SpaceX Wins Half Billion Dollar Deal With Iridium

To be fair Keith, "most" people's issue wasn't with the commercial viability of cargo transport. That fact has been proven many times over as a decent business model as long as you can keep your reliability up (those high end sats are quite expensive). The issue is more the business model associated with the commercial crew aspect of the SpaceX model.

However only time will tell, I am all for SpaceX raising whatever private money it can and doing everything it can to be the best aerospace transport into LEO it can be. As long as my tax payer money isn't funding it, if I am going to pay for it I would like NASA's safety office involved and that unfortunately makes things very expensive as we have seen on Orion.

"so much for the SpaceX haters and doubters who are convinced that the company does not have a viable future independent of NASA."

I don't doubt they have a future independent of NASA. I doubt they have a future in manned spaceflight independent of NASA. Big difference. I hope I am wrong.

Folks:

Vandenberg will open up Spacex for polar launches now too.

tinker

Too bad space X did not happen 15 years ago. I wonder if Iridium's costs would have been low enough to make it all work out? Hopefully the new Iridium will work out this time around.

IIRC there was to be another announcement pretty soon as well. So much for the haters indeed.

People should not be SpaceX haters or NASA haters.

Most of us want the same things, like a robust, safe space industry with options.

There is plenty of room for debate about how to get there, but "ripping on the other guy" is not the way to do it!

I don't work at SpaceX but I'm happy for them. I hope it works out.

Congratulations team SpaceX! It's fantastic seeing more commercial payloads coming back to the Cape.

Congratulations to SpaceX on a watershed contract for Falcon!

Keith, maybe I am not reading this blog correctly. So, people hate SpaceX because they want to launch satellites into space?

It is remarkable that after the United Launch Alliance largely withdrew from lofting commercial payloads, SpaceX is wining back business for American space launch.

For a few years, the US has had less than 20% of the global commercial space launch market, and that slice is declining.

See page 5: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/10998.pdf

I looks like SpaceX could reverse that trend.

Congratulations to SpaceX. It's good to get commercial launch back into the USA. The key to success isn't luring in a customer with low price, but rather in providing reliable launch service. Iridium, the previously bankrupt telecommunications provider, is a good start in that it involves a number of relatively inexpensive satellites for a provider that needs to take a chance to avoid bankruptcy again.

If a launch reliability track record can be established it opens the door for launching more expensive satellites for established service providers. Sea Launch was doing well in the commercial arena until it experienced a failure. Now it's bankrupt. This is a tough business with lots of liability potential. I'm not convinced I'd take part in an IPO until we see a string of successes but maybe there are enough risk takers out there.

"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..."

I always have been rooting for SpaceX. But that's 240 Merlin engines, all of which have to be built in house as is the rest of the Falcon 9 and Dragon. Do they really have the manufacturing capacity to pull this off? And maintain quality? I certainly hope so.

We are seeing the simple truth that if launch costs can be lowered significantly, then many more commercial users will emerge for space services. Elon Musk, ALONE among the new space entrepreneurs has had from the start the objective of increasing access to space. This is the revolution, plain and simple. And IMHO it can't come fast enough. President Obama is right-let LEO access be served by commercial entities and focus NASA on R&D. Amen.

President Obama is right-let LEO access be served by commercial entities and focus NASA on R&D.

Maybe R&D is best done by commercial entities too.

Agree. ULA made no attempt to pursue the commercial market and is simply not cost competitive. The people attacking SpaceX are defending Constellation. Unfortunately Constellation is saddled with both old technology and the massive legacy processing stream of the Apollo era.

One only has to compare the size and cost of the complete launch complex for SpaceX and the (orders of magnitude more expensive) facilities for Constellation to see that the latter is not and cannot be made competitive.The best thing that can happen to it is to cancel all activities immediately and reclaim as much of the unspent dollars as possible.

As to human spaceflight, the commercial market to orbit at $20 million/seat is only one or two rides a year, but SpaceX will have that market. The idea that "private industry" is less safe than NASA is not supported by the historical record. The design of the Dragon is vastly superior to the Orion for ISS logistics; it even appears Musk is planning for land recovery using liquid-fueled landing rockets that also provide abort capability for launch; this is another ingenious idea that will be a much more practical approach for human spaceflight than ocean recovery and eliminates the huge and expensive escape tower on the Orion.

SpaceX is starting to blaze a real trail in the marketplace, and you have to wonder if Orbital Science will be able to catch up and how long it will take not only ULA but also the foreign competitors for launch services to to respond in kind.

Companies can be like rockets -- once they get a lot of inertia, they go a very long way. It is very apparent that SpaceX is getting exactly that.

The only problem I can see is whether SpaceX can scale their production to meet demand. It's a nice problem for Elon Musk and his folks to have.

Congratulations SpaceX. Keep up the good work. It looks like you found your niche. I'm not in opposition to commercial. It has its place. Now what can you do for us in human space flight? In deep space travel? Will you expect continued taxpayer funding? How will you benefit from deep space travel?

> The issue is more the business model associated with the commercial crew aspect of the SpaceX model.

What is the problem with the crew business model? Do you expect NASA won't be around to pay?

Maybe they will be too busy with commercial business to bother with the hassle of NASA contracts? I wonder if there is anything preventing SpaceX from selling launch vehicles to NASA and NASA launch them from KSC?

I think people are confusing the slightly similar terms "commercial" and "free ride"...

SpaceX will get paid by NASA, and these will be tax-payer dollars. Spent efficiently, as they should be.

SpaceX's found its "niche" all right. It is the launch business.

"I don't doubt they have a future independent of NASA. I doubt they have a future in manned spaceflight independent of NASA. Big difference."

Even if NASA is the only manned spaceflight customer SpaceX ever has at the very least NASA gets to share basic Falcon 9 development and operating costs with other non-manned customers. Its not like SpaceX is developing a totally different rocket for manned missions or something. The go at it alone method NASA has previous used to design and operate LEO hardware just doesn't work in an era without Apollo "blank check" budgets if you want to do things BEO.

"I don't doubt they have a future independent of NASA. I doubt they have a future in manned spaceflight independent of NASA. Big difference."

I thought the big difference was between being all talk and having achieved orbit.

Oh, wait, it was between having a small rocket and a commercial-class lifter.

No, wait wait, it is between having a launcher and also having a man-capable capsule to go with it.

Oh, I know. It's between only being capable of repackaging technologies from 30 years ago under the marketing slogans of "proven" and "heritage" and actually sitting down and building the engineering capabilities in-house to make new stuff.

Now I got it.

"Now what can you do for us in human space flight?"

the "hope" (at least mine) is that they (SpaceX and I guess OSC although less hope there) can bring to HSF the same "innovative" thinking in terms of product/cost reduction that they brought to booster design.

if cost for lift to orbit (human or otherwise) dont come down then the use base does not expand...we have found all the "apps" that are doable at this price marker.

If the cost for humans in space keeps going up (as in Ares) then 1) the effort will never expand past a few government employees and 2) that effort will always be "minimal" because that is all the non spaceflying people are willing to pay for...ie there are no trips to the Moon or Mars because no one is going to pay the high cost for them.

If SpaceX can get the cost for humans down to 20 million a seat, that is still to high for mere mortals...but the price marker is going down instead of up.

As an aside. I dont see this fascination with humans beyond earth orbit. I am a pretty "regular" with the CAssini probe folks (ie I follow the mission pretty close...the Pluto and Mercury probes are a close second), to me that is far more interesting then what is going on on ISS or watching some astronauts on the Moon. I dont see the infatuation with it.

Robert G. Oler

if I am going to pay for it I would like NASA's safety office involved and that unfortunately makes things very expensive as we have seen on Orion.

That's a mouthful. I think the big issue with SpaceX's future as a commercial crew launch provider is how well they survive the negotiations over detailed safety regs. If SpaceX is required to do it the way NASA always has, they probably won't succeed in that business. If they can valiantly fight for a different world view that defends real safety and avoids old-school requirements creep, they could succeed, and that would be a lasting legacy. Perhaps the only thing that really matters for commercial crew.

Here is a thought. If "commerical" space gets around to launching Humans, the astronauts will start sounding like NASCAR drivers... "Yeah I'd like to thank every body on the Hardees, SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, USA, Starbucks, Virgin Galactic, Goodyear, Chevrolet, Ford, Super 8, Coke, Pepsi team, for this successful launch and landing..." LOL

Looks good to me...as a young engineer guess where I'm going to look for a job...hint: not NASA, GO Iridium!

Robert, a couple of points: 1)there is nothing holding back SpaceX or any other company from pursuing their niche or passion. If they want to do it, go for it. 2)"because that is all the non spaceflying people are willing to pay for" is of course merely your opinion and I'm sure you are not claiming this a fact. 3)In my humble opinion, there are "non-spaceflying people" willing to support efforts to push the boundries of space travel beyond LEO. As one of those folks, I can now understand your support for challenges limited to LEO but I respectfully disagree. 4) As a nation we have achieved much with these efforts in the past. American excellence in technolgy is based upon it. 5) I cannot see why some folks are happy with minimal achievement. I don't see the infatuation with that unless of course it is merely a political strategy.

"2)"because that is all the non spaceflying people are willing to pay for" is of course merely your opinion and I'm sure you are not claiming this a fact."

I am claiming it as at least a "working reality" and pretty close to a fact.

There are countless polls that illustrate the American people's unwillingness to pay for humans beyond LEO if it means paying more then they are paying now. Even "red polls" Like Rasmussen (and there are blue polls) show really no inclination to support larger NASA HSF budgets or any real passion for exploration.

But polls aside, there are two other really good national indicators.

The first is that Constellation has almost no support outside the "space congress people" at least support for more money. Nelson (D FL) thought he had some money (about 1 billion) to pay for at least one more Ares test flight OVER the amount already in the NASA budget. Now he has dropped even that facade. NO ONE really is proposing more money to salvage Constellation as is needed.

There is no uproar except among the space congress people on Bolden's tactics about AD or anything else along the lines of shutting the program down.

The second is that outside of the media markets for space spending...for the most part shutting down Constellation is a non issue, as it is with most of the political opposition to Obama. You dont hear Mitt Romney going on about it (Or Palin etc), of all of Obama's "sins" you dont hear it at Tea Party rallies...

Finally a personal revelation has been watching the reaction in TX 22. I speak at a good number of "breakfast/lunch" clubs (an average of 1 or 2 a week) and also I've been to a few Pete Olson events. outside of the NASA groups there is little or no support for more spending.

I'd really like to see a national politician run on a "lets spend more money at NASA" as even minor plank. I will be very surprised if it happens. Indeed I suspect that very tough cuts are coming as the national economy gets worse.

Where do you see the support for human spaceflight spending?

Robert G. Oler

"A paper rocket will always fly better than a real one." --Sen. Richard Shelby

"The path to economic recovery and sustained growth runs through the private sector, not the federal government." --Sen. Richard Shelby

Robert: Here is a new formula for you to consider. Op1 + Op2 + Op3 +Op4 = Total Opinion not Fact.

Let me respectfully respond as follows:

You opine : There are countless polls that illustrate the American people's unwillingness to pay for humans beyond LEO if it means paying more then they are paying now. Even "red polls" Like Rasmussen (and there are blue polls) show really no inclination to support larger NASA HSF budgets or any real passion for exploration.

I submit:
2006 - Gallup Poll Finds Americans Overall Strongly Support Space Exploration
More than 60 percent believe the U.S. should continue to fund space exploration either at its current level or an increased one.
June 17, 2008 - Space Ref.com New Gallup Poll Reveals Americans Strongly Support Space Exploration, Believe it Inspires Younger Generation

Note: These polls are prior to the current recession and prior to Obama taking office.

You continue with : But polls aside, there are two other really good national indicators.

Your Opinion 1 - The first is that Constellation has almost no support outside the "space congress people" at least support for more money. Nelson (D FL) thought he had some money (about 1 billion) to pay for at least one more Ares test flight OVER the amount already in the NASA budget. Now he has dropped even that facade. NO ONE really is proposing more money to salvage Constellation as is needed.

My response: Of course no one is proposing more money to salvage Constellation. At the moment most everyone is responding to Obamaspace and trying to defend the status quo.

Your Opinion 2 - There is no uproar except among the space congress people on Bolden's tactics about AD or anything else along the lines of shutting the program down.

My response: There is no "uproar"? What constitutes uproar? If you ask John Doe public to explain Bolden's tactics or the cost of Ares I or the cost of the Falcon I you will probably get a "uh" response.

Your Opinion 3 -The second is that outside of the media markets for space spending...for the most part shutting down Constellation is a non issue, as it is with most of the political opposition to Obama. You don't hear Mitt Romney going on about it (Or Palin etc), of all of Obama's "sins" you dont hear it at Tea Party rallies...

My response: You don't hear support for Obamaspace at any of those venues either.

Opinion 4 - Finally a personal revelation has been watching the reaction in TX 22. I speak at a good number of "breakfast/lunch" clubs (an average of 1 or 2 a week) and also I've been to a few Pete Olson events. outside of the NASA groups there is little or no support for more spending.

My response: I appreciate your anecdotal point but I'm not surprised.

I'd really like to see a national politician run on a "lets spend more money at NASA" as even minor plank. I will be very surprised if it happens. Indeed I suspect that very tough cuts are coming as the national economy gets worse.

On this point I am in total agreement. Oddly, Obama proposed an increase in NASA funding. Indeed I suspect this was a publicity ploy and the administration knows it will not fly and thus hopes NASA will become non-relevant in the end.

Basically NASA does not serve Obama's redistribution of wealth efforts except as a source of money to give away.

Your question: Where do you see the support for human spaceflight spending?

My response: Not with Obama. While this administration is in office we can expect less not more. The leadership is negatively charged toward NASA and for that matter American Excellance. Going back to your polling issue, a January 2010 poll suggests that 50% were supporting Obama's plan. While he is in charge I suspect these numbers will remain the same until a real leader takes the reins.

On the other hand, if you ask the average American whether they would spend more money on than bailing out the UAW and Automakers or more money on NASA, I suspect you would get more money on NASA. The point is that public opinion on spending is all relative. In the 1950's - 1960's would there have been significant support for a moon mission had there not been concern over Soviet expansionism? Watch what happens to LEO when China, Russia, India or some other country plans to launch to the moon or elsewhere.

2004 Gallop Polls (as reported in Roger Launius's analysis published in Space Policy Journal)
"Do you support spending taxpayer dollars on building a base on the Moon or returning U.S. astronauts to the moon as proposed by President George W. Bush?"
Yes: 24%
No: 63%
not sure: 10%
Undecided; 3%

"Do you believe the United States should send astronauts on a manned mission to Mars?"
Yes: 22%
No: 71%
not sure: 6%
undecided: 1%

"Do you believe the U.S. should be first in space exploration?"
Yes: 69%
No: 29%
not sure: 2%

There's no logical reason why private commercial manned spaceflight companies need to be dependent on Federal contracts for their survival.

Space tourism is going to be huge!

Marcel F. Williams

Well Frank, you are concluding or opining what with these data?

Go SpaceX!!!! This is truly exciting -- something I've been waiting for, for quite some time.

I hope everyone realizes, and particularly the Constellation huggers out there, that we're once again seeing entrepreneurship and capitalism out-produce government central planning.

Government central planning has its time and purpose, as we saw with Apollo. But that time and purpose has passed, at least for LEO access.

NASA. You have a choice: lead, follow or get run-over.

ummm...by the way Frank, could you please supply the exact source for these data. After researching your information I cannot find where a gallop poll or Launiaus cite a question using your first quote. Thank you.

The point is that public opinion on spending is all relative. In the 1950's - 1960's would there have been significant support for a moon mission had there not been concern over Soviet expansionism? Watch what happens to LEO when China, Russia, India or some other country plans to launch to the moon or elsewhere."

I see Frank has posted some polls which make my point. I have others which make my point. We can simply disagree here..

I am struck by the above.

I think that there would have been support for ANY space goal that JFK had picked...and I also think that there would have been support for doing nothing other then what was being done. There is an open question as to the availability of the money and Congressional support for a lunar goal IF JFK lives...

all of this is conjecture (unlike the polls) of course but the point is that what JFK did was use leadership to pivot public opinion toward a goal that HE found useful to the politics of his administration. Just as Obama is doing. You dont agree with that goal. I not only do, but think it was inevitable given the problems with Constellation.

And I think that Obama (or someone) is playing the politics pretty well.

Finally as for the Chinese and Russians. I dont think that the American people would care if either (or the Indians or the Angolans) decided to go to the Moon and pulled it off. The situation is not the same as in the 60's.

But I dont think that we will know in the next 20 years. I dont see any indication that any nation is planning on a human effort to "go to" the Moon. Especially the Chinese. In fact all I think that they are doing is 1) keeping their people busy spending our dollars and 2) playing a Star Wars like game with us...trying to get us to spend a lot of money we dont have.

Robert g. Oler

"We are seeing the simple truth that if launch costs can be lowered significantly, then many more commercial users will emerge for space services."

Um, no...the first Iridium satellite, out of a constellation of 66 plus spares, was launched in 1997; Iridium Communications Inc. was founded in 2001; and competition to build the Iridium NEXT satellites began in 2007. Although I will admit that lowering launch costs should allow new players to enter the market, I fail to see how this sale is an example of an emerging commercial user. Seems to me that this is instead a pre-existing user with a product already under construction signing a new deal with the lowest bidder.

@ Robert Oler:
"There are countless polls that illustrate the American people's unwillingness to pay for humans beyond LEO if it means paying more then they are paying now. Even "red polls" Like Rasmussen (and there are blue polls) show really no inclination to support larger NASA HSF budgets or any real passion for exploration."

Based on the large number of anti-NASA and "lack of support for HSF" posts that you've made on this blog, I'm rather puzzled why you're here. You're clearly not a fan of space exploration, so why are you wasting your time posting all of the negativity?
Just trolling for the hell of it?

"I see Frank has posted some polls which make my point. I have others which make my point. We can simply disagree here.."

Yes, Frank did post some information. And yes Franks post does support your point. The polls which I cited support my contention as well. And I am quite certain we could throw polls at each other all day long and we would not change anyone's opinions.

"I think that there would have been support for ANY space goal that JFK had picked...and I also think that there would have been support for doing nothing other then what was being done. There is an open question as to the availability of the money and Congressional support for a lunar goal IF JFK lives...
all of this is conjecture (unlike the polls) of course but the point is that what JFK did was use leadership to pivot public opinion toward a goal that HE found useful to the politics of his administration."

Yes, as I said, public opinion is relative.

Just as Obama is doing. You dont agree with that goal. I not only do, but think it was inevitable given the problems with Constellation.

Ahhh...finally the crux of the issue. The clash of opinions.

And I think that Obama (or someone) is playing the politics pretty well.

Yes, I do too, much to the detriment of American Excellence and leadership in space exploration.

"You're clearly not a fan of space exploration,"

I see no value for cost in human space exploration as it is currently done or planned for in programs like Constellation.

At some point HSF and Human space exploration has to have some value to the group that pays the bills. We have spent "north" of 100 billion on a space station that NASA corporate has no hint how to make any value out of. Go look at any week timeline of what the folks up there are doing, and it is almost valueless in terms of product.

Likewise 10 billion dollars so far, five years and needing another 30 billion or so to build the equivalent of a Saturn IB with Apollo on top does not impress me.

HSF and Human space exploration needs to 1) get a lot cheaper, 2) have a lot more value for the cost, and 3) actually have some relevance to The Republic which funds it. I think it can. I see nothing in the POR that does.

SpaceX is a poster child however for "American exceptional ism"

Robert G. Oler

My conclusion is that the American public has no clue what the space program offers or does, that soon public and private space activities will blur in the public's mind, and they will increasingly find NASA irelevant to their lives unless somebody somewhere starts an education campaign. These data, BTW, were published in Space Policy journal in 2004.

While I do not disagree with your opinion on the American public's awareness of the space program, I fail to see how you could have drawn such a conclusion from the data you supplied. I would think the "not sure" column would be more than the yes, no, or undecided. It would appear from the data that they are aware. I will look again for the information in the Space Policy Journal of 2004. Thank you.

Based on what I've seen and heard at SLC-40, Falcon 9 for manned missions will be significantly different. Maybe not from the outside, but there will be significant changes. You are right, probably not a completely new rocket, but by the time design changes are made, tested, qualified, certified, and ready for flight, it will cost as much.

Funny. I don't recall making any of those arguments. Take a look at my post history. I guess that's why they call you Crazy Blogger...you just make crap up.