Intelsat Signs First Commercial Falcon Heavy Launch Agreement with SpaceX

[Norm38]

What I expect spaceX to do is use unproven technologies like cross feed to push the envelope, to increase performance and profit. But they can fall back on what works.

It's 44mt without cross feed, correct?  If that competes on cost, it funds the R&D to keep working.

[Idiomatic]

Cross feed seems useful for recovery as well. You get a much lower stage-0 separation altitude.

[QuantumG]

"Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in the world and historically is second only to the Apollo-era Saturn V moon rocket."

I'm glad to see the SpaceX propaganda machine is alive and well (Energiya, anyone?  Possibly even the N-1?).

Umm.. why not just say the space transportation system? They're both in the same class.. As for N-1, why would anyone bring that fireball up?

[Proponent]

"Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in the world and historically is second only to the Apollo-era Saturn V moon rocket."

I'm glad to see the SpaceX propaganda machine is alive and well (Energiya, anyone?  Possibly even the N-1?).

Umm.. why not just say the space transportation system? They're both in the same class.. As for N-1, why would anyone bring that fireball up?

I'm offering SpaceX the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's measuring power by useful payload.  But yeah, taking it literally, even the Shuttle exceeded Falcon Heavy for raw rocket power.

[subzero788]

Even so, they could probably pull it off. If they ground test it first.

I dont doubt that, just doubt that a customer would bet two expensive satellites on the success of cross-feed after a single test flight so early, tricore design is a proven design in comparison.

On the contrary, if the first test flight uses cross-feed, it'll probably be safer for the customer to use cross-feed on their own flight, keeping things as close to the previous flight as possible.

Even so, we'll see how long the cross-feed feature sticks around.

Where did they say that they will launch on the second FH flight?

This spaceflightnow article suggests that the launch is a long way off, perhaps 2017/2018 and that the exact payload has not yet been decided.

Thierry Guillemin, Intelsat's chief technical officer, said Falcon  Heavy would need to complete multiple test launches before Intelsat  assigns one of its satellites for a flight. 
"Intelsat has exacting technical standards and requirements for  proven flight heritage for our satellite launches," Guillemin said. "We  will work closely with SpaceX as the Falcon Heavy completes rigorous  flight tests prior to our future launch requirements."

 

[MATTBLAK]

What I expect spaceX to do is use unproven technologies like cross feed to push the envelope, to increase performance and profit. But they can fall back on what works.

It's 44mt without cross feed, correct?  If that competes on cost, it funds the R&D to keep working.

I wonder what performance could be gotten from clustering 5x Falcon 9 Corestages? Obviously, only 2x would be crossfeeding - the other two would merely be 'boosters'. And before anyone cries 'Are you nuts?!' remember that 5 and 7x Delta & Atlas clusters have been - on paper - seriously studied by LockMart and Boeing as alternatives to Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift.

5x FVH (VERYHeavy) 60+plus tons to LEO with LOX/RP1 Merlin Vacuum upper stage? And with a Raptor-powered upper stage: 70 tons?

And yeah; I know - 45x Merlin 1D engines!! Perhaps if they get the recovery parachute problems sorted, some of those engines can be used again.

[mrmandias]

Doesn't seem to take SpaceX very long to turn 'unproven technology' into proven spaceflight systems.

Actually until SpaceX recovers a stage, propulsivly land a capsule returning from space, or does a VTVL with a vehicle ruffly the size of a ELV 1st stage they will really not have done anything that is "unproven technology".

To date they seem to be trying to take the best lessons learned from Silicon Valley, Russian Aerospace, NASA, and the EELV program and mix them all together while trying very hard to avoid "unproven technology or practices".

SpaceX is much more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Very good point.  A lot that was "revolutionary" about SpaceX was rejecting the paradigm that advances in space access meant gee-whiz technology.

Their goals are so high, however, that they may have exhausted the benefits of best practices and are now going to have to move into the uncertain terrain of tech innovation.  Best of luck to them.

[Nate_Trost]

That the Intelsat PR didn't mention a launch date makes me suspect that SpaceX isn't confident enough in the FH development schedule yet to contractually commit to an operational date.

[Jim]

I can remember back in the day when each Hughes and maybe Loral had "contracts" for 10 launches on each of these vehicles: Delta III, H-II, Sealaunch, etc.

[kevin-rf]

I can remember back in the day when each Hughes and maybe Loral had "contracts" for 10 launches on each of these vehicles: Delta III, H-II, Sealaunch, etc.

Back in the day? that was only the late 90's, or was it early 2000's?

[cro-magnon gramps]

I can remember back in the day when each Hughes and maybe Loral had "contracts" for 10 launches on each of these vehicles: Delta III, H-II, Sealaunch, etc.

Back in the day? that was only the late 90's, or was it early 2000's?

you have to think, "Back in the Day" means the Golden Age of US dominance in launching commercial payloads; before the rest of the world caught up, and the US had lost it's lead; I am not knocking the US Space Industry,

Jim would know better, but I am guessing it was more to do with the political / economic climate in the US at the end of the 20th Century beginning of the 21st;

[simonbp]

That the Intelsat PR didn't mention a launch date makes me suspect that SpaceX isn't confident enough in the FH development schedule yet to contractually commit to an operational date.

Or, there is just no need to rush. Intelsat would likely want to wait until after they see the data from the FH test launch before they set the date. GEO sat schedules are a lot more flexible than NASA payloads.

I can remember back in the day when each Hughes and maybe Loral had "contracts" for 10 launches on each of these vehicles: Delta III, H-II, Sealaunch, etc.

Delta III and H-II both had two consecutive failures in a row, making them anathema to commercial launches. Sea Launch went through two non-consecutive failures before going bankrupt, and is still launching rockets. So, unless Falcon Heavy fails twice in a row, I doubt it's going away anytime soon.

[Scia]

It's really great to see SpaceX do so well.

It's about time America took back market share in the launch business.

[jnc]

And yeah; I know - 45x Merlin 1D engines!!

Speaking of the 27 on an actual FH, does anyone know if SX has any plans to produce a larger engine so they need fewer of them? I know it has engine-out capability, I know bigger engines are harder, but still... 27 is a lot (and I get the heebie-jeebies thinking of how many parts there are there which could fail catastrophically).

Noel

[simonbp]

They've talked about a single larger RP-1 engine to replace the nine Merlins (usually called Merlin 2), which would be in the same class as F-1 or RD-180. But it seems to be a very priority at the moment.

[rst]

They've talked about a single larger RP-1 engine to replace the nine Merlins (usually called Merlin 2), which would be in the same class as F-1 or RD-180. But it seems to be a very priority at the moment.

Well, the tea-leaf reading in other threads about SpaceX's engine plans is that two things made this a less attractive way forward for them:  the performance they got off the Merlin-1D upgrade, and the switch to a boost-back strategy for recovery (which means that the hypothetical Merlin-2 would have to throttle way down during the recovery phase).

[FinalFrontier]

They've talked about a single larger RP-1 engine to replace the nine Merlins (usually called Merlin 2), which would be in the same class as F-1 or RD-180. But it seems to be a very priority at the moment.

Well, the tea-leaf reading in other threads about SpaceX's engine plans is that two things made this a less attractive way forward for them:  the performance they got off the Merlin-1D upgrade, and the switch to a boost-back strategy for recovery (which means that the hypothetical Merlin-2 would have to throttle way down during the recovery phase).

New thread on this specifically: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29035.msg908050#msg908050

[go4mars]

It has been previously mentioned that Falcon Heavy will not always use cross feed,  would bet that this launch will only need a tricore design rather than relying on an unproven technology.

I'll take that bet (against you and/or anyone else here (first 10 people only)). 

How about a T-shirt with a space-related theme.  If the first FH flight is cross-fed, then you send me one, if it isn't cross-fed, I'll send you one.

[meekGee]

oh wow.  With all the opinion wars here, this needs to become a habit.

A bet-centric forum, where T-shirt wagers are recorded for all to see.

[FinalFrontier]

And considering the cross feed system that is a really smart plan.

It has been previously mentioned that Falcon Heavy will not always use cross feed,  would bet that this launch will only need a tricore design rather than relying on an unproven technology.

I'll take that bet. 

How about a T-shirt with a space-related theme.  If the first FH flight is cross-fed, then you send me one, if it isn't cross-fed, I'll send you one.

I suppose it will depend on whether they need it or not. And I guess for this mission they don't need the extra margin.


If it was to fly prior to this mission and it works it wouldn't be as unproven, but again, it would always be a question of whether you need the performance or not.

Probably a safe bet they won't fly it just yet.