SES-8 success plots trajectory for future SpaceX possibilities

[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.