Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Launch Achieves Geostationary Transfer Orbit

SpaceX launched a Falcon 9 rocket this afternoon in a bid to deliver a large commercial satellite into geostationary orbit. The flight was successful: "Approximately 185 seconds into flight, Falcon 9’s second stage’s single Merlin vacuum engine ignited to begin a five minute, 20 second burn that delivered the SES-8 satellite into its parking orbit. Eighteen minutes after injection into the parking orbit, the second stage engine relit for just over one minute to carry the SES-8 satellite to its final geostationary transfer orbit. The restart of the Falcon 9 second stage is a requirement for all geostationary transfer missions." This is a significant milestone for SpaceX, and it fulfills another of the three objectives set forth by the U.S. Air Force to certify SpaceX flights for National Security Space missions.

19 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It ain't bullshit by Megane · · Score: 5, Informative

    The United States relies too much on ULA for its space-launch, ULA has easily raised its price and the tax-payers ended up having to cough up the dough.

    FTFY. This is the first commercial satellite launched in the US since November 23, 2009 when Intelsat 14 launched on an Atlas V from LC-41.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  2. Re:It ain't bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > What if one day Russia or Iran or China ends up owning SpaceX ?

    What if one day large corporations could pay-off american politicians, on a large and wide scale, with many people knowing it happens. And those people end up determining how the country is run?

    We both know that already happens, and *this* is what your worried about?

    What does it even matter if Russia or the Chinese own SpaceX, they dont, but who cares. They have their own space agencies... ones that actually still operate.

  3. SpaceX is so cheap by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Informative

    that existing space providers are in big trouble.

    Even the Chinese are quaking in their boots, as they can't do it as cheaply as SpaceX. And EADS is frantically redesigning their new Ariane 6 to try to be more cost competitive with the Falcon.

    SpaceX has completely rocked the space industry upside down, and A LOT of naysayers need to eat crow now. As recently as 2012 (see this article), managers at NASA were poo-pooing Elon saying rockets are hard and noobs shouldn't try.

    1. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see oldspace are busy busy busy slagging off Elon.

      There was an ad by Astrotech (or something similar) in the trade press, publically accusing SpaceX of talking a big game but not delivering.

      With this GTO commercial satellite launch -- these old, cost-plus, subsidy-munching dinosaurs should be shitting themselves by now. It'll be fun to watch them squirm.

      It's time for the subsidy queens to eat crow.

    2. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh well, back to making planes that don't fly. Or catch fire.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And the BBC claims they have $4 billion of satellite launches booked.

    4. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by Teancum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What debt? The time when it was extremely critical for SpaceX to make money was during the Falcon 1 flights, where Elon Musk openly admitted that he was about two weeks away from throwing in the towel and declaring chapter 13 bankruptcy. Had Falcon 1 Flight 4 not been able to get into orbit, SpaceX would have been toast as a company.

      At this point, SpaceX is clearing its manifest, collecting so many customers that its manifest is continuing to grow with an ever longer back log of waiting time for new customers, and at this point plans to launch 15 rockets (according to their manifest) next year. Admittedly SpaceX claims that is only 15 rockets that will be delivered to the launch pads before January 2015, but that is incredibly ambitious. That is manufacturing over 150 new Merlin engines, or about 3-4 engines per week that need to be completed. In other words, a very real assembly line and mass production scales of efficiency.

      More importantly, assuming that SpaceX actually pulls this off, they will have more than a couple billion dollars of revenue next year and a healthy hunk of that will be profit. Far be it that SpaceX is going to be swimming in debt, I think they are more likely going to struggle in terms of finding legitimate ways to reinvest that money. Elon Musk also seems to be very frugal and wise with how that money is being spent too. At this point, the SpaceX budget is going to be likely larger than NASA's robotic exploration program.... the whole thing.

      If for some reason SpaceX can't get the reusable Falcon 9 to work and there becomes a huge downturn in the global satellite launcher market, I would agree that the potential exists for SpaceX to go down in flames. SpaceX is gambling on the idea where substantially cheaper launch prices (they are aiming for less than $1000/kg to LEO) will increase the market demand for orbital launches and that this same rate of launching at least one rocket every month is going to continue indefinitely. The orbital launch market has seen crashes before, and OSC was one company in particular who was ramping up production precisely when that market crash happened.

      Regardless, I fail to see where SpaceX is going to crash from debt alone. They are past the critical cash crunch period that new start-up companies all go through and there are numerous people (especially after today's launch) that would be willing to chip in some additional capital if it was needed.

    5. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by bledri · · Score: 3, Informative

      SpaceX is in the red currently and if they can market the heck out their rockets to Wall Street (for funding) and undercut everyone, hopefully timing will allow them to get into the black.

      They do great work, but either SpaceX will survive as much as OSC did in the 90's (they did well to start subcompanies) or they will flame out hard from debt.

      SpaceX doesn't need funding, they have paying customers. And unless something goes terribly wrong, they are about to get a bunch more.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    6. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by router · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poor track record? How so? They haven't popped one on the pad, as all the majors did getting to this point. They built an EELV class launcher for less than ULA charges to keep the manufacturing base available for DeltaIV/Atlas V.

      These posts are so three years ago. SpaceX is bi-coastal and in business. All legacy launch companies are done. SLS? Done. It will go to the real commercial world for 3B$ instead of 30+. Lockmart and Boring cannot compete in any non rigged contest (CPFF what?). No more white collar welfare in the launch business.

      Oh, and birds don't have to be 1/4B$ if launch costs drop by an order of magnitude. You don't have to be that careful. You can afford to lose a few. And, you can afford to use technologies developed this century as a bonus. "Flight Proven" == 1960's tech.

      And we might get humans living off this rock this century, as a bonus. Or we can keep paying the tards to keep tarding.

      andy

    7. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh well, back to making planes that don't fly. Or catch fire.

      Are you talking about the Tesla?

      Nah, more likely Boeing's Dreamliner. The Tesla has nothing on Boeing for self-combusting batteries. At least the Tesla needs major damage to trigger one. :)

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    8. Re:SpaceX is so cheap by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Informative

      His 150 engines number might be right after all, considering the first recovery of a first stage may happen as early as CRS-3. Mr. Musk has said that some of next year's contracts require new rockets, but some have clauses that allow reuse of a first stage, for a price break and at the customer's option. It remains to be seen if any of next year's customers will have to nerve to exercise that option, but it's possible.

  4. Re:Oh great by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have no idea why the NSA/USAF requirements is such a big deal, as it really doesn't have much of anything to do with a private company (in this case SES... an operator of GEO telecommunications satellites) is spending its money on another private company (SpaceX) to accomplish an otherwise very public mission. People are going to be pointing their satellite dishes at this satellite for crying out loud and watching television coming from it. I don't know how more public you can make such a flight.

    The USAF is simply throwing up some BS that SpaceX needs to fly a few more missions and prove it can deliver satellites into various kinds of orbits before they are able to tell Boeing and Lockheed-Martin lobbyists where to go when the next round of launch contracts come out. Those two companies (in the form of the United Launch Alliance... jointly owned by both companies) want to pretend they are the only people in America capable of launching anything into orbit at all.

  5. Re:It ain't bullshit by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    SpaceX could easily raise its price 100-fold and the tax-payers will end up having to cough up the dough.

    What the heck are you talking about? Why would Boing or Lockheed (the current owners of the US govt launch monopoly) be and different? How is *more* competition from SpaceX going to lead to price increases and fewer options?

    What if one day Russia or Iran or China ends up owning SpaceX ?

    And what if some day Russia or Iran of China owns General Dynamics, Lockheed, Honeywell, Northrup, etc? Then those companies will no longer be US defense contractors, and others will *happily* step up to take over their cushy multibillion dollar cost-overrun laden US military contracts. So it's a totally absurd concern that would be no different 30 years ago than it is today.

    When your #1 customer spends more than the rest of the world combined, you don't piss them off.

  6. Re:Biased Media Coverage by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you accomplish something of this complexity for near half the price of the competition the media better be extolling the accomplishment.

  7. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, he's suggesting that all government satellites be launched directly by the government.

    You know, the way all government ground vehicles are built by the government, the way they make all their own computers, their own lightbulbs, their own paper, the way all government cafeteria food is grown by government workers.

  8. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're being deliberately obtuse. Computers, lightbulbs, paper and cafeteria food are all commodities produced by companies who thrive from supplying a wide range of customers.

    Lockheed in particular, and Boeing in great part, are doing custom round-trip design to deployment work often exclusively for the US government. There is no reason not to employ engineers directly, except (from a political PoV) ideological and (from a pragmatic PoV) that Uncle Sam is private business' bitch.

    There is one similarity between Lockheed+Boeing and the businesses you list: all these enterprises began their work decades ago, using their own expertise. SpaceX started merely as a loss-making venture poaching ex-government and contractor employees, and taking government money - it really had nothing meritocratic to bring to the table.

    (Also, "she".)

  9. Re:Is Elon an amateur scientist? by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forrest M. Mims, III. Caught a NASA satellite's instrument mis-calibration. Very much an amateur when it comes to astroscience anything. A rather decent educator, and man, does he have good handwriting or what.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  10. Re:Biased Media Coverage by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Near half? Closer to one tenth. A Falcon 9 costs $56.5 million. The last ULA launch cost $465 million. I don't know that the price difference is all that much of an accomplishment though. How hard is it to beat a bloated cost-plus military-industrial complex dinosaur that exists mainly as welfare for mediocre engineers? The short fabrication and assembly times, the incredibly short integration time, the miniscule size of the launch crew, all while conducting rocket surgery—now those are accomplishments worth extolling.

  11. Re:Controlled booster stage attempt? by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Informative

    For the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 launches SpaceX commited 100% of the rocket's capabilities to boost the rocket into a super sync orbit.
    A GTO orbit is less than 36000Km x 185Km.
    SES-8 was inserted into a 80000Km x 295Km orbit.
    It reaches apogee when the moon is close by.
    This trick helps save fuel to allow SES-8 to live much longer. Typically satellites useful lives are limited by fuel used for station keeping maneuvers.
    In this sense, SES-8 and Thaicom-6 launches are even more valuable to their operators than a typical GTO launch.
    GEO satellites are responsible for circularizing the orbit, and this consumes a lot of their precious on board fuel.