

SpaceX signs largest single commercial launch deal ever -- $492 million - charleso
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31049

======
patio11
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.

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

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

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

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

------
MikeCapone
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?

~~~
roedog
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.

~~~
MikeCapone
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.

~~~
roedog
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.

~~~
colinake
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).

~~~
roedog
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.

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

~~~
rbanffy
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.

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

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

[http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/Features_from_Lloyds/News_...](http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/Features_from_Lloyds/News_and_features_2009/Market_news/60_seconds_with_David_Wade.htm)

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.

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

[http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/sp...](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-
satellite-database.html)

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

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

------
adulau
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...).

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

------
yread
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...](http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/11/03/artic-expedition-
live-iridium-video/)

------
JeffL
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.

~~~
roedog
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.

~~~
mkramlich
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.

------
surlyadopter
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.

------
mkramlich
congratulations to the folks at SpaceX!

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

