Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Launches More Than 60 Small Satellites Into Orbit (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up,-up,-and-away dept.

SpaceX notched its 19th launch of the year Monday, lofting 64 small spacecraft from 34 organizations into low Earth orbit. A Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast at about 10:34 a.m. local time. The customer was Spaceflight Industries, a Seattle-based company that organized the launch on behalf of several clients. From a report: The Spaceflight SSO-A: SmallSat Express mission includes 15 microsats and 49 cubesats from commercial and government entities, including universities, startups and a middle school, according to the SpaceX press kit. The payloads -- which vary from technology demonstrations and imaging satellites to educational-research endeavors -- are from 17 countries, including the U.S., Brazil, India and South Korea.

SpaceX said a series of six deployments would occur about 13 to 43 minutes after takeoff, then Spaceflight would command its own deployment sequences over a period of six hours. The Falcon 9's first stage has flown twice before: in May 2018 and again in August. SpaceX recovered it Monday on "Just Read the Instructions," a droneship in the Pacific Ocean. SpaceX also attempted to recover the rocket's fairing, which encloses the payload, with Mr. Steven, a boat designed to capture it in a massive net.

54 comments

  1. Lofted into orbit by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I heard Musk was arrested!"
    "What for?"
    "SpaceX launched a boat into orbit as a stunt."
    "And?"
    "He was arrested for shiplofting."

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Thanks Rei by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Another update from Rei. Thanks!

    1. Re: Thanks Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rei is best girl. Asuka a shit.

  3. Looking forward to acquisition of signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got some local ties to MinXSS-2, and people around here are excited and ready to start collecting data.

    1. Re:Looking forward to acquisition of signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Interesting link, thanks for posting that.

      This seems to be a good sign for future smallsats:

      "MinXSS is also the first flight of the Blue Canyon Technologies XACT attitude determination and control system (ADCS), one of the only commercially available 3-axis ADCSs for CubeSats. It is performing even better than its specification.[14] This demonstrates that a critical technology for spacecrafts has been successfully miniaturized and commercialized. "

  4. Semantics? by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    Marketing: "We are about to publish a press release about our successful satellite launch."

    Engineering: "Wait! The satellite just broke up into 60 pieces!"

    Marketing: "60? Hmmm..."

    Press-Release: "Space X has successfully launched 60 satellites at once!"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. LOL, by bobstreo · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a giant Fuck You to AT&T and Direct TV.

    One can only hope the 7500 satellites Musk has planned will soon be available.

    1. Re:LOL, by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Those middle-school microsats are a direct threat to AT&T.

    2. Re:LOL, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Those middle-school microsats are a direct threat to AT&T.

      At least for the next 2 weeks before they deorbit on their own.... AT&T is quaking in their boot shaped cell towers...

    3. Re:LOL, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could just lease the time on the dishes and then pass along all the savings to their customers..

    4. Re:LOL, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education in general is a direct threat to television companies.

    5. Re:LOL, by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      AT&T/DirectTV''s satellites should be live for another two decades. They just don't plan on extending EOL.

      That's a lot of notice.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. Space junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    64 satellites? Don't we have enough debris in orbit?!

    1. Re:Space junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is a coated Mylar balloon "sculpture", which will likely cause enough light pollution to affect Earth-based optical telescopes

      They will all de-orbit in a few weeks, so this launch serves only as a warning to what could happen if people are allowed to put all sorts of uncontrolled garbage in orbit

    2. Re:Space junk by mmphs · · Score: 1

      One of these satellites (PW-Sat2) is built by university students with an intention to test a "sail"-based deorbitation system (among others). All the documentation is available on the the project's website (https://pw-sat.pl/en/home-page/), which might be a great help to other students who might want to start their own projects. I think it's great.

  7. Numbers? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    So what do they charge per kg for a ride on a launch like that? Is it less than what the going rate was before?

    1. Re:Numbers? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Depends. If it is taxpayer money the answer is "as much as possible".

    2. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what do they charge per kg for a ride on a launch like that? Is it less than what the going rate was before?

      About $2700 / kg to LEO. That price is much more than SpaceX's internal costs. Since other providers charge a lot more, they have no further competitive need to lower the end-customer price until other providers drop their own costs. This is the third flight of this booster, which is expected to be good for 10 flights before need significant refurb. SpaceX's internal prices will only decline from here out.

      Yes, it's less than the going rate before SpaceX got into the biz. They are shaking up the whole industry, and many of the old players are nervous. That doesn't mean all other launch companies will go bust though. The US will maintain at least two, for 'assured access". The EU's launch company is not price competitive, but EU will subsidize them to avoid being dependent on US companies.

    3. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is the cheapest government launch provider, so that is clearly untrue, since other providers charge more for the same missions.

      SpaceX did hike the prices it charges the government for supply missions to the ISS recently, but they are STILL cheaper than their competition, even after raising their prices. Most of that price hike was blamed by the government's own auditors on NASA forcing mid-project design changes, not on SpaceX.

      The same government auditors also recommend that NASA fly on already-flown rockets. Right now NASA requires new rockets, which are more expensive. They could save many millions per launch that way. They are also likely to be more reliable in the middle of their service life due to the "bathtub curve".

    4. Re:Numbers? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Great. Cheapest government launch provider? That is like saying they are the skinniest fat kid.

    5. Re:Numbers? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the analysis, Rei.

    6. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, this C88 guy is weird. Mr Passive Aggressive...

    7. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be that I'm missing something, but from my basic understanding something kind of stinks about the CRS-2 contract. Placing an artificial limit on the number of launches in the contract when your lowest bidder happens to also have the lowest volume launcher smells like some bureaucrat is trying to red-tape them out of the contract in favor of one or more of the competitors. It would be like a company asking for bids to transport widgets from one factory to another and for no apparent reason saying that it has to be done in 4-5 trips. Generally speaking you wouldn't really care how many trips it took as long as the widgets made it from point A to point B in a timely, safe and cheap manor. A company may even find it advantageous to have smaller more regular shipments.

    8. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are also the cheapest provider in the commercial market, so no matter how you look at it, they are driving down launch costs.

      Government launches are more expensive across the board than commercial ones due to the paperwork burden.

    9. Re:Numbers? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      You get used to him. At least I have no problem with him although I find some of his opinions rather odd.

    10. Re:Numbers? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "Odd"means against the groupthink. I agree. Somehow I don't think launching satellites is newsworthy. Somehow when Musk does it, it become groundbreaking.

    11. Re:Numbers? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That's great. I was worried that corporations were paying too much for launch costs. Truly a major problem on the planet.

    12. Re:Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far everything you've claimed via sarcasm has turned out to be demonstrably false.

      Do you really want to keep going?

  8. More than 60? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You couldn't just say 64? It's right there in TFS and TFA -- and "Launches 64" is shorter (and more accurate) than "Launches More Than 60". Yes, I realize that's the actual title of TFA (I checked), but seriously editors, you can edit stuff.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:More than 60? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      How about "SpaceX Launches More Than Two Satellites Into Orbit"?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:More than 60? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      But more is better!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:More than 60? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      And less than or equal to 2 to the 6th power.

    4. Re:More than 60? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Editor's primary job is to increase attention; or jack up traffic/clicks. Secondary is to convey the facts. Here he/she made the right choice of words so as not to lie and increase interest in the reader. I'm sure even an AI will choose words that way if stated as goal as grabbing maximum attention.

    5. Re:More than 60? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      SpaceX launches the largest number of satellites into orbit from the western hemisphere.
      [i guess ISRO holds the record some 90 plus]

  9. True Grit by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Oh great. More grit to get stuck in the ISS

    1. Re:True Grit by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      They're not even in the same orbit as the ISS and space is huge

    2. Re:True Grit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

    3. Re:True Grit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol. Glad you KNOW space, but stick to Twitter please.

  10. 3rd Launch for that booster. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most interesting, for me anyway, is that this was the 3rd launch for this booster. It was also recovered so conceivably it could be used again. Be very very interesting to know how the boosters structure is holding up to the stresses.

    1. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      SpaceX is very interested in that, too.

    2. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well Musk described the Block 5 as the final version and the plan is ten launches before any major rework/disposal, so big problems after three would be underwhelming. It's probably more a question of figuring out how much is enough, what inspections and refurbishment is necessary. I hope they've now found some kind of protocol for it though, you'd think what they do between 3rd and 4th launch should be very similar to what they did between 2nd and 3rd launch. He doesn't have to rush one booster but I hope he does so we'll see if 4th-5th-6th-7th go just as smooth. Also it's the first time I've seen SpaceX give the fairing recovery attempt so much coverage, it probably means they're getting close.

      And if they finally get their crew certification then 2019 might become a very interesting year in spaceflight. Well actually they all are, recently.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did. But he also allowed for minor optimizations with NASA approval. He just won't increment the version again. It is likely that every single rocket launch, including those of used vehicles, is still ever so slightly different in configuration from every one before it.

    4. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

      As to the fairing recovery... I gathered from Musk's statement that reuse is imminent but catching it has become a nicety. I guess they've been simultaneously working on making sure it lands softly and making it reusable after a soft landing in seawater.

    5. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      While the design aim is 10 launches SpaceX is operating in essentially uncharted territory. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are some components that are wearing faster than expected and or aren't living up to design specifications.

      Given they had a bracket fail on a launch way below its rated load and wreck a launch, I think having all components living up to their design tolerances under stresses previously never tried before would be downright amazing.

    6. Re:3rd Launch for that booster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect for the next few years they will be thoroughly inspecting boosters after each flight, to assure themselves that stuff which isn't supposed to wear out actually doesn't. At some point they'll have enough experience to feel they can safely skip inspecting many parts, but that point isn't here yet. (This analysis is speculation/opinion, not knowledge.)

  11. Why are we letting this continue? by jddj · · Score: 1

    Nice idea to think that clubs and schools could do something as audacious as launch a satellite, but Jeebus, SpaceX, NASA, Virgin Galactic, and everybody else are going to have to launch through a blanket of this space trash.

    Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to continue on this path, given what we know about the amount of space junk out there already - at least not until we figure out how to de-orbit a bunch of this stuff whose creators didn't make any EoL plans for it.

    1. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by jddj · · Score: 1

      And no, I don't work for Jeebus Aeronautics.

    2. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by sirsnork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cube Sat's deorbit by themselves in weeks. These things won't be up there cluttering up anything

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    3. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will not add to the long term space junk. They will re-enter in a short time and will not add to the accumulation of "space junk".

    4. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      at least not until we figure out how to de-orbit a bunch of this stuff whose creators didn't make any EoL plans for it.

      Maybe you could think about some solutions, and write a letter to NASA ?

    5. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by nadaou · · Score: 1

      Well, how long they stay up depends on the orbit you put them in of course. In a cheap LEO or one that is highly eccentric they won't stay up too long, but at 575 km near circular orbit as with this launch they'll be up there for a while. If you put one in high geostationary orbit it will be stable for probably longer than our civilization.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    6. Re:Why are we letting this continue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like all of the satellites on this launch have pretty conservative deorbit times (a few weeks to 7 years) that shouldn't contribute in any meaningful way to orbital debris. It even sounds like a few of the satellites are testing deorbiting technologies, the carrier craft have some kind of deploy-able drag chutes/balloons.

  12. Cheapest ... if you don't read the fine print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX doesn't do the payload integration so they can pass the blame. They're also buying market share, which ULA is prohibited from doing contractually (And I believe they are required to do by court order as a court directed heavy lift monopoly) The question now is if Boeing can break freer from LockMart now that there is competition.

  13. ISRO still holds the record for rideshares thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it was a PSLV throwing 104 sats as the record?