SpaceX nets yet another huge contract

[MicroBalrog]

Contract for Launch of Iridium NEXT Satellite Constellation Represents a New Benchmark in Value for Commercial
Launch Services


MCLEAN, Va. and HAWTHORNE, Calif. – June 16, 2010 – Iridium Communications Inc. (Nasdaq:IRDM) and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) are pleased to announce that the Falcon 9 will be a major provider of launch services for Iridium NEXT, Iridium’s next-generation satellite constellation. The $492 million contract, while being the largest single commercial launch deal ever signed, nonetheless represents a new benchmark in cost-effective satellite delivery to space.

Iridium operates the world’s largest commercial satellite constellation, and is the only communications company to offer mobile voice and data services across the entire globe. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle will carry multiple Iridium NEXT satellites per vehicle, inserting the satellites into a low-earth orbit (LEO) as Iridium replaces its current satellite constellation. The Iridium NEXT satellites are set to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California between 2015 and 2017.

The contract stipulates that SpaceX will provide launch services to Iridium over a two-year period starting in early 2015. Iridium is also in discussions with, and expects to contract with, at least one additional launch services provider. Launch services are included in the total estimated cost of $2.9 billion for Iridium NEXT.

“This is the third major building block on the road to Iridium NEXT,” said Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium. “Two weeks ago, we announced our fixed-price contract with Thales Alenia Space. We also announced our Coface-backed financing plan, and today I am pleased to announce our partnership with SpaceX for extremely cost-effective launch services.”

Added Desch, “We are proud to be partnered with SpaceX, and want to congratulate Elon Musk and the entire SpaceX team on its successful inaugural Falcon 9 launch. Hands down, SpaceX offered us the best value coupled with an unwavering commitment to flawless performance and reliability. SpaceX has combined the best of aerospace and commercial best practices to design reliable and cost-effective access to space, and Iridium will be the beneficiary of that effort.”

Desch further commented, “SpaceX also offered dedicated Iridium NEXT launch slots within its manifest, which currently has 24 Falcon 9 flights scheduled ahead of us, including those for commercial and government customers, during the coming five years. Clearly, SpaceX has established itself as a significant player in the launch industry, and we have great confidence that SpaceX will build on its recent success and continue to cement an impressive track record of successful space flight in advance of our mission.”

The June 4 inaugural launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 achieved 100 percent of its mission objectives, culminating in a near bull’s-eye insertion to its targeted 250km circular orbit. SpaceX has been working with Iridium and Thales Alenia Space, the prime contractor for Iridium NEXT, to ensure compatibility between the satellite design, the Falcon 9 vehicle and the Iridium NEXT program schedule. This full coordination positions Iridium, SpaceX and Thales Alenia Space for a successful multi-year process of designing, building and launching Iridium NEXT.

“Iridium NEXT is now our largest commercial satellite launch customer and we are excited to play such an integral part in the most significant commercial space program underway today,” said Elon Musk, CEO, SpaceX. “We are impressed by Iridium’s comprehensive approach and diligence in its planning as the company prepares for the design, build and launch of Iridium NEXT. SpaceX greatly appreciates Iridium’s efficient approach to satellite production – an approach we share when it comes to our launch vehicles. As the next generation of the world’s only global satellite constellation that reliably covers 100 percent of the Earth’s surface, the implementation of the Iridium NEXT satellites will mark a significant achievement in mobile satellite communications, and SpaceX is looking forward to making it happen.”

The SpaceX Falcon 9 is a medium-to-heavy lift, two-stage launch vehicle capable of lifting approximately 11 tons to LEO. Designed to the highest levels of reliability and performance, NASA selected Falcon 9, along with the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, to resupply the International Space Station starting in 2011. This $1.6 billion contract represents 12 flights to and from the International Space Station. Further validating the reliability and robustness of commercial launch, President Obama recently decided to turn over astronaut transport to the U.S. commercial sector, specifically mentioning the example of Falcon 9 in his historic speech at Cape Canaveral. The U.S. government's confidence in SpaceX provided further validation for Iridium’s decision.

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100616

Micro Sez: For once, an Obama move I am fully in agreement with.

[AJ Dual]

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100616

Micro Sez: For once, an Obama move I am fully in agreement with.

I agree, although I bet we'd BOTH disagree with his motives for this move vis-a-vi space travel and exploration/exploitation in general.

My hope is that if the U.S. gets the jump in commoditized and commercialized launch services, that in the long run, Russian, ESA, and Chinese launch services will be the "Aeroflot of space". 

[tyme]

I support this product and/or service.

[zahc]

Dammit they need to hire me. I've applied like a zillion times.

[MechAg94]

I support this product and/or service.

I think we should all support this company and buy their products.   


....or maybe not.

[kgbsquirrel]

Hmm, the dragon capsule seems to be a step back in technology. Going back to ablative heat shields and water/parachute landings takes us back to the re-entry methods of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

[AZRedhawk44]

Hmm, the dragon capsule seems to be a step back in technology. Going back to ablative heat shields and water/parachute landings takes us back to the re-entry methods of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

It's more energy efficient.

The Space Shuttle was designed the way it was, in order to facilitate clandestine de-orbit of payloads, IMO.

With electronic transmission rates what they are now, that has become unnecessary for information (spy satellites, for example).  And with the Air Force's new unmanned micro-shuttle, they can orbit/de-orbit any "other" payload fairly easily without having the payload exposed to anyone else's observation during descent or recovery.

The Space Shuttle was always a military asset more than a sensible tool for orbital insertion.

[lupinus]

Hmm, the dragon capsule seems to be a step back in technology. Going back to ablative heat shields and water/parachute landings takes us back to the re-entry methods of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

And we still use the same basic internal combustion engine we've been using for round about a hundred years. It's still the best and most efficient method to power vehicles. Albeit, modern ones have various upgrades and refinements and such.

Staged rocket with capsule vs. shuttle or shuttle like system is kind of similar IMO. The rocket with a capsule on the end just plain works and with modern upgrades is still an advancement over the 60's tech. The shuttle, OTOH, worked well but never really lived up to or advanced the idea of an easily reusable space craft.

[AJ Dual]

Hmm, the dragon capsule seems to be a step back in technology. Going back to ablative heat shields and water/parachute landings takes us back to the re-entry methods of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

It's not what's the most technologically sophisticated, it's what makes the most sense and what is the most efficient in both materials AND labor.

The Space Shuttle was a miserable failure in that department. For the refurb required of the "reusable" components of the shuttle, you could have sent 3-4 times the people and tonnage into Low Earth Orbit. All it really did is take something relatively simple, the rocket, and make it more expensive and more complex with more potential points of failure. Heat shield tiles that were all unique and custom to cover an airplane shape, as opposed to a few simple shapes that would cover the lenticular shape of a capsule's bottom. (like 2 or 3 different triangles)

And all the extra labor became an entrenched multi-state Congressional pork project.

Reusable makes GREAT sense on the cargo so you don't ever have to boost it again. But not so much on the launchers where all the wear/tear is.

The Shuttle set back the U.S. Space program by 20 years easily.

[kgbsquirrel]

Good enough answers I suppose. SpaceX is the group working on a true single-stage-to-orbit reusable craft though, right?

[AJ Dual]

Good enough answers I suppose. SpaceX is the group working on a true single-stage-to-orbit reusable craft though, right?

Even if you do go reusable or quasi-reusable, a capsule is immensely more efficient. It's so much simpler, because with a spaceplane/glider design, you have all the mechanical issues with a hypersonic, supersonic, and subsonic atmospheric aircraft, AND a spaceship.

A capsule is well, just a capsule. No control surfaces, no landing gear, more uniform aerodynamic forces, no leading edges etc. And a shape with multiple (infinite almost) axes of symmetry for parts commonality in things like thermal tile shapes etc.

Also, you're not wasting your already precious mass-fraction on all those "airplane parts" that are useless until the actual landing.

[kgbsquirrel]

Even if you do go reusable or quasi-reusable, a capsule is immensely more efficient. It's so much simpler, because with a spaceplane/glider design, you have all the mechanical issues with a hypersonic, supersonic, and subsonic atmospheric aircraft, AND a spaceship.

A capsule is well, just a capsule. No control surfaces, no landing gear, more uniform aerodynamic forces, no leading edges etc. And a shape with multiple (infinite almost) axes of symmetry for parts commonality in things like thermal tile shapes etc.

Also, you're not wasting your already precious mass-fraction on all those "airplane parts" that are useless until the actual landing.

Except you are throwing away an entire rocket booster assembly every time you lift a capsule, instead of just fuel with a single-stage-to-orbit. Note single-stage. Meaning those "airplane parts," the lifting body and wings are used to launch it from the ground as well as land again. I suspect that was one of the serious issues with the shuttle, it was a two-stage design that still used a conventional rocket launch where it had to heft its entire mass straight up using the motors rather than a rolling start with atmospheric lifting first, gaining speed and altitude and then going for escape velocity (or at least just a climb to LEO). More complicated than a traditional booster sure, but in the long run a true SSTO is going to be more efficient simply because of the throw away costs associated with junking a set of rocket motors and chassis each launch.

Anyone have any figures regarding the cost of a rocket motor versus say a quantity of RP-1 and LOX? I'm wondering what the break even point is between fuel expended for an SSTO versus disposable rocket lifters.