Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX and Iridium Sign $492M Launch Contract

Posted by Soulskill on from the bringing-home-the-bacon dept.

FleaPlus writes "Following up on the successful first launch of their Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has signed a $492M deal for launching several dozen satellites for the Iridium NEXT constellation, the biggest commercial launch deal ever (teleconference notes). This is a needed boost for the US launch industry, which has dwindled to a fraction of the international market due to problematic ITAR arms regulations and high costs. SpaceX's next launch is scheduled for later this summer, carrying the first full version of the Dragon reusable capsule, which will run tests in orbit and then splash down off the California coast."

18 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need private space industry to really start hummin' and making more deals like this. The only way we are going to make space travel actually doable and useful within our lifetimes (or maybe even our kid's lifetimes) is if the private industry really ramps things up.

    Considering how far things have come in just the last decade (hell, even just the last five years) I have high hopes.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:Good by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Boeing, Lockheed and other private companies already handle deals like these regularly - SpaceX is just a new entrant into the market.

    2. Re:Good by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boeing has Delta IV. Lockheed has Atlas V. These are satellite launchers. They do not do many commercial launches since Proton is cheaper and Ariane 5 does not have ITAR limitations either.

    3. Re:Good by Ana10g · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here's three:

      Rockets first:

      Next, Launch Capabilities:

      I don't know if LM or Boeing still provide launch services outside of the scope of ULA.

      --
      just an analog boy living in a digital age.
    4. Re:Good by Tekfactory · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As of June 3 this year only $350-400M has been invested into SpaceX total, less than just this one contract. Less than 1/4 their current NASA contract. They have 30 launches booked right now, lets see how many days they can go without an accident.

    5. Re:Good by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference with SpaceX, supposedly, is that they are much less expensive than the incumbents. Their stated goal is to reduce costs by a factor of 10. Which if they achieve their goal is significant. Boeing, LM and ATK are competing with the Russian Soyuz and ESA Ariane for launch contracts and losing badly because of high costs and ITAR restrictions. So SpaceX is very important to US commercial launch. Perhaps the new competition will encourage Boeing, LM and ATK to figure out how to reduce their costs or lose the market entirely.

      Some of the ways SpaceX reduce costs are using in house designs and production for everything. So they are no beholden to subcontractor cost overruns and communications issues. Another way they keep costs down is the designs themselves which are based on well proven ideas that should prove reliable and inexpensive to build and maintain (comparatively speaking).

    6. Re:Good by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once they have proven their launcher with a valid success rate, then their launch costs are valid - until then, they are just a newcomer touting cheaper rates on an unproven platform. They may fail on the next 10 launches, and spend a lot more money finding out what the issues are.

  2. "We will pay your price" the joy of DoD by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A transcript of an Australian doco on the US space business "The High Frontier"
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1358430.htm
    The contracts to help the DoD show real growth for some with connections. Some interesting numbers and private sector deals with the US DoD are listed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:"We will pay your price" the joy of DoD by omni123 · · Score: 4, Funny

      SIR RICHARD BRANSON: Three years from now we'll be sending paying passengers into space. We'll be sending them - you know, our spaceships will be launching every day.

      Maybe he was a little early with his estimation... (link is 5 years old)

  3. reusability potential by strack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the thing im really excited about is if spacex can get to the point where reusing the first stage merely involves fishing it out of the atlantic after it parachutes down, putting it back on the launch pad, and fuelling it back up. these engines are designed more for reliability, and have proven that through testing through multiple duty cycles. unlike the space shuttle main engines, which require a teardown and rebuild after every flight. we could see the first ever prospect of real reusability, more a car than a dragster in terms of parts wear. especially considering the first stage can complete its mission even with a engine failure at any point during its flight.

    1. Re:reusability potential by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

      It has nine engines in the first stage (and another similar engine in the second stage, to save on research and production costs)
            Losing one engine is no longer a reason to detonate the rocket.

    2. Re:reusability potential by Tekfactory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, the shuttle engines COULD be reused without teardowns between each flight if the controls apparatus had been designed differently.

      If you go to the MIT OpenCourseware site and look for the Aerospace Engineering classes lectures on the shuttle, the shuttle was designed before CAD, and if the wiring had been included to test the engines, they could put the whole shuttle in the test harness to test fire the engines.

      There is a lot they would do differently if they were trying to redesign the shuttle today, this makes me hopeful for whatever follows the X-37.

    3. Re:reusability potential by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the thing im really excited about is if spacex can get to the point where reusing the first stage merely involves fishing it out of the atlantic after it parachutes down, putting it back on the launch pad, and fuelling it back up.

      I was really impressed by this bit of the teleconference notes linked in the summary, which shows just how dedicated Elon Musk is about reusability:

      http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27574

      I asked him if they knew yet why the first stage didn't survive entry, or if they would have to wait for another flight to get better data (because they didn't get the microwave imaging data they wanted). He said that they still didn't know, and might not figure it out until they try again. I followed up, asking if he could conceive of a time that they might just give up on it, and pull the recovery systems out to give them more payload. I was surprised at the vehemence of his answer (paraphrasing): "We will never give up! Never! Reusability is one of the most important goals. If we become the biggest launch company in the world, making money hand over fist, but we're still not reusable, I will consider us to have failed." I told him that I was very gratified to hear that, because I like reusability.

  4. What about junk? by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a needed boost for the US launch industry

    With a boost of commercial launches, won't there also be a boost of space junk when these orbiting things are decommissionned 15 years from now? How does that increase collision risks, like the 2009 Iridium/Kosmos collision?

    Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life, instead of trying to make money out of launching things only...

    1. Re:What about junk? by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe it's time for thinking about mandatory destruction of satellites at the end of their useful life

      Already done. Everything up there aside from a few nuclear powered Soviet satellites has a plan for coming down (such as stuff in LEO which can reenter Earth's atmosphere without much difficulty) or getting boosted to a more remote orbit (such as stuff in geostationary orbit).

  5. Iridium not in GEO by ridgecritter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Iridium satellites (both current and next generation) are in LEO, not GEO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation

  6. The FCC Mandates this already by Larson2042 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The FCC calls for all US-registered spacecraft to be disposed of at the end of its useful life. This means either decay into the atmosphere within a specific amount of time (25 years, I think) or placement into a "disposal" orbit. For geosynchronous spacecraft, that disposal orbit is one slightly higher, getting it out of the way of operational spacecraft.

  7. Re:Iridium, commercial? by 'Aikanaka · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're full of shit. If that were true the DoD wouldn't have to sign multi-million dollar contracts with Iridium for upkeep and airtime. See http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=2769, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iridium-03a.html, http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=412313, http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3235, etc.