I guess it won't be all Ariane for Iridium NEXT

After seeing whence the funding to build the satellites was coming, I
would have figured that Ariane had an inside track on much of the
launches, but it seems that SpaceX have snagged at least a non-trivial
chunk:

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100616

of course, until the satellites are built it is just so much unhatched
chickens but still...

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote in news:hvdn9v$qd1$2
@usenet01.boi.hp.com:

After seeing whence the funding to build the satellites was coming, I
would have figured that Ariane had an inside track on much of the
launches, but it seems that SpaceX have snagged at least a non-trivial
chunk:

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100616

of course, until the satellites are built it is just so much unhatched
chickens but still...

I was reading that SpaceX got the lion's share of the contract, in
addition to funding to support a multi-payload dispenser. Since
the final configuration/dimensions of the spacecraft haven't been
settled yet, it's not sure how many a Falcon 9 can launch inside
its 5 meter shroud.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
I was reading that SpaceX got the lion's share of the contract, in
addition to funding to support a multi-payload dispenser. Since the
final configuration/dimensions of the spacecraft haven't been
settled yet, it's not sure how many a Falcon 9 can launch inside its
5 meter shroud.

We can probably take a guess or at least as to how many launches are
expected - contract is stated as 492 million
USD. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php gives a "list" price of 49.5 to
56 million USD. I doubt Iridium is paying list, but I also doubt that
SpaceX can discount all *that* heavily. I'll wave my hands and say 40
to 45 million USD per launch. Ass-u-me the dispenser is what 10
million to develop? Call it 10 to 11 launches. Perhaps 12. Assuming
the satellite isn't delayed, those would be over a two year period
starting in 2015. Hope Vandeberg isn't all that busy

Iridium is saying 66 operational satellites with 6 on-orbit spares.
Lion's share would be at least 51% of that or 37 satellites. That
then suggests three to four satellites per launch. If lion's share is
2/3 that is 47-48 satellites, or 4 to 5 per launch.

All rather hand-wavy of course. There may be other ways to
guesstimate - say on the basis of the orbits being used and how many
satellites in each, or I suppose one could ass-u-me the next gen
satellite was within say 10-20% each way of the mass and volume of the
frist gen.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
I was reading that SpaceX got the lion's share of the contract, in
addition to funding to support a multi-payload dispenser. Since the
final configuration/dimensions of the spacecraft haven't been
settled yet, it's not sure how many a Falcon 9 can launch inside its
5 meter shroud.

We can probably take a guess or at least as to how many launches are
expected - contract is stated as 492 million
USD. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php gives a "list" price of 49.5 to
56 million USD. I doubt Iridium is paying list, but I also doubt that
SpaceX can discount all *that* heavily. I'll wave my hands and say 40
to 45 million USD per launch. Ass-u-me the dispenser is what 10
million to develop? Call it 10 to 11 launches. Perhaps 12. Assuming
the satellite isn't delayed, those would be over a two year period
starting in 2015. Hope Vandeberg isn't all that busy

Iridium is saying 66 operational satellites with 6 on-orbit spares.
Lion's share would be at least 51% of that or 37 satellites. That
then suggests three to four satellites per launch. If lion's share is
2/3 that is 47-48 satellites, or 4 to 5 per launch.

All rather hand-wavy of course. There may be other ways to
guesstimate - say on the basis of the orbits being used and how many
satellites in each, or I suppose one could ass-u-me the next gen
satellite was within say 10-20% each way of the mass and volume of the
frist gen.

I went perusing the web, it seems the initial 72 first-generation
satellites were orbited in 15 launches which is an average of 4.8 per
launch.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:59:58 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote:

Damon Hill wrote:
I was reading that SpaceX got the lion's share of the contract, in
addition to funding to support a multi-payload dispenser. Since the
final configuration/dimensions of the spacecraft haven't been
settled yet, it's not sure how many a Falcon 9 can launch inside its
5 meter shroud.

We can probably take a guess or at least as to how many launches are
expected - contract is stated as 492 million
USD. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php gives a "list" price of 49.5 to
56 million USD. I doubt Iridium is paying list, but I also doubt that
SpaceX can discount all *that* heavily. I'll wave my hands and say 40
to 45 million USD per launch. Ass-u-me the dispenser is what 10
million to develop?

Another variable is "how much is it costing SpaceX to build the pad at
Vandenberg and is that cost charged to Iridium?" (Do they have any
other polar customers for Falcon 9?)

SpaceX might be able to use dispensor developed for Delta II.

Iridium is saying 66 operational satellites with 6 on-orbit spares.
Lion's share would be at least 51% of that or 37 satellites. That
then suggests three to four satellites per launch. If lion's share is
2/3 that is 47-48 satellites, or 4 to 5 per launch.

Delta II carried five per launch in a smaller shroud while Proton
launched six at a time. I'd say five per flight is likely for Falcon
9, which is in roughly the same payload class as Delta II.

Brian

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:25:25 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Another variable is "how much is it costing SpaceX to build the pad at
Vandenberg and is that cost charged to Iridium?" (Do they have any
other polar customers for Falcon 9?)

They going to build a pad there or out at their Pacific operations base
on Omelek Island in the Kwajalein Atoll?

They're taking over SLC-4 at Vandenberg.

Brian

On 6/20/2010 8:35 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

Another variable is "how much is it costing SpaceX to build the pad at
Vandenberg and is that cost charged to Iridium?" (Do they have any
other polar customers for Falcon 9?)

They going to build a pad there or out at their Pacific operations base
on Omelek Island in the Kwajalein Atoll?

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:
Another variable is "how much is it costing SpaceX to build the pad
at Vandenberg and is that cost charged to Iridium?" (Do they have
any other polar customers for Falcon 9?)

The launch manifest at:

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

shows two F9 launches for "CONAE (Argentina)" from Vandenberg prior to
the Iridium launches. They do have "**" which lead to " **Or
Kwajalein, depending on range availability" but I've not heard of any
actual construction work for an F9 pad at Kwajalein. The manifest is
giving 2012 for the first one - of course their "Target Data" is
simply equipment to the launch site... so they would probably have
time to work-up an F9 pad at Kwajalein if they needed to.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Jun 17, 10:50*am, Rick Jones wrote:

of course, until the satellites are built it is just so much unhatched
chickens but still...

It really amazing to see that Iridium has actually recovered over the
years from being at Death's Doorstep financially to the point where
they can actually start letting out contracts for a new generation
constellation of satellites.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:50?am, Rick Jones wrote:
of course, until the satellites are built it is just so much
unhatched chickens but still...

It really amazing to see that Iridium has actually recovered over
the years from being at Death's Doorstep financially to the point
where they can actually start letting out contracts for a new
generation constellation of satellites.

The power of the bankruptcy "do over" is indeed remarkable. I have to
wonder though - they got something on the order of 1.8 billion USD in
credit for the next-gen satellites and launches. Their Q1 2010
revenues were not quite 82 million USD. And they were claiming that
2010 would still come-in at something like 145 to 155 million USD
EBITDA.

They must be expecting rather large increases in revenue and earnings
with the next generation satellites to pay-off that debt.

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?