SES-8 success plots trajectory for future SpaceX possibilities

[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??