Iridium and SpaceX Sign Major Commercial Launch Contract

[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.