SpaceX deal boosts Falcon 9's secondary payload manifest

[Chris Bergin]

Found it interesting, so wrote an article!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/spacex-deal-falcon-9s-secondary-payload-manifest/

[Rocket Science]

Nice article Chris… If I’m reading this correctly, this program is a bit like “The Get-Away Specials” from the Shuttle era…

[butters]

Good way to use the excess performance of F9v1.1 for CRS flights. I wonder if they can carry more payloads (or bigger payloads) by exercising the "extended trunk" option. I'm intrigued by the idea of large constellations of small mass-produced comsats in LEO.

[douglas100]

Very interesting. SHERPA sounds like a smart idea.

[TomH]

I am unclear on one thing. Will all these micro and nano satellites be released separately to fly on their own, or will all remain connected to a single maneuvering system? Releasing them to fly separately would logarithmicly increase the chances of collisions, which inturn create more debris and increase the collision probability even more. Please tell me they all will remain connected in one cluster per launch.

[Jim]

I am unclear on one thing. Will all these micro and nano satellites be released separately to fly on their own, or will all remain connected to a single maneuvering system? Releasing them to fly separately would logarithmicly increase the chances of collisions, which inturn create more debris and increase the collision probability even more. Please tell me they all will remain connected in one cluster per launch.

they will be separate.  And they will also will disperse due to different ballistic coefficients and eventually reenter

[gin455res]

Has SpaceX showed any interest in building satellites?

If SpaceX can reduce cost to orbit, doesn't that mean that cheaper bulkier satellites become more cost effective. If this type of satellite is not currently in production wouldn't it make sense for SpaceX to think about developing them itself, in a sense, taking vertical integration to its limit?

The satellite could then benefit from getting 'at cost' launches, so further reducing the combined price of the combination (payload/launcher) and enabling even bulkier, cheaper payloads, than if the satellite was from an external customer.

Perhaps, a low risk route to this might be through in-house secondary payloads. It might even create a market for Falcon 1e.

[Jim]

Has SpaceX showed any interest in building satellites?

If SpaceX can reduce cost to orbit, doesn't that mean that cheaper bulkier satellites become more cost effective.

No, just heavier spacecraft

Also, what says they can build spacecraft?  Do they have expertise on comm packages or remote sensing instruments?

[Thunderbird5]

Has SpaceX showed any interest in building satellites?
...

You could argue that it already does build large satellites, specifically Falcon 9 second stages! 

Seriously though, satellite development is a very different business and technical arena and unless Elon has thought of some hitherto unexplored way to build large-scale commercial satellites at dramatically reduced cost, I can see that it would be of little value and yet more distraction to an already very busy R&D roadmap.

If anything, I would think Elon would start a separate sister company but as I said, I doubt it; too much else to do.

[DavidH]

No, just heavier spacecraft

Also, what says they can build spacecraft?  Do they have expertise on comm packages or remote sensing instruments?

Doesn't DragonLab count as a satelite?

[Robotbeat]

No, just heavier spacecraft

Also, what says they can build spacecraft?  Do they have expertise on comm packages or remote sensing instruments?

Doesn't DragonLab count as a satelite?

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

[DavidH]

Doesn't DragonLab count as a satelite?

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

That's confusing to me. Dragon has a comm subsystem (it may not be 10gbs, but it seemed to work fine last time they used it). And payloads can come from a sub-contractor, all mine have.

[DavidH]

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

Seriously, they've got datasheets and have advertised DragonLab. Why is it not a considered a S/C bus capable of hosting payloads?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
"Telemetry/data downlink: 300 Mbps (higher rates available)"

[Jim]

Doesn't DragonLab count as a satelite?

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

That's confusing to me. Dragon has a comm subsystem (it may not be 10gbs, but it seemed to work fine last time they used it). And payloads can come from a sub-contractor, all mine have.

It is not a GSO comsat bus.  There are many differences

[Robotbeat]

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

Seriously, they've got datasheets and have advertised DragonLab. Why is it not a considered a S/C bus capable of hosting payloads?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
"Telemetry/data downlink: 300 Mbps (higher rates available)"

A comm sat is infrastructure with customers. Dragon's comm system is a customer relying on infrastructure. Does that make sense? A cellphone is not a cell tower.

That's not to say that SpaceX could never get in the comm sat business at some point, but Dragon is nothing close to a comm sat.

[DavidH]

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

Seriously, they've got datasheets and have advertised DragonLab. Why is it not a considered a S/C bus capable of hosting payloads?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
"Telemetry/data downlink: 300 Mbps (higher rates available)"

A comm sat is infrastructure with customers. Dragon's comm system is a customer relying on infrastructure. Does that make sense? A cellphone is not a cell tower.

That's not to say that SpaceX could never get in the comm sat business at some point, but Dragon is nothing close to a comm sat.

Neither GSO nor comsat were part of the question.

[Robotbeat]

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

Seriously, they've got datasheets and have advertised DragonLab. Why is it not a considered a S/C bus capable of hosting payloads?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
"Telemetry/data downlink: 300 Mbps (higher rates available)"

A comm sat is infrastructure with customers. Dragon's comm system is a customer relying on infrastructure. Does that make sense? A cellphone is not a cell tower.

That's not to say that SpaceX could never get in the comm sat business at some point, but Dragon is nothing close to a comm sat.

Neither GSO nor comsat were part of the question.

You edited out the original context quotes. My post was in relation to the original context.

[DavidH]

Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

Seriously, they've got datasheets and have advertised DragonLab. Why is it not a considered a S/C bus capable of hosting payloads?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
"Telemetry/data downlink: 300 Mbps (higher rates available)"

A comm sat is infrastructure with customers. Dragon's comm system is a customer relying on infrastructure. Does that make sense? A cellphone is not a cell tower.

That's not to say that SpaceX could never get in the comm sat business at some point, but Dragon is nothing close to a comm sat.

Neither GSO nor comsat were part of the question.

You edited out the original context quotes. My post was in relation to the original context.

Sorry. I'll put the original question back.

Has SpaceX showed any interest in building satellites?

If SpaceX can reduce cost to orbit, doesn't that mean that cheaper bulkier satellites become more cost effective. If this type of satellite is not currently in production wouldn't it make sense for SpaceX to think about developing them itself, in a sense, taking vertical integration to its limit?

The satellite could then benefit from getting 'at cost' launches, so further reducing the combined price of the combination (payload/launcher) and enabling even bulkier, cheaper payloads, than if the satellite was from an external customer.

Perhaps, a low risk route to this might be through in-house secondary payloads. It might even create a market for Falcon 1e.

Again, I see no mention of GSO or comsat here.

[Robotbeat]

Well, if it doesn't mean GSO bird and just means making a spacecraft, then obviously yes. Just look on the fracking manifest, it's filled with Dragon flights!

It's pretty reasonable to assume the original questioner was asking about conventional commercial satellites like comm sats and remote sensing.

[gin455res]

Well, if it doesn't mean GSO bird and just means making a spacecraft, then obviously yes. Just look on the fracking manifest, it's filled with Dragon flights!

It's pretty reasonable to assume the original questioner was asking about conventional commercial satellites like comm sats and remote sensing.

I was really thinking comsats and remote sensing, I just added the last bit about secondary payloads to try to stay a bit on topic. But it got me thinking about whether secondary payloads might be a cheaper way of getting some experience in building commercial payloads.

[gin455res]

Didn't spacex invest in surrey satellite technology, who make small sats, a few years ago?

[Robotbeat]

Didn't spacex invest in surrey satellite technology, who make small sats, a few years ago?

I think they sold off their stake.

[peter-b]

Didn't spacex invest in surrey satellite technology, who make small sats, a few years ago?

They bought a 2% stake in SSTL from the University of Surrey. That stake was sold to Astrium as part of Astrium's purchase of the company.

[nimbostratus]

2 pics, NSFers here should be able to understand.

[cscott]

2 pics, NSFers here should be able to understand.

I'd say the second is far more likely (if either is likely at all).  SpaceX have shown a specific reluctance to create more than a single fairing for the Falcon, even though it is widely acknowledged that Falcon 9's fairing is "too big" and Falcon Heavy's fairing is "too small".   Fairing separation is on the critical path to mission success, for the sake of reliability they are putting all their eggs in one basket.

[TrevorMonty]

The first option allows for a crew dragon. Plus a failure of fairing wouldn't effect dragon's mission.

[Zed_Noir]

...
Anyone can manufacture a satellite (with the strict definition ). Comm packages and remote sensing is different. SpaceX manufactured a spacecraft, not a comm sat and not an imaging platform.

SpaceX will need comsat & remote sensing capabilities for their Mars orbital infrastructure eventually. So they might developed something for evaluation in Earth orbit and/or cis-Lunar space that can be lifted up as secondary payload.

IMO. If SpaceX think they can build a small comsat or a small remote sensing platform cheaper in house and need the capabilities, they will build it.

[Robotbeat]

Why do you think SpaceX will do that? They didn't build GPS or TDRS or Earth remote sensing. Mars already has good remote sensing from multiple platforms and even some telecom capability (which can work as a geospatial capability in a pinch). NASA also is contracting for commercial communications at Mars, so SpaceX will have yet more infrastructure.

SpaceX only does vertical integration if they have to. Doesn't make sense in this case.

[Zed_Noir]

Why do you think SpaceX will do that? They didn't build GPS or TDRS or Earth remote sensing. Mars already has good remote sensing from multiple platforms and even some telecom capability (which can work as a geospatial capability in a pinch). NASA also is contracting for commercial communications at Mars, so SpaceX will have yet more infrastructure.

By the time the MCTs departs to Mars. How many of the current and planned orbiters will be viable and have spare bandwidth & sensory capacities?

Besides why depend on someone else for all your Mars orbital infrastructure needs.

Maybe SpaceX might be the one deploying the Martian communication network. Not necessary building the comsats.

SpaceX only does vertical integration if they have to. Doesn't make sense in this case.

I did say if they can do it cheaper and needs it.

We are getting OT, will not comment further on stuff not relevant to the OP. 

[Danderman]

Any new information on SpaceX secondary payloads, or shall we talk about Mars and SpaceX building small satellites and ideas for modifying SpaceX fairings?

[llanitedave]

The first option allows for a crew dragon. Plus a failure of fairing wouldn't effect dragon's mission.

Fairing separates just after second stage ignition.  First option would require keeping it to orbit, dragging along a lot of useless mass.