
SpaceX Successfully Completes First Mission to Geostationary Transfer Orbit - jamesmoss
http://www.spacex.com/press/2013/12/03/spacex-successfully-completes-first-mission-geostationary-transfer-orbit
======
pvnick
SpaceX is the company that really makes Elon Musk a role model for me. I find
everything they do inspirational. I must have watched that video of their
employees outside mission control watching the falcon 9 launch a dozen times
[1]. You should see the lines of students at my university's career fair when
they come, you almost can't even see the recruiters behind the sea of
undergrads swarming their booth.

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XtD-5L7cLk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XtD-5L7cLk)

~~~
bhauer
Agreed! I love watching the videos because I live in Hawthorne, which is a
very modest suburb of Los Angeles (where homes in the safer neighborhoods are
_only_ $700k). So when they say things like "Hawthorne Control," it makes me
proud of this town and hope for a little bit of a coattails effect for the
Hawthorne airport vicinity.

------
slackpad
It's cool to see so many people excited about this launch. Just wanted to
remind people that we have a lot of software job openings right now. People
are often surprised to learn that SpaceX is hiring web developers
-[http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3890](http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3890).
There are some interesting internal tools projects that are critical parts of
each mission. We have embedded developer, PM, and test roles open as well.

~~~
kilroy123
I'd LOVE to work for SpaceX, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in Hawthorne
California...

~~~
toomuchtodo
From the glassdoor.com reviews, its long hours and you're paid undermarket
(which is fine if you want to work there, you're probably there because you
want to work on something cool).

I applied to their Director of Infrastructure position having 14 years of IT
experience managing people and large infrastructure and was told I was under
qualified. YMMV.

------
deletes
Two cool pictures from the flight:

[http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/styles/media_galler...](http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/styles/media_gallery_large/public/launch_streak.jpg?itok=iGCSBDgq)

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BamdsH0IIAA-
W_b.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BamdsH0IIAA-W_b.jpg:large)

~~~
TallGuyShort
I love the views they broadcast of the engine bell. Takes on an eerie,
transparent luminescence several minutes into the fight. Thanks for sharing.

------
mehmehshoe
I am so glad this went well. Too bad it did not happen on Thanksgiving. I had
my laptop out and had all the kids looking over my shoulder watching the two
launch attempts. Doing my part to get the younger ones interested.

Nice picture from the space-x site- [http://www.spacex.com/media-
gallery/detail/90781/2601](http://www.spacex.com/media-
gallery/detail/90781/2601)

~~~
MrZongle2
* I had my laptop out and had all the kids looking over my shoulder watching the two launch attempts.*

Yep, same here!

Thank goodness for Kerbal Space Program. It's a marvelous backup.

------
mdaniel
I have a deeper appreciation for the amount of work that goes into an
operation like that after having bought [Kerbal Space
Program]([https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/](https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/))
and its mobile companion [Simple
Rockets]([http://jundroo.com/project/simplerockets/](http://jundroo.com/project/simplerockets/)).

Engaging with those simulations also makes watching movies like "Apollo 13"
into a whole new experience, too.

Congratulations to _everyone_ involved, and I can't wait to see what they do
next.

------
some_guy_there
Can anyone explain why they placed the satellite in 295x80 000 km orbit? Is it
especially hard to place satellites directly into geostationary orbit, or
something else?

~~~
ubernostrum
So, orbits are weird. As in, "burning your engines in space almost never does
what you'd intuitively expect based on a lifetime on Earth with things like
cars and planes" weird.

In order to get geostationary, you need to get to a circular orbit at an
altitude of 35,786km above Earth's surface. Trying to do that all in one burn
is, I guess, theoretically _possible_ but is going to waste an absurd amount
of fuel.

The reason for this is that changing altitude in orbit = changing your speed.
Specifically, you have two points you care about: your apogee (highest
altitude) and your perigee (lowest altitude). To raise your apogee in the most
efficient manner, you accelerate prograde (in the direction of your orbit), at
perigee. To raise perigee in the most efficient manner, you accelerate
prograde at apogee. Or, more simply: what you do at a certain point in your
orbit will end up affecting what happens at the point in your orbit that's
precisely opposite the point where you did something.

So the most efficient way to get up there is to use a transfer orbit. First
you get into a lower, "parking" orbit (which doesn't take as much fuel as
going all the way up in one go). Then at perigee you burn to raise your apogee
out to the altitude you want. Then you cruise to apogee, and burn again to
raise your perigee, resulting in a circular orbit.

Here's a detailed article on that:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit)

Except it never goes quite that simply in the real world, so you actually end
up doing more than two engine burns, but under ideal theoretical
circumstances, you'd do it in two.

~~~
JshWright
This is made even more complicated by the fact that SpaceX isn't launching
from the equator, which means the satellite will need to change its orbital
inclination. Inclination changes are less expensive the 'higher' up you are,
so SES8 is in an orbit with an apogee almost twice as high as its eventual
orbit. This allows it to use less fuel to correct the inclination.

I haven't read up on the burn plans, but it's possible that the mission is
technically using a bi-elliptic transfer[1], rather than a straight hohmann
transfer (warning: I learned my orbital mechanics from the Kerbal Space
Academy).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-
elliptic_transfer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic_transfer)

~~~
exDM69
Bi-elliptic transfer sounds like a plausible explanation but my math gives it
a bigger delta-v requirement than a straightforward Hohmann transfer.

Bi-elliptic transfer: (2.713240 + 0.908982 + 0.485255) = 4.107477 km/s Hohmann
transfer: (2.335977 + 1.431307) = 3.7672853 km/s

This alone does not explain why they did so. But this is all assuming that the
trajectory is planar. If there was a plane change coupled with the second burn
at high apogee, it could explain it.

~~~
ubernostrum
If there is a plane change involved (as apparently there is), then getting
further out before executing the plane change involves less delta-v;
performing a plane-change maneuver at apogee is by far the most efficient way.

------
InclinedPlane
It's easy to miss how important this launch is. SpaceX builds rockets but lots
of organizations around the world have built and continue to build rockets
that do everything that this rocket did, and sometimes more. But in some ways
that's also why this launch is impressive.

SpaceX is a private company that has developed its launch vehicles outside of
a conventional government procurement program, on their own terms. The typical
way that anything gets done in the space launch business is that a government
organization develops plans and dedicates a budget and then contracts with
companies for procurement. In the end it's still a private company developing
a launch vehicle whether it's Lockheed-Martin or SpaceX so again this may seem
very similar on the surface. But the differences in character have a huge
number of effects. Government directed development is bureaucratic, it's
expensive, it's risk averse, and it's often inflicted with institutional
superstitions and fads. Even worse it tends to rely on a "big design up front"
or "waterfall" development model. Commercial development tends to be extremely
pragmatic and iterative, leading to improved results.

Look at the Atlas V and Delta IV for example. Both have been in service for
about a decade, after being developed through a government procurement
program, and both have not seen significant changes in their design during
their operational period. Compare that to the story at SpaceX who have
developed 5 different rocket engines and 5 different launchers in the decade
or so they've been operating. The SES-8 launch represents only the second
launch of a new iteration of the Falcon 9 rocket, the v1.1, which uses new
engines, a new thrust support structure, stretched fuel tanks, a new ignition
system, and is designed to be capable of re-use of the first stage with the
addition of landing legs.

Let's imagine a hypothetical parallel universe SpaceX. They could have put a
Falcon Heavy into production based on the Falcon 9 v1 core, or they could have
made less ambitious changes to the Falcon 9 v1.1 while retaining the same
performance levels. With such a lineup they would still have a very bright
financial future ahead of them. Their low manufacturing and operational costs
enable them to offer similar launch services to the competition at much lower
prices. With the offerings I've described SpaceX could easily become a multi-
billion dollar company with very healthy profit margins. But SpaceX has
grander ambitions than just making money, they want to open up the spaceflight
market and they want to kickstart manned exploration of Mars.

This mission is a bit of a demonstration that their ambition has not gone too
far, that they are actually capable of delivering on their promises and,
crucially, that they can deliver satellite payloads to orbit just as well as
anyone.

What does that mean? In the simplest sense it means that SpaceX's bank account
is going to get pretty fat over the next few years. A corporation getting
wealthy isn't a big deal right? Except in this case that profit isn't just
going to be spent on yachts and mansions and private jets, much of it will be
re-invested in the company in order to further the company's (and its
founder's) vision.

At most rocket companies making rockets is an excuse to make money. At SpaceX
making money is an excuse to make more rockets. They're going to develop and
prove reusability of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage "live" as it were using
operational missions. They've already used operational cargo delivery missions
to flight-proof a substantial portion of the manned capsule hardware they've
been working on. Over the next few years they are going to bring into service
first stage reusability, the Falcon Heavy (and then later bring reusability
into that platform as well), and the manned Dragon. Meanwhile they're
developing LOX/Methane fueled engines for their next generation launchers
which should be highly reusable (since Methane burns so cleanly) and be
targeted at Manned Mars missions. Most space launch companies are content with
sitting at comfortable plateaus and waiting for government encouragement, and
funding, to step up to the next plateau, but SpaceX is a company that has
constant innovation in its blood.

This mission validates the work they've done and their development style while
also providing a huge signal to the industry that SpaceX is a reliable
carrier. Which will help to funnel a lot more business their way and give them
more excuses to build and develop more rockets, culminating in launch costs a
fraction of what is possible today and catalyzing manned exploration of the
Solar System.

~~~
twistedpair
Just makes me sad that they're not publicly traded, because I would have
placed a big bet (investment) on the company last week. Then again, perhaps
it's for the best so that Lockheed, Boeing and ULA friends don't just buy them
and shut them down. I hope our 21st century Howard Hughes gets rich off this
and starts even more disruptive companies with the spoils.

~~~
ufmace
If they were publicly traded, they'd probably get drawn into the Wall Street
trend of short-term profit above all else. Why risk whether you can sell the
long-term vision of cheap travel to and colonization of Mars to institutional
investors and speculators? Odds are it'll never happen at SpaceX unless
company ownership is limited to people who share the long-term vision, which
is kind of the opposite of being publicly traded.

~~~
chris_mahan
A couple fires and the stock drops 45% in three weeks like TSLA? I think they
are not interested in that. It would be too volatile.

------
Killah911
It was quite amazing to watch the launch, it was right at sundown so the
colors left by the exhaust looked different. Here's a pic:
[http://twitter.com/AhmedRezaT/status/408004729201897472/phot...](http://twitter.com/AhmedRezaT/status/408004729201897472/photo/1)

------
2na
I LOVE the job openings on SpaceX careers page, they are literally looking for
rocket scientists :-)

[http://www.spacex.com/careers/list](http://www.spacex.com/careers/list)

~~~
danparsonson
It's not exactly brain surgery though
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I)

------
nortlov
Let's give it up for the payload too! Orbital Sciences' SES8!

------
ChuckMcM
Very cool, anyone know if there were any cubesats on this mission? I have a
fantasy about putting a cubesat in geosync orbit that I could ping from a
converted Dish or DirectTV antenna.

------
dba7dba
I'm glad spacex.com website looks more modern. Congrats by the way. :)

------
everyone
I dont like spaceXs propoganda department. I believe this is a difference
between a public and a private space program. SpaceX seem to cover up any
hiccups or issues they have and always present this saccharine sweet
'flawless' report of their missions. Thats dishonest and just not scientific
imo.

~~~
InclinedPlane
They seem to be incredibly open to me. They have been very transparent about
pretty much every hiccup and misstep they've had in any flight. I think you
are comparing them to an ideal which has never existed in reality.

~~~
everyone
They cut the live feed when an issue came up on one of their dragon capsule
launches.

~~~
zackbloom
You don't think NASA wouldn't have cut the feed on the Challenger disaster if
they could have?

~~~
twistedpair
They did cut the feed. The actual video feed kept going until range control
fired the FTS to destroy the SRB's that kept flying along after the shuttle
was blown apart. You didn't get to see that back in the 80's. That footage had
only recently been released.

