SpaceX signs largest single commercial launch deal ever -- $492 million | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX signs largest single commercial launch deal ever -- $492 million

spaceref.com

87 pointscharleso34 comments

Every once in a while I get too bogged down in software and forget what much of the rest of the world deals with: $2 billion in capital for a product launch. Jeepers.

It's probably because their particular product takes the concept of launching very, very seriously. :)

I don't think this is for an actual product launch. They are going to help SpaceX launch their satellites...

SpaceX is going to launch the next set of Iridium satellites. SpaceX has no satellites of their own nor do they intend to.

SpaceX is, in my opinion, the most interesting company operating today. Bar none. I'm very excited to see where they go.

Space?

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

SpaceX and Telsa Motors are both exciting companies, and both founded/run by the same person.

Very cool. I wonder how fast SpaceX's success will encourage other private companies to try their hand at building rockets.

Anyone knows what their profit margins are like so far?

I don't know their margins, but they definitely are leveraging (eg, using) technology to take place of both legacy systems, and loads of people in mission control replaced by just a few people with powerful instruments.

They are also fabricating a lot of stuff in-house which drastically cuts down cost. You have a lot more value added when you don't have ten million different suppliers fighting for a profit.

Other private companies have been building rockets for over 50 years. Currently, Boeing builds Delta. Lockheed builds Atlas. ATK builds motors used by other commercial firms. Orbital builds rockets based on decommissioned ICBM motors, built by private companies. SpaceX is selling to the same commercial and government customers as these other firms.

The main difference between them and SpaceX is that SpaceX offers it products & services at fixed price contracts rather than the cost plus contracts used by the competition. That and SpaceX is developing the rocket with its own money rather than on contract.

Cost plus contracts guarantee a fixed profit above whatever cost the contractor incurs building and flying the rocket. SpaceX profit is not guaranteed, but if they do their job well their profit margins could be greater than their competitors margins -- or worse if things go badly. It's that risk/reward balance.

Isn't the difference that SpaceX builts the rockets but also does most of the rest too? You pay they and they get your stuff to orbit. With the others, you can buy a rocket, but if you aren't NASA, you probably can't get it to orbit.

They all do it the same way. The launch vehicle provider is responsible for deploying the customer's payload to a given orbit. They work side by side with the customer at the range and in mission control. But they are on the hook to deliver the payload to orbit.

The range operator is the principle gatekeeper. You may have noticed that the final delays on the first Falcon 9 launch were related to preparing data for the range safety officer. You don't need NASA or the air force to get to orbit, Telecomm and sattelite tv firms get their satellites to orbit. They work with the ranges for approvals and safety.

Ok, I didn't know the other companies did all that too. Thanks for the information.

The delay was actually because the Range hadn't approved the Flight Termination System on board F9. The Range is really not the gatekeeper for orbit, their job is to protect the public and ensure that the rocket doesn't harm the uninvolved public. Thus the sea lane closures, airspace clearance, clearing of the immediate area, and FTS in case the rocket deviates from it's proper course (within margins, of course).

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't sure what the range issue was. I wonder if it was because the FTS was different than the one they flew on Kwajalein on the Falcon 1's or due to different range requirements.

What does this even mean? SpaceX and ULA both take stuff to orbit. If you have $$, you can get to orbit on any commercial launch provider.

This is exciting, hopefully space programs continue to go in the private direction.

I hope that, with the money NASA has to spend in launches, the private sector finds clever and cheap ways to haul people and cargo to LEO so that NASA can focus its talent on doing things the private sector cannot or prefers not to do, not maintaining an impressive (and impressively expensive) fleet of delivery vehicles.

It saddens me we won't see many more 100-ton launches (70-ton shuttle + 30-ton payload) for a while, as those will be replaced by far less impressive 30-ton launches.

I'd love to hear about the insurance underwriter. How do you assess the risk?

a short interview with Lloyds of London's space underwriter:

http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/Features_from_Lloyds/News_...

Q: What special skills does a space underwriter need?

A: With only 150 satellites in orbit and perhaps 25 satellites being launched per year, statistics are less meaningful than most other classes. Instead we have to use experience and engineering judgement to assess the risks. Most space underwriters have some level of engineering support.

At ASIC, the London-based underwriting team is supported by a Canada-based engineering team, with almost 60 years of satellite industry experience between them. Having good engineering support however is only of use if the underwriter can translate the engineering risk assessment into a suitable coverage design, and a thorough detailed bespoke policy wording with no ambiguities.

Only 150 satellites in orbit? The US military alone nearly has that many.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/sp...

He was probably referring to the number of Lloyds insured satellites in orbit.

And the US gov't does not insure its stuff.

The claim "largest single commercial launch deal" is somehow a bit marketing. A launch deal often includes multiple launches of satellite for a multiple years contract. Looking at Arianespace yearly turnover (more than 1000 MEUR in 2009) or ILS, the deal is high but still inline with existing launch deal. Arianespace made 6 launches in 2009 including ESA/research satellite... for a turnover of 1 Billion EUR. We could assume the price of a launch is around 100-200 MEUR... The SpaceX launch will include multiple satellite in one launch. So we are still at a comparable cost for the launch (especially knowing the insurance cost too...).

Tesla IPO, SpaceX signing this deal... good times for Elon Musk.

Well the space launching is interesting but I want to hear something about what the NEXT will be able to do. Will it have a broadband global coverage? That would be pretty awesome! So that they wouldn't have to use so many modems for stuff like this: http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/11/03/artic-expedition-liv...

I'm surprised Iridium has to replace its satellites already. Seems like an incredibly expensive business for them if they have to replace their satellites so often.

They have nearly 70 satellites, some of which have been on orbit for more than a decade, some degree of replacement doesn't seem so unusual.

You are right, it is an incredibly expensive business. InclinedPlane is right, a 10 year lifetime is pretty good for a satellite. They have finite fuel for stationkeeping, and the electronics wear out. The space environment is very hard on electronics.

I imagine the combination of radiation plus the increasing amount of debris and garbage in orbit contribute to the degradation. Plus I'm sure part of it is just keeping up with the pace of technology innovation occuring on the ground. Everything computing/communication-related has been evolving fairly quickly the last 30 years or so.

Ever since discovering that SpaceX was going to charge around 1/3rd what the Russians charge per kg to GTO I've been waiting to see an increase in launches.

congratulations to the folks at SpaceX!

Finally!!! I have very big hopes for what this means in terms of propelling man off into space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com