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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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.
