SES-8 success plots trajectory for future SpaceX possibilities

[Chris Bergin]

Bit of a round up of where things stand post SES-8.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/ses-8-success-trajectory-future-spacex-possibilities/

All positive news, so I doubt anyone will care too much for this.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Bit of a round up of where things stand post SES-8.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/ses-8-success-trajectory-future-spacex-possibilities/

All positive news, so I doubt anyone will care too much for this.

was that said with tongue firmly planted in cheek (cheeky ;-) )

That was an excellent article, as a great overview of the situation, now (Dec 20th forward, MAINTENANCE!!) and for the future... Thanks Chris, at least ONE person cares for it: me!! 

Gramps

[Nomadd]

 I've seen the reference to three missions needed to certify the F9 1.1 for NRO jobs,, but haven't seen the specifics. Since there are a lot more than three planned before the first NRO launch, how would a failure somewhere along the line affect that?

[cro-magnon gramps]

I've seen the reference to three missions needed to certify the F9 1.1 for NRO jobs,, but haven't seen the specifics. Since there are a lot more than three planned before the first NRO launch, how would a failure somewhere along the line affect that?

it doesn't look as though the NRO missions on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are tied to these 3 missions, but are Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); Perhaps someone in the know can expand on that;
 The specific part the 3 mission requirement plays is in the below quote

Quote from Article:
Notably, the SES-8 success also marked the second of three certification flights required to certify the Falcon 9 to fly missions under the EELV program. Once Falcon 9 is classed as certified, SpaceX will be eligible to compete for all National Security Space (NSS) missions.

Bold is mine;

[Jason1701]

Great article. I like how Chris lets the reader understand the emotions of what's happening, as in " the SES-8 satellite happily undergoing initial preparations for its life in geostationary orbit."

[Elmar Moelzer]

Interesting article and great info, Chris!
There I was hoping for a 4th launch this year, but I guess that is not going to happen.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I think it's unlikely that SpaceX will be capable of slipping Thaicom-6 off before the late December close-down of the Eastern Range. However, even if that one goes up in January with SpX-CRS-3 in February and Asiasat in March (to meet the NLT deadline imposed by the customer) it still would be an impressive performance on their part. The big question is: can they keep the reliability and launch rate up? That's a big 'TBD' right now.

All said, though, it will be interesting to see how Lockheed-Martin and Boeing respond to SpaceX if they get any NRO/national security payload contracts. There have already been governmental mutterings about the EELVs being too expensive. Because of this, I'd hope that ULA and its two suppliers would have teams working on how they can get their costs down to be price-competitive right now rather than later.

[Silmfeanor]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

[clongton]

No one will care too much for this? You're kidding, right?

When SpaceX launches and NSF reporting become so consistently textbook perfect that no one takes too much notice will be a goal to be coveted by both organizations. Textbook perfect article Chris. Critiquing it is now down to looking for grammar and spelling (lol). Seriously Chris - thanks for another piece of really good reporting.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks Chaps! Glad you liked it.

[AncientU]

Focusing on the topic of OP (not to slight the article's quality at all), the trajectory is set for a financially viable space launch company, but SpaceX aspirations are much loftier.  I see the FH as the next boost to that trajectory -- establishing a second-to-none launch capability.  Next comes human space flight which puts them in a rarified category with Russia and China, at least until additional US programs come on line. Improving reliability (off to a good start in that direction) through these three stages -- over the next two years or so -- will raise their trajectory toward the loftier goals and should be their primary mission. 
 
Lower cost, reusability, new launch facilities, methlox engine, MCT (fuel depots -- taking the liberty to add my leading candidate missing from this list) need to be secondaries for those two years IMHO. But the SpaceX model seems to be (massive) parallel development, so we'll see ongoing investments in these capabilities. 

Just like SES launch, it's not over yet, just first stage was successful.

[AndyX]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

[mlindner]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think I've seen every major one released and no, none of them show relight.

The longest view of the first stage is by this video.

[jabe]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

I have been  thinking along the same line for the past 6 years.  But then again that has been more true for previous launches.  I am wondering if one of the reasons, one of many, they are producing so many cores and engines is just in case the worst case happens.  Lay off a good chunk of work force until the situation improves.
It will be interesting how industry responds to a failure when ones happen. 
jb

[edkyle99]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

[sublimemarsupial]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Not if they were testing the boost-back/RTLS burn instead of the max-q reduction burn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they actually do RTLS, wouldn't they want to do the boostback burn ASAP, to minimize the needed delta v to get the horizontal velocity to get the stage heading back to the launch site?

On flight 6 the first relight, the max-q reduction burn, appears to have happened just as the stage started to enter the atmosphere, allowing for some drag to settle the propellant. The second burn, the hoverslam burn, though unsuccessful, would have had even more drag to settle the propellant. But a boostback burn would be well above the atmosphere, so they would need some other method to settle the prop in the tanks, or have a clever baffling/zero-g prop management system in place. Since they did not test the zero-g prop settling on flight 6 (no boostback burn), I think it is a reasonable guess to say that is what they were testing on this flight, to get a data before the try to bring the stage back for real on CRS-3, especially since they only need to know whether the engines successfully relight and then they can be shut off, requiring only a very small amount of propellant.

[Avron]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, looking at the video there could have been a restart, but for a brief burst, half second or so, just to test the restart capability on this flight see 4:55

[meekGee]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Not if they were testing the boost-back/RTLS burn instead of the max-q reduction burn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they actually do RTLS, wouldn't they want to do the boostback burn ASAP, to minimize the needed delta v to get the horizontal velocity to get the stage heading back to the launch site?

On flight 6 the first relight, the max-q reduction burn, appears to have happened just as the stage started to enter the atmosphere, allowing for some drag to settle the propellant. The second burn, the hoverslam burn, though unsuccessful, would have had even more drag to settle the propellant. But a boostback burn would be well above the atmosphere, so they would need some other method to settle the prop in the tanks, or have a clever baffling/zero-g prop management system in place. Since they did not test the zero-g prop settling on flight 6 (no boostback burn), I think it is a reasonable guess to say that is what they were testing on this flight, to get a data before the try to bring the stage back for real on CRS-3, especially since they only need to know whether the engines successfully relight and then they can be shut off, requiring only a very small amount of propellant.

I think they did not test the boost-back burn, but the re-entry burn (Again)
The difference is that with CASSIOPE they did re-entry with plenty of fuel as so could burn early and really slow down, whereas here they did it almost empty, and were trying to find out how long they could delay re-ignition before they lost the stage.

Minimizing the re-entry burn is very important as far as performance and economics go.  It's still the rocket equation.

[Jason Sole]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

That is a risk. It's a risk for everyone, but I think SpaceX fans are more likely to act like a boy band splitting up, yelling "I never thought that would ever happen."

The higher you place something on a pedestal, the harder the fall.

You just don't get that risk with Atlas V.

[Lar]

I'm on Oahu today (rough duty but I needed the miles!) and in my room overlooking Diamond Head is a hair dryer. It says on the side that it is an 1650 watt dryer.

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

Modern electronics is awesome

The article was really superb, it puts so much of the story together in one easy to digest chunk. needs to be shared widely!

[cleonard]

I'm on Oahu today (rough duty but I needed the miles!) and in my room overlooking Diamond Head is a hair dryer. It says on the side that it is an 1650 watt dryer.

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

Modern electronics is awesome

The article was really superb, it puts so much of the story together in one easy to digest chunk. needs to be shared widely!

It's also shows how wasteful it is to use electricity to make heat.  It's just so convenient.  It might be better to compare to a cell phone.  The battery in my brand new quad core android phone would power you hair dryer for about 10 seconds yet it powers my phone for a few days.

 

[SpaceX_MS]

Great article Chris and thanks for the quality coverage.

[IRobot]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

That is a risk. It's a risk for everyone, but I think SpaceX fans are more likely to act like a boy band splitting up, yelling "I never thought that would ever happen."

The higher you place something on a pedestal, the harder the fall.

You just don't get that risk with Atlas V.

Personally I think that after the SES launch they can afford to lose one rocket. They have shown full mission capability (2nd stage restart). Reliability is what they need to show now.

If they lose one rocket it will be a sales persons nightmare and will drive insurance costs up, but they can cope with that. If they lose 2 in a row or 2 out of the next 3, it will be problematic and some clients might book a flight with the competition.

Regarding risk management (comparing with Atlas V), some companies might have lower risk of bankruptcy by using F9, even if one launch fails, due to cost reasons. A launch campaign on Atlas might not be profitable.

Example:
SES 8 costs $109 million.
Let's say insurance adds 15%.
Now add $60M for a F9 launch. That's $185M.
Now add $223M for an Atlas V launch. That's $348M.

So without considering insurance increase for subsequent launches, you could probably launch 2 or 3 F9 until it succeeded and still be cheaper than a single Atlas V launch. On a multiple launch campaign, statistics are even more favorable.

[Rocket Science]

Great article Chris! Still hoping they get one more off this year, but it looks a little tight... Good luck to them....

[Chris Bergin]

Great article Chris and thanks for the quality coverage.

Copy that, sir!

Great article Chris! Still hoping they get one more off this year, but it looks a little tight... Good luck to them....

Thanks! Yeah, still not official that they can't make end of December, but it's not very likely.

[yg1968]

Great article!

[edkyle99]

If they lose one rocket it will be a sales persons nightmare and will drive insurance costs up, but they can cope with that. If they lose 2 in a row or 2 out of the next 3, it will be problematic and some clients might book a flight with the competition.

Change the "If" to "When", because every launch vehicle in the orbital business eventually fails.  Both EELVs have failed once.  Ultra-reliable Araine 5 has failed four times.  World's most reliable R-7/Soyuz failed twice in 2011 alone.  Proton and Zenit both failed spectacularly this year.  STS failed, sadly.  Even Falcon 9 itself (though not v1.1) has failed.  The fourth Falcon 9 lost an engine during ascent, preventing an upper stage restart that prevented placement of the Orbcomm prototype satellite into its planned orbit.  The satellite quickly reentered the atmosphere, a total loss. 

As for the willingness of SpaceX fans (and potential customers) to endure failures, I'll merely point out that the first three Falcon 1 launches (and first four Falcon 1 vehicles) all failed or were damaged on the ground and that it took SpaceX seven years to finally put one small payload into orbit.  Their support only seemed to grow through the troubles.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lee Jay]

Both EELVs have failed once.

You know, ULA directly states that Atlas V has "achieved 100% mission success".

I know what each of you means, and I'm not sure I wouldn't count both of you as correct.

[edkyle99]

Both EELVs have failed once.

You know, ULA directly states that Atlas V has "achieved 100% mission success".

I know what each of you means, and I'm not sure I wouldn't count both of you as correct.

But you do see what they did there with their "100% mission success"?  By parsing their words, or whatever one wants to call it, they made all of this go away unless the reader does their own homework.  http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av009/status.html

Atlas 5 has a top-tier reliability record even with the AV-009 blemish, which makes me wonder why its operator thinks it must blur the true history.  ULA isn't the only one that does this.  They all do.  That's why I keep track of both the successes and the "blemishes", especially if they insist on calling it "100% ... success".

 - Ed Kyle

[go4mars]

Thanks for the article!

Interesting mission patch.

[savuporo]

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

It says so in its specs sheet.
http://www.orbital.com/newsinfo/publications/SES-8_Fact.pdf
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/GEOStarBus_fact.pdf

Funny, Thaicom-6 is the same bus.

[IRobot]

If they lose one rocket it will be a sales persons nightmare and will drive insurance costs up, but they can cope with that. If they lose 2 in a row or 2 out of the next 3, it will be problematic and some clients might book a flight with the competition.

Change the "If" to "When", because every launch vehicle in the orbital business eventually fails. 

I was being pessimist to the point of 1 failure in the next 6 launches.

[beancounter]

If they lose one rocket it will be a sales persons nightmare and will drive insurance costs up, but they can cope with that. If they lose 2 in a row or 2 out of the next 3, it will be problematic and some clients might book a flight with the competition.

Change the "If" to "When", because every launch vehicle in the orbital business eventually fails. 

I was being pessimist to the point of 1 failure in the next 6 launches.

It's 'if' until it happens.  Then it becomes fact.  'When' is a statistic and there are 'statistics' and 'damned statistics'! 

[guckyfan]

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

Modern electronics is awesome

Yes! Amazing, isn't it?

[TrevorMonty]

In regards to the CRS1 mission,the loss of an engine did result in loss of satellite but I thought that was more to do with NASA deciding there was slight risk to ISS if 2nd stage tried to deliver satellite to its orbit. There was 95% probability the satellite would have been delivered successfully, NASA required 99%.  Primary mission of CRS1 was a success.  It did demostrate that the F9 could complete its mission(primary anyway) after an engine failure. Be interesting to know how the insurance companies viewed. 

[Garrett]

That was an excellent article, as a great overview of the situation, now (Dec 20th forward, MAINTENANCE!!) and for the future... Thanks Chris, at least ONE person cares for it: me!! 

A plus one from me too! Great review article Chris, on all that's been achieved and is hoped to be accomplished by SpaceX over the coming months/years. So much info in that article, and yet it probably only covers about a third* of SpaceX's activities.

Really looking forward to the coming year: Thaicom-6, CRS-3 (and 4 and 5), Dragon tests (parachute drop test, pad abort, in-flight abort), more F9 satellite launches, FH inaugural flight, boost back testing (maybe even landing) of first stages, GH2 flights from Spaceport America, further info on Elon's Mars ambitions and maybe even a coveted CCtCap contract!

Yikes, it'll be crazy!

*YMMV

[CuddlyRocket]

In regards to the CRS1 mission,the loss of an engine did result in loss of satellite but I thought that was more to do with NASA deciding there was slight risk to ISS if 2nd stage tried to deliver satellite to its orbit. There was 95% probability the satellite would have been delivered successfully, NASA required 99%.  Primary mission of CRS1 was a success.  It did demostrate that the F9 could complete its mission(primary anyway) after an engine failure. Be interesting to know how the insurance companies viewed. 

Ed has more exacting criteria.

Nothing wrong with that if - as he does - you state your criteria upfront and everyone can see the basis of your judgements. One is then free to agree or disagree as convenient!

[llanitedave]

In regards to the CRS1 mission,the loss of an engine did result in loss of satellite but I thought that was more to do with NASA deciding there was slight risk to ISS if 2nd stage tried to deliver satellite to its orbit. There was 95% probability the satellite would have been delivered successfully, NASA required 99%.  Primary mission of CRS1 was a success.  It did demostrate that the F9 could complete its mission(primary anyway) after an engine failure. Be interesting to know how the insurance companies viewed. 

Ed has more exacting criteria.

Nothing wrong with that if - as he does - you state your criteria upfront and everyone can see the basis of your judgements. One is then free to agree or disagree as convenient!

Well, if you're saying the secondary payload was one failure in 6 missions, then you're also saying that the primary mission success means 6 successes in 6 missions.  So you can play it whichever way you want.

If each payload counts as success or failure on its own, then each payload needs to be considered its own mission.  That would mean CRS-1 was really two missions, one of which succeeded and one which did not.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks for the article!

Interesting mission patch.

Thanks!

Was one of the NROL patches. The space octopus got a lot of attention, so given that part of the article was about EELV stuff, out came another NROL patch I like!

[cro-magnon gramps]

Thanks for the article!

Interesting mission patch.

Thanks!

Was one of the NROL patches. The space octopus got a lot of attention, so given that part of the article was about EELV stuff, out came another NROL patch I like!

Touching base with your ancestors Chris?? 

[bob the martian]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

I think SpaceX is at the stage would they could easily survive a one-off loss of primary mission or loss of vehicle (unmanned), especially for commercial telecom missions (they've already survived a loss of secondary mission, and that was due to collision risk, not failure of the vehicle).  That's not to say it won't complicate matters from an insurance perspective and they'd have to rebuild some confidence afterwards, but I don't think all their customers will suddenly run off to other providers, especially if it's still cheaper to fly SpaceX.  As someone pointed out, even the most reliable vehicles eventually fail, and I think most customers understand that risk (otherwise, why have insurance).  SpaceX have taken reasonable steps to minimize risks, and they've demonstrated engine-out capability under fire, so I don't think a single failure will bring everything crashing down.  Two failures in a row might make people nervous.  Three failures in a row would lose them customers. 

Losing a manned mission would be bad; losing a crew would be very bad, and that may prevent them from winning future manned contracts, which will in turn affect Elon's plans for Mars.  But even then I don't think it would drive them out of business completely. 

[Lars_J]

Indeed. If SpaceX survived their first three rockets failing (F1 flight #1-3), then they can surely survive a F9 failure at this point. With every successful launch, the risk to the company with a failed launch decreases.

A single failure would be a setback, but not a serious threat to the company.

[Nomadd]

I'm on Oahu today (rough duty but I needed the miles!) and in my room overlooking Diamond Head is a hair dryer. It says on the side that it is an 1650 watt dryer.

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

Modern electronics is awesome

The article was really superb, it puts so much of the story together in one easy to digest chunk. needs to be shared widely!

That 5kw actually an "up to" number for that bus. There are about 50 different ways for transponders to serve multiple customers and I don't know which ones SE-8 uses, but there's no way the total rf output would ever even reach 500 watts, and probably less. It doesn't do any good to have a thousand watt transmitter when you're talking to an 8 watt VSAT on the surface.

[JBF]

That 5kw actually an "up to" number for that bus. There are about 50 different ways for transponders to serve multiple customers and I don't know which ones SE-8 uses, but there's no way the total rf output would ever even reach 500 watts, and probably less. It doesn't do any good to have a thousand watt transmitter when you're talking to an 8 watt VSAT on the surface.

There is always a reason for more power output, and that is to push through interference. 

[Nomadd]

That 5kw actually an "up to" number for that bus. There are about 50 different ways for transponders to serve multiple customers and I don't know which ones SE-8 uses, but there's no way the total rf output would ever even reach 500 watts, and probably less. It doesn't do any good to have a thousand watt transmitter when you're talking to an 8 watt VSAT on the surface.

There is always a reason for more power output, and that is to push through interference. 

How does that help if the other end doesn't have the ability to push back?

[Comga]

And how is this debate about SES-8 and the future of SpaceX?

[beancounter]

And how is this debate about SES-8 and the future of SpaceX?

It's not so back on topic, SES's faith in SpaceX has been well rewarded.  They took a chance, got a discount, allowed for developmemt slippage, and were paid in full.  Well done SES.  Well done SpaceX.

There is now T-6 to launch and then CRS-3.  T-6 is the 3rd launch for F9 v1.1 and IIRC certifies the vehicle for DoD missions.  So I wonder how many new contracts are going to be signed based on the SES-8 success and then if T-6 is also successful, what DoD contracts become available?  And perhaps more relevant is how much capacity does SpaceX have in their manifest for more contracts?
Interesting year coming up.

[StephenB]

I found interesting the quote by SES that the low price of a falcon launch made this particular satellite more viable. That may point the way to the opening of more markets in places where the business case once was iffy.

[joek]

There is now T-6 to launch and then CRS-3.  T-6 is the 3rd launch for F9 v1.1 and IIRC certifies the vehicle for DoD missions.  So I wonder how many new contracts are going to be signed based on the SES-8 success and then if T-6 is also successful, what DoD contracts become available?  And perhaps more relevant is how much capacity does SpaceX have in their manifest for more contracts?
Interesting year coming up.

Hold on there.  In Dec 2012 the estimate was the SpaceX would complete DoD certification in "late 2013".  Based on events since then, that has likely slipped.

Exactly what that certification requires, qualifies SpaceX to compete for, or launch, is unclear.  The DoD new entrant certification plan is specific to each provider, negotiated between the DoD and the provider, and is not to my knowledge public information.

Also, three successful launches does not necessarily qualify SpaceX to carry Class A payloads (using NASA's classification), and to paraphrase the DoD "All NSS payloads are Class A".  The DoD stated earlier this year that they plan to implement such a classification scheme, but they don't expect the classification of NSS payloads to change.

In short, while we might see an uptick in SpaceX adding to their commercial manifest, I wouldn't be too quick to add the DoD quite yet.  The direction to DoD was to compete up 14 launches "before FY2020".  According to the DoD, the number 14 was arrived at by what potential new entrants thought they could provide.  When and how much of that business SpaceX can win is still a big TBD.

For more information see Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide, GAO, February 2013.

[Avron]

For more information see Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide, GAO, February 2013.

This one could be a challenge "new entrants must be able to launch a
minimum of 20,000 pounds to low earth orbit from specific Air Force launch facilities (versus
facilities the new entrants currently use.)
"

[Jim]

For more information see Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide, GAO, February 2013.

This one could be a challenge "new entrants must be able to launch a
minimum of 20,000 pounds to low earth orbit from specific Air Force launch facilities (versus
facilities the new entrants currently use.)
"

That means CCAFS and VAFB.

[macpacheco]

If they lose one rocket it will be a sales persons nightmare and will drive insurance costs up, but they can cope with that. If they lose 2 in a row or 2 out of the next 3, it will be problematic and some clients might book a flight with the competition.

Change the "If" to "When", because every launch vehicle in the orbital business eventually fails.  Both EELVs have failed once.  Ultra-reliable Araine 5 has failed four times.  World's most reliable R-7/Soyuz failed twice in 2011 alone.  Proton and Zenit both failed spectacularly this year.  STS failed, sadly.  Even Falcon 9 itself (though not v1.1) has failed.  The fourth Falcon 9 lost an engine during ascent, preventing an upper stage restart that prevented placement of the Orbcomm prototype satellite into its planned orbit.  The satellite quickly reentered the atmosphere, a total loss. 

As for the willingness of SpaceX fans (and potential customers) to endure failures, I'll merely point out that the first three Falcon 1 launches (and first four Falcon 1 vehicles) all failed or were damaged on the ground and that it took SpaceX seven years to finally put one small payload into orbit.  Their support only seemed to grow through the troubles.

 - Ed Kyle

You're points are logical, but let me add a few counter points:
1 - Having no solids allow for F9/FH be completely tested to a much larger extent (static fires test everything on Stage 1, and hold before release tests everything that can be tested on a 2 second static fire)
2 - Elon's computer guy mentality means his rockets have a paranoid level of diagnostics
3 - Parsing Elon's commentary, he clearly doesn't care if every launch has multiple scrubs, better safe than sorry, that's a very positive attitude
4 - Also parsing his commentary, my impression is they're monitoring engines on static fire / hold before release not based on acceptable mission but on accepting nothing even slightly out of exact performance specs, I'm no rocket expert to compare with other rockets
5 - F9 v1.0 had one engine failure (out of 50 engines counting 2nd stage), and it's stated that F9R engines are substantially more reliable
6 - Elon both has his money on the line and is essentially supervising everything, and given his impressive track record, I'll also speculate his rockets will prove much more reliable than Delta / Atlas / Ariane

So I'll speculate given all of that, that it's a 50/50 toss if there will be any engine failures at all in the next dozen F9R / FH launches. And the chances of having a double engine failure on a single launch is essentially zero.

While I am a SpaceX amazing people, I believe this is a rational analysis of their perspective.
If Thaicom-6, CRS and FH demo launches are all failure free, the probabilities are SpaceX will kill ULA because they will achieve such enormous reliability ULA mission assurance argument will go down the drain (even for billion US$ national security payloads).

[gospacex]

I'll also speculate his rockets will prove much more reliable than Delta / Atlas / Ariane

I'm the biggest SpX amazing people here, but.
It's physically impossible to be "much more reliable" than Atlas - that would require reliability above 100%

[avollhar]

I'm the biggest SpX amazing people here, but.
It's physically impossible to be "much more reliable" than Atlas - that would require reliability above 100%

Take into account launch rate.. if you have a system with 20 launches and 0 failures and another system with 10 launches and 0 failures, the answer which is the more reliable launcher is quite obvious.

[Jim]

You're points are logical, but let me add a few counter points:
1 - Having no solids allow for F9/FH be completely tested to a much larger extent (static fires test everything on Stage 1, and hold before release tests everything that can be tested on a 2 second static fire)
2 - Elon's computer guy mentality means his rockets have a paranoid level of diagnostics
3 - Parsing Elon's commentary, he clearly doesn't care if every launch has multiple scrubs, better safe than sorry, that's a very positive attitude
4 - Also parsing his commentary, my impression is they're monitoring engines on static fire / hold before release not based on acceptable mission but on accepting nothing even slightly out of exact performance specs, I'm no rocket expert to compare with other rockets
5 - F9 v1.0 had one engine failure (out of 50 engines counting 2nd stage), and it's stated that F9R engines are substantially more reliable
6 - Elon both has his money on the line and is essentially supervising everything, and given his impressive track record, I'll also speculate his rockets will prove much more reliable than Delta / Atlas / Ariane

7. While I am a SpaceX amazing people, I believe this is a rational analysis of their perspective.

More nonsense

1.  False.  Solids don't need hold down

2. Unsupported claim

3.  that isn't a unique view, it is common to all launch vehicle organizations

4.   That isn't unique to Spacex, it is common to all launch vehicles

5.  Unsupported claim

6.  another unsupported claim.

7.  Far from rational, much like your other post

[imspacy]

Even Falcon 9 itself (though not v1.1) has failed.  The fourth Falcon 9 lost an engine during ascent, preventing an upper stage restart that prevented placement of the Orbcomm prototype satellite into its planned orbit.  The satellite quickly reentered the atmosphere, a total loss. 
 - Ed Kyle

An engine out is a fault, but not a failure if the primary mission succeeds.... The Falcon 9 engine out resulted in primary mission success.. the COTS payload was placed in the proper orbit..
As to the Orbcomm sat...There was plenty of fuel available for 2nd stage restart to get the Orbcomm to the proper orbit.. but the restart was forbidden by (IMO unreasonable and unfortunate) Nasa rules, not Falcon capability.
The Orbcomm was not a 'total loss'... before orbit decay, Orbcomm was able to test it's various systems, enough to approve construction of the remainder of the sat series.... which actually was it's purpose.

[Jim]

An engine out is a fault, but not a failure if the primary mission succeeds....

Wrong, if it doesn't complete the whole mission, then it is a partial success/failure

[Jim]

IMO unreasonable and unfortunate) Nasa rules

I like how everybody thinks to know better

[neoforce]

Even Falcon 9 itself (though not v1.1) has failed.  The fourth Falcon 9 lost an engine during ascent, preventing an upper stage restart that prevented placement of the Orbcomm prototype satellite into its planned orbit.  The satellite quickly reentered the atmosphere, a total loss. 
 - Ed Kyle

An engine out is a fault, but not a failure if the primary mission succeeds.... The Falcon 9 engine out resulted in primary mission success.. the COTS payload was placed in the proper orbit..
As to the Orbcomm sat...There was plenty of fuel available for 2nd stage restart to get the Orbcomm to the proper orbit.. but the restart was forbidden by (IMO unreasonable and unfortunate) Nasa rules, not Falcon capability.
The Orbcomm was not a 'total loss'... before orbit decay, Orbcomm was able to test it's various systems, enough to approve construction of the remainder of the sat series.... which actually was it's purpose.

Seems that we go around and round on this.  "success" vs "partial success" vs "failure"  vs. how ever else you want to define it. 

Different people use different standards.  As long as you are consistent with your personal definition does it really matter?  As far as I have seen, Ed has always been very consistent that if there is a problem that results in loss of satellite, even if it is a secondary, the launch is a failure.  Others disagree with his definition and prefer a more nuanced approach.

Falcon flight 4, aka CRS-1 is a classic example.  It is perfectly reasonable to say this was a great success because the primary mission was fine even with an engine out as it was designed.  And it is perfectly reasonable to say it had a failure because the engine-out mean the secondary payload was in orbit for a very short time.

The listing in wikipedia, (sarcasm mode on) which should always be used as a primary source of information (sarcasm mode off) lists that launch with primary as success, secondary as a partial failure.   

to me that seems more reasonable than Eds view (failure) but also more reasonable than imspacy's view that it was a success.  Either way, doesn't seem worth fighting over how individuals define things.

[clongton]

Falcon-9 engine out capability was deliberately designed in for just such a contingency. The launch vehicle could have completed the secondary mission and placed the satellite in the proper orbit - there is no question about that. It was NASA rules that would not allow it.

SpaceX and Orbcomm both knew that NASA rules would likely prevent the Orbcomm satellite from reaching its target orbit if there was an engine loss. Too many people judge NASA harshly (myself included sometimes) but NASA has a $100 billion facility to protect. A 99% probability of there being no impact with the ISS is simply not good enough. Orbital mechanics are unforgiving. That is the basis of the rule. Orbcomm knew that and accepted the risk. Sometimes when you gamble you really do loose. Fortunately, Orbcomm was able to get the majority of the data that the satellite was being sent aloft to gather, so while it did not get into the proper orbit and eventually re-entered, the satellite did accomplish most if its mission.

[Jim]

Fortunately, Orbcomm was able to get the majority of the data that the satellite was being sent aloft to gather, so while it did not get into the proper orbit and eventually re-entered, the satellite did accomplish most if its mission.

Then why did they file an insurance claim?

[clongton]

Fortunately, Orbcomm was able to get the majority of the data that the satellite was being sent aloft to gather, so while it did not get into the proper orbit and eventually re-entered, the satellite did accomplish most if its mission.

Then why did they file an insurance claim?

Speculation: Probably because the terms of the policy allowed them to.
Bottom line - it was a business decision. If it were me and I could get the cost of the satellite reimbursed to me I would certainly do that.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Fortunately, Orbcomm was able to get the majority of the data that the satellite was being sent aloft to gather, so while it did not get into the proper orbit and eventually re-entered, the satellite did accomplish most if its mission.

Then why did they file an insurance claim?

Quote: "Nothing personal. It's Business!"

[Kabloona]

Fortunately, Orbcomm was able to get the majority of the data that the satellite was being sent aloft to gather, so while it did not get into the proper orbit and eventually re-entered, the satellite did accomplish most if its mission.

Then why did they file an insurance claim?

The real issue, which hasn't been discussed here, is that Orbcomm needed to prove to the insurance company that the prototype worked sufficiently well to satisfy the insurers in taking on the risk of insuring the launch of the next batch of OG2 satellites. If Orbcomm had not been able to satisfy the insurers that the prototype worked sufficiently well, the insurers could/would have required another prototype launch before they would take on the risk of a full "batch" launch of operational sats.

Evidently Orbcomm did satisfy the insurers that, in fact, the prototype worked well enough. Otherwise, they would be requiring Orbcomm to launch another prototype, which as far as we know is not the case.

The $10M payout for the loss is a technicality based on contract terms, not because the satellite failed, but because the LV failed to put it in a survivable orbit. But in fact the insurers apparently consider that the prototype did fulfill its purpose, ie verifying the design. If the insurers weren't satisfied with the  prototype's performance, they'd be making Orbcomm launch another one.

http://www.space.com/18049-spacex-rocket-stranded-satellite-falls-space.html

[baldusi]

Let's not forget that in the first missions Falcon 9 failed to relight the second stage. Yes, it was a bonus and the Dragons were put where they should. But those relight failed. Either the roll control failed, or the relight itself failed, but it didn't worked.
I always think that reliability is attached to mission complexity. A single uppers stage burn profile is a lot more forgiving than a complex GTO like Proton-M, or LCROSS. A GPS mission, for example, is a very complex mission, in a terrible radiation environment. Falcon 9 hasn't demonstrated anything barely complex until SES-8. I seriously doubt it's ready to do the sort of black missions that DIVH does.

[Joffan]

Which is part of why SES-8 was so important, I guess.

As part of SpaceX's "test stuff whenever you can" - example being trying engine relights you don't need - I hope they were monitoring (and perhaps exercising) the upper stage as it passed into that "terrible radiation environment" after the GTO burn.

Also, to disagree on one point,  I think the "barely complex" threshold is comfortably met by Dragon re-entry.  Unless you see a lot of spacecraft returning intact from orbit that I haven't noticed.

[Nomadd]

Also, to disagree on one point,  I think the "barely complex" threshold is comfortably met by Dragon re-entry.  Unless you see a lot of spacecraft returning intact from orbit that I haven't noticed.

He said F9, not Dragon. He has a point. If the Orbcomm deployment had gone well, that could have counted, but SES-8 was the first that had a relight.

[Chris Bergin]

Topic was wandering, as per usual for SpaceX thread (won't be happening in 2014, I can tell you that much).

Splinter thread fro the antenna chat:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33498.0