Iridium and SpaceX Sign Major Commercial Launch Contract

[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