Iridium and SpaceX Sign Major Commercial Launch Contract

[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.