Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

[Zed_Noir]

Why just three Falcon 9? I speculate that their spreadsheets show a gap after the last Atlas V and the first availability of whatever they think is next. New Glenn? Vulcan?

My assumption is that there will be several additional three-launch follow on contracts.

Depending on the launch capacity shortfall with the contracted providers. There might be a 30+ launch follow-on contract to attempt to deploy half of the Project Kuiper LEO satcoms by the regulatory deadline.

[DanClemmensen]

Why just three Falcon 9? I speculate that their spreadsheets show a gap after the last Atlas V and the first availability of whatever they think is next. New Glenn? Vulcan?

My assumption is that there will be several additional three-launch follow on contracts.

The real irony will occur when SpaceX offers them a really attractive $/kg price for launches on Starship. They won't need three-launch contracts when a single launch will get them 8 times the payload mass (150 tonne instead of 18.4 tonne). Precessing the last satellites in a launch will take a little longer, but whatever.

[DanClemmensen]

New thought: I do not think ULA will be able to launch any more Atlas V  from VSFB and the ability to launch Vulcan before 2025 is unclear. Maybe they just need a few Falcon 9s to put some satellites into polar orbits?

[ulm_atms]

And.........this also completely blows up the shareholder's lawsuit too.

[Jim]

New thought: I do not think ULA will be able to launch any more Atlas V  from VSFB ?

  the pad is already under going conversion to Vulcan.

[DanClemmensen]

And.........this also completely blows up the shareholder's lawsuit too.

Not sure. It may strengthen their case. If it's OK to use Falcon 9 for this, why not use it instead of the more expensive and riskier alternatives for the rest of the launches, and why wait for 2025 when they could have started in early 2023 by putting their test satellites on Falcon 9 in 2022? I'm not a lawyer, but I think a good lawyer could do this.

[DanClemmensen]

New thought: I do not think ULA will be able to launch any more Atlas V  from VSFB ?

  the pad is already under going conversion to Vulcan.

That was my understanding, but I'm not sure enough about the conversion (and the reportage about it) to know for sure that there is no way to currently launch an Atlas V from VFSB, so I did not assert it as a fact.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Putting 3 F9 flights in context:

https://twitter.com/derekdotspace/status/1730677763432906996

Amazon has now booked 95 launches for the Kuiper program, most of which are expected to fly between 2024 and 2027.

1 Atlas V 501 (2 sats per launch)
3 Falcon 9s (TBA)
8 Atlas V 551s (27)
18 Ariane 6s (~35)
27 New Glenns (61)
38 Vulcan VC6s (45)

I too expect those numbers to change as the reality of delayed LVs bites.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1730728369246162952

ULA is proud to launch the majority of the kuiper missions.  Two other launch providers were also awarded. ULA remains on time and on track for our launches on Atlas and Vulcan.

[DanClemmensen]

Putting 3 F9 flights in context:

Amazon has now booked 95 launches for the Kuiper program, most of which are expected to fly between 2024 and 2027.

1 Atlas V 501 (2 sats per launch)
3 Falcon 9s (TBA)
8 Atlas V 551s (27)
18 Ariane 6s (~35)
27 New Glenns (61)
38 Vulcan VC6s (45)

I too expect those numbers to change as the reality of delayed LVs bites.

A Falcon 9 returning to ASDS has nominal payload to LEO of 18.4 tonne. An Atlas V 551 has nominal payload to LEO of 18.8 tonne. I don't see how they need three F9s to replace the one expended Atlas. 

[Twark_Main]

Didn't see this coming! I'm betting the recent news that Ariane 6 won't launch until mid 2024 (and may only launch twice next year) was probably making Kuiper's schedule hard to maintain. And with legacy vehicles in short supply, there was really only one place to go...

No surprise that they have finally acknowledged reality and will need to use Falcon 9. The math for this has been obvious for over a year.

Just curious, but how much has that (management induced) delay effected Kuiper deployment? A year? A month?


Just taking notes for my next shareholder lawsuit......   

[deltaV]

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1730728369246162952

ULA is proud to launch the majority of the kuiper missions.  Two other launch providers were also awarded. ULA remains on time and on track for our launches on Atlas and Vulcan.

Per @derekdotspace's numbers ULA has 47 Kuiper launches and everyone else combined have 48. So ULA has the plurality but not quite the majority.

[DanClemmensen]

Didn't see this coming! I'm betting the recent news that Ariane 6 won't launch until mid 2024 (and may only launch twice next year) was probably making Kuiper's schedule hard to maintain. And with legacy vehicles in short supply, there was really only one place to go...

No surprise that they have finally acknowledged reality and will need to use Falcon 9. The math for this has been obvious for over a year.

Just curious, but how much has that delay effected Kuiper deployment? A year? A month?


Just taking notes for my next shareholder lawsuit......   

Depends. IMO the biggest obvious delay so far was waiting for the delayed Vulcan Centaur CERT-1 flight for the test satellites after they finally gave up on ABL. If they had immediately shifted to Falcon 9 after ABL crapped out, they would have saved at least 9 months, ASSUMING their test satellites are actually ready, and ASSUMING their satellite factory really was ready to go and just waiting for the test results. But after that, they apparently can only produce 4 satellites a day, or 120/month. That would need about 4 Atlas Vs a month or Falcon 9 a month, and they still do not have an obvious plan for launching 120/mo. In some fantasy world I guess they magically acquire four F9/mo and get their 1618 half-constellation launched in 14 months starting in about April 2023, and maybe continue for 14 months for the other half, ending in June 2025.
This does raise the question of F9 availability. It would consume 48/yr, which is half the available launches in 2023, or nearly 2/3 of the available Starlink launch slots from April 2023 decreasing to maybe half by December 2023, So SpaceX would be launching as much for Kuioer as for Starlink.

Contrast this with the current non-plan, which does not seem to complete the half-constellation by June 2026 and which appears to have a higher cost/satellite.

[TrevorMonty]

Putting 3 F9 flights in context:

https://twitter.com/derekdotspace/status/1730677763432906996

Amazon has now booked 95 launches for the Kuiper program, most of which are expected to fly between 2024 and 2027.

1 Atlas V 501 (2 sats per launch)
3 Falcon 9s (TBA)
8 Atlas V 551s (27)
18 Ariane 6s (~35)
27 New Glenns (61)
38 Vulcan VC6s (45)

I too expect those numbers to change as the reality of delayed LVs bites.

Neutron, MLV and Terran R will start to come online in 2026 with their capabilities ramping up quickly in following years. Going take until late 2020s before all three combined can match F9R current annual launch rate.

[kevinof]

And.........this also completely blows up the shareholder's lawsuit too.

3 out of 95 launches? Don think so. It will be seen as a token offer, see we are using SpaceX but doubt it will appease any upset shareholders.

[Robotbeat]

It may lead to more.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Can you disclose what variant of Vulcan that Kuiper needs?

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1730971276876144760

Yes.  6 solids, long fairing, and the LEO optimized (small) version of Centaur V

[RedLineTrain]

Can you disclose what variant of Vulcan that Kuiper needs?

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1730971276876144760

Yes.  6 solids, long fairing, and the LEO optimized (small) version of Centaur V

That can't be cheap.  Accentuates how competitive Falcon 9 is and how shortsighted it is not to rely on it as the first choice.  Vulcan is not built to suit Kuiper.  Even though the lawsuit is weak, through it we might see how much Amazon paid for the Falcon flights.

[deltaV]

Can you disclose what variant of Vulcan that Kuiper needs?

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1730971276876144760

Yes.  6 solids, long fairing, and the LEO optimized (small) version of Centaur V

Interesting. I would have guessed 4 solids since 6 solids get only 11% more mass to LEO (27.2 tonnes vs. 24.6 tonnes) and I would have guessed 2 more solids raise costs by more than 11%. Either solids are cheaper than I thought or there's an important factor other than cost per kg.

Edit: 6 solids help more at higher inclinations for some reason, e.g. 25.8 tonnes for 6 solids to ISS, 21.6 tonnes for 4. That's probably why they're using 6.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Interesting. I would have guessed 4 solids since 6 solids get only 11% more mass to LEO (27.2 tonnes vs. 24.6 tonnes) and I would have guessed 2 more solids raise costs by more than 11%. Either solids are cheaper than I thought or there's an important factor other than cost per kg.

Edit: 6 solids help more at higher inclinations for some reason, e.g. 25.8 tonnes for 6 solids to ISS, 21.6 tonnes for 4. That's probably why they're using 6.

The Centaur stage for the Kuiper missions is a lighter variant with less propellants. So the the 6 solid boosters have to compensate for the Centaur variant's shorter burn time getting to LEO.

While the regular Centaur V probably will get to LEO without using much propellants. The remainder propellants is just dead weight after achieving LEO from Vulcan's high staging altitude with 6 solid boosters.

Think  additional payload mass replaces the mass of the omitted propellants with the lighter Centaur variant..