Iridium & SpaceX sign largest ever single commercial launch contract

[Orbinaut Pete]

Wow, and all this only a few weeks after Falcon 9's maiden flight!!!


Spaceflight Now: "SpaceX captures lion's share of Iridium launch services".

BBC News: "Next-generation Iridium to launch on SpaceX Falcon 9".

SpaceRef: "SpaceX captures lion's share of Iridium launch services".

 

[anemazoso]

There is also this article.

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100617-spacex-undercut-competition-clinch-492m-iridium-deal.html

AT the bottom of the article they says:

"Industry officials said the contract calls for eight Falcon 9 rockets, each carrying nine 800-kilogram Iridium satellites, to launch the Iridium constellation."

Huh? How in the heck are they going to manage that? How could you possibly put 9 satellites in 9 different orbits on one rocket? Also, I've read in the spaceref article that the design for the sat is not done and the final weight is not known.

There seem to be some differnces in the reporting.

 

[Ark]

Huh? How in the heck are they going to manage that? How could you possibly put 9 satellites in 9 different orbits on one rocket? Also, I've read in the spaceref article that the design for the sat is not done and the final weight is not known.

There seem to be some differnces in the reporting.

Yeah, it raises some engineering questions that I'm curious about.

Still, this is a huge, half-billion dollar victory for them.

 

[Andy44]

Well, if there are 9 satellites in one orbit plane, you can put them all up on one launch vehicle and then use their own thrusters to drift them into place after deployment. Current Irridium is in a Walker constellation with over 60 vehicles total, but I don't know how many vehicles per plane it runs.

 

[ddom2006]

Well, if there are 9 satellites in one orbit plane, you can put them all up on one launch vehicle and then use their own thrusters to drift them into place after deployment.

This is my thinking as to the solution as well, with all the heavy lifting done by the rocket, the satellites would have a pretty easy job using very little fuel (Because they've already escaped the Earth, the fuel heavy part of most missions) shifting to a new orbit.

 

[Andy44]

Well, I'm not guessing, here, I'm speaking facts. That's the way it is done for most Walker constellations, including the present Irridium system and GPS. Launch vehicles are expensive; you get as much as you can out of each rocket.

 

[tblaxland]

Current Irridium is in a Walker constellation with over 60 vehicles total, but I don't know how many vehicles per plane it runs.

Six planes with 11 operational satellites in each one. There is some good info here: http://www.rod.sladen.org.uk/iridium.htm

They can also transfer spares between planes by dropping their orbital height down a little and waiting until they precess into the desired plane (the operational satellites are precessing too, obviously, but at a different rate).

 

[anemazoso]

I did a little math and discovered the possible price per lbs to orbit using this configuration. Going from the info in the SpaceNews article if you take the $492 million and divide by 72 sats you get roughly the $6.8 million price for each sat that SpaceNews states.

The implied price — $6.8 million for each 800-kilogram Iridium satellite

~ SpaceNews

So, $6.8 mill / 800Kg = $8500/Kg or $3863.63/lbs.

And that is not subtracting from the $492 million total the cost of referbishing SLC-4 at Vandenburg and development of the dispenser!

Quite a bit less than the often quoted "$10,000/lbs" to orbit.

Imagine what will happen with economies of scale in a couple years when SpaceX owns +60% of the global market share of commercial launches.

 

[Andy44]

Not to mention when competitors spring up.

 

[Ark]

It's certainly cheaper than the Shuttle. But, so is anything.

 

[Cairan]

So, $6.8 mill / 800Kg = $8500/Kg or $3863.63/lbs.

That's smack right where SpaceX said they were aiming back in 2002... Back then, everyone laughed at Elon Musk in the industry when he claimed he could go from "Paypal" to "Payless Launch" in a few years, down to 1/10 of that usual 10000$/lbs figure...

Seems to me, after a longer start than anticipated, they might be on the right track...

 

[ddom2006]

It's certainly cheaper than the Shuttle. But, so is anything.

Apart from Ares missions (About $1billion PM) of course... Which is why many saw Ares as a backward step.

 

[Ark]

Apart from Ares missions (About $1billion PM) of course... Which is why many saw Ares as a backward step.

I cannot describe how hard I facepalmed when I first read that. NASA is too much of a political job machine to ever really make access to orbit cheaper.

 

[ddom2006]

Agreed, However nice the Ares rockets looked on paper, the sheer cost of each mission would have restricted us to 2-3 missions a year realistically, which would have been a backwards step for spaceflight. We need to find a cheaper solution that isn't so heavily reliant on previous-generation tech.

 

[Ark]

Agreed, However nice the Ares rockets looked on paper, the sheer cost of each mission would have restricted us to 2-3 missions a year realistically, which would have been a backwards step for spaceflight. We need to find a cheaper solution that isn't so heavily reliant on previous-generation tech.

What we need is Ford and GM churning out spaceplanes like they do cars. :lol:

 

[KosmoKen]

What we need is Ford and GM churning out spaceplanes like they do cars. :lol:

Just don't let Toyota get that idea.

 

[Ark]

Just don't let Toyota get that idea.

"Three, two, one, MECO......uh oh."