[bolun]

First Iridium Next Satellites To Launch on Dnepr Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120802-iridium-next-satellites-launch-dnepr-rocket.html

[Comga]

"..Iridium in March 2010 signed a $492 million contract with SpaceX of Hawthorne, Calif., to launch the operational Iridium Next satellites eight at a time aboard eight Falcon 9 rockets between early 2015 and 2017.

The restructured contract, which SpaceX and Iridium concluded Aug. 1, calls for seven Falcon 9 rockets, each carrying 10 Iridium Next satellites, to be launched beginning in mid-2017 and ending about 48 months later.

Iridium said it is saving $39 million by ordering seven rockets instead of eight. Iridium Chief Executive Matt Desch said during the conference call that the new calendar also gives SpaceX, whose Falcon 9 rocket is still in its infancy in terms of launch record, more time to digest its already large manifest of customers."

That takes the SpaceX manifest for 2015 from 15 launches to 12, with none booked for 2016.  For the year SpaceX has added 6 launches and lost 2. 

That says that Iridium is taking advantage of the higher lift capacity of the Falcon 9 v1.1 by launching 10 at a time instead of 8. It also increases the number of satellites from 8*8 to 7*10.   It puts a price on an F9 launch (bought in bulk) of $39M.

The last says that Iridium doesn't believe SpaceX can really do 33 launches in the 3 years 2012-15.  I bet that's a widely shared opinion.

[aga]

It puts a price on an F9 launch (bought in bulk) of $39M.

you can't know... i can easily imagine iridium saving 39mil. and the price being higher... not enough info, i would say...

[modemeagle]

It puts a price on an F9 launch (bought in bulk) of $39M.

you can't know... i can easily imagine iridium saving 39mil. and the price being higher... not enough info, i would say...

Possibly
492m/8 launches = 61.5m/launch
492m-39m= 453m/7 launches = 64.7m/launch

more per launch but less overall

[Galactic Penguin SST]

First Iridium Next Satellites To Launch on Dnepr Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120802-iridium-next-satellites-launch-dnepr-rocket.html

The strange thing is that the Dnepr could be dead by the end of 2012.... 

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=965894#965894

http://www.ria.ru/science/20120718/702409300.html

[Stan Black]

Проведение исследования возможности выведения ракетой-носителем "Союз-2" с РБ "Фрегат" полезной нагрузки "ИРИДИУМ НЕКСТ" с космодрома Байконур

http://www.samspace.ru/zakupki/plany_zakupok/
http://www.samspace.ru/upload/iblock/87b/План%20закупки%20ГНПРКЦ%20ЦСКБ-Прогресс.xlsx

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Проведение исследования возможности выведения ракетой-носителем "Союз-2" с РБ "Фрегат" полезной нагрузки "ИРИДИУМ НЕКСТ" с космодрома Байконур

http://www.samspace.ru/zakupki/plany_zakupok/
http://www.samspace.ru/upload/iblock/87b/План%20закупки%20ГНПРКЦ%20ЦСКБ-Прогресс.xlsx

So it looks like Iridium has again ordered some Baikonur-based Soyuz rockets again? Or that's the old batch?

[Skyrocket]

Проведение исследования возможности выведения ракетой-носителем "Союз-2" с РБ "Фрегат" полезной нагрузки "ИРИДИУМ НЕКСТ" с космодрома Байконур

http://www.samspace.ru/zakupki/plany_zakupok/
http://www.samspace.ru/upload/iblock/87b/План%20закупки%20ГНПРКЦ%20ЦСКБ-Прогресс.xlsx

So it looks like Iridium has again ordered some Baikonur-based Soyuz rockets again? Or that's the old batch?

They haven't ordered. This says it is a study to use the Soyuz-2 for Iridium-NEXT.  BTW, no Iridium satellite has flown on a Soyuz rocket by now.

[beidou]

Does anyone know if Iridium Next satellites will carry atomic clocks in space?

[StephenB]

Does anyone know if Iridium Next satellites will carry atomic clocks in space?

Either that or use GPS for a time reference, I'd imagine.

[joek]

Does anyone know if Iridium Next satellites will carry atomic clocks in space?

Either that or use GPS for a time reference, I'd imagine.

Iridium NEXT does not have an atomic clock (edit: they use a quartz oscillator + other stuff).  However, NASA plans on flying one as a hosted payload on one of them as a technology demonstrator (see  Deep Space Atomic Clock).

[Ronsmytheiii]

Does anyone know if Iridium Next satellites will carry atomic clocks in space?

Either that or use GPS for a time reference, I'd imagine.

Iridium NEXT does not have an atomic clock (edit: they use a quartz oscillator + other stuff).  However, NASA plans on flying one as a hosted payload on one of them as a technology demonstrator (see  Deep Space Atomic Clock).

the Atomic flight demonstrator is not on the Iridium NEXt, it will be on a Surrey Satellite Technology satellite

From the link:

The DSAC project currently is building a demonstration unit and payload to be hosted on a spacecraft provided by Surrey Satellite Technologies U.S. of Englewood, Colo. It will launch to Earth orbit in 2015, where the payload will be operated for at least a year to demonstrate its functionality and utility for one-way-based navigation.

[starsilk]

Thales Alenia Space Delivers Iridium Simulators to SpaceX:

http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/03/05/thales-alenia-space-delivers-iridium-simulators-to-spacex/

[Comga]

Thales Alenia Space Delivers Iridium Simulators to SpaceX:
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/03/05/thales-alenia-space-delivers-iridium-simulators-to-spacex/

"SpaceX Falcon9 rocket will launch eight of the 10 satellite simulators. Photo: Wikimedia"  ?
They're not going to launch the satellite simulators, are they?
And the photo is of an F9 V1.0 with a Dragon cargo capsule.
Not a shining example of technical reporting
(They need to come here to learn how it should be done.)