Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Albert VDS]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

More mass, meaning higher F9 performance needed to send it into space. I can't beleive you forgot one of the most basic concepts of spaceflight in a forum about a game about spaceflight

But there is 1 rule more important in manned spaceflight than any other rule: safety.

[Padishar]

10 minutes ago, Albert VDS said:

But there is 1 rule more important in manned spaceflight than any other rule: safety.

Yes, it is more important but that doesn't mean that they have to do absolutely everything they can think of to improve safety.  Otherwise, everyone launching anyone into orbit would always have a rescue vehicle waiting ready on the launch pad (or even several at multiple launch sites) in case of problems.  At the end of the day, increasing safety costs money and there is a point beyond which nobody would pay for it...

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

It already has 2 different system and besides what the problem of have 2 sets of parachutes? Your reasoning about 1 failing and the other failing in the same way is very unlikely, even more so if it's an outside cause.

Yes, that's why I said planning and not going to on the first flights.

You are saying that you need 8 parachutes in case 4 of them fail. Parachutes are heavy, so this represents a lot of extra weight. And if 4 independent parachutes fail, then it's not an outside cause, it's a design flaw that is likely to affect all the parachutes. Simply adding more parachutes will not solve the design flaw, it just adds extra weight for no safety benefit.

That's why in engineering, you don't provide redundancy of safety systems by simply duplicating the systems. It's usually better to provide alternative ways of activating the safety systems or integrating a secondary backup function into other systems. For example, you can use RCS to deorbit if your main engine fails.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Nibb31

[KerbonautInTraining]

The backup for the parachutes consists of 3 other chutes. The probability of none of them deploying is basically zero, as you could imagine this isn't something they would skimp out on.

[Frozen_Heart]

Also the chutes are already a backup system. The chance of 4 Dracos and 4 parachutes failing is so remote its practically non existent.

[Robotengineer]

5 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

But there is 1 rule more important in manned spaceflight than any other rule: safety.

That would be the one that is not taught in this forum and game.

[AngelLestat]

14 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Also the chutes are already a backup system. The chance of 4 Dracos and 4 parachutes failing is so remote its practically non existent.

Yeah, and I guess if 2 dracos from the same side fail, dragon will be still able (in theory) to land just using two 2 opposite pairs (because they are enough separated to control the remaining axis, or using 1 of the opposite pair which dint fail with the one of the other pair that are more far..  There are a lot of possible combinations you can use depending the problem.
So in theory you will be able to have a slow descent with just 3 draco engines.  

[Nibb31]

21 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Also the chutes are already a backup system. The chance of 4 Dracos and 4 parachutes failing is so remote its practically non existent.

No, for Commercial Crew, parachutes are the primary landing system. They will always be the primary landing system for pad abort landings.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

If an in flight abort happens, which means they can't land with the SuperDraco's, and the chutes don't work then back up chutes are very welcome.
It's common practice for parachutist, so why not for a capsule? And there is enough time to deploy the back up chutes if the main chutes fail to deploy, it's something which can easily be detected by the onboard computer and some sensors.

Four compartments and with individual parachutes and mechanism will give good enough redundancy. 
You only want an extra parachute if you only release one in the first place like then skydiving. Here the extra parachute has the benefit of being of an simpler design and is packed by experts.  
Does any pods carry spare parachutes? 

[Rune]

On 24/1/2016 at 8:39 PM, fredinno said:

No major revolution in demand for large satellites is foreseeable in the near future. Only space tourism has a chance, which is (thankfully) much more susceptible to lower costs. However, even if assuming F9 launches are the only factor in orbital tourism costs (not true), each orbital tourist would pay $8.6 Million. That's out of reach for most (rich) people, even though I removed a huge chunk of the costs.

*Cough* OneWeb's nine freaking hundred internet commsats. *Cough* Already contracted, and forecasted to be built at a reate of up to four each day.

 

Rune. Mega-constellations are officially now a thing.

 

[Rdivine]

On 1/28/2016 at 7:07 AM, Albert VDS said:

It's one of those things where one says "I wish we had a back up" when all main chutes fail.

SpaceX is planing to land the Dragon 2 propulsively with the SuperDracos, so it's fulfilling 3 roles for the weight of one system.
I have no idea what the weight save is but it's I think it's a fair amount replacing replacing 3 systems with one.

Replacing 3 systems with one isn't a great idea. Look at the F-35 for example...

I guess the main role of the SuperDracos should be to serve as an escape tower.

Secondary role : land propulsively.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Rune said:

*Cough* OneWeb's nine freaking hundred internet commsats. *Cough* Already contracted, and forecasted to be built at a reate of up to four each day.

 

Rune. Mega-constellations are officially now a thing.

 

Oneweb is actually 720 sats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

 

Also, each is 200 kg in mass. Therefore, you'd only need 11 Falcon 9 launches to launch the entire thing, with 65 sats per F9, a F9 has 13T to LEO capacity resuable.

Of course, OneWeb would likely not want to launch it all on F9, as 65 sats per launch is really excessive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_%28rocket%29#Future_developments

Vega sounds like a good alternative, if you launch 4 times a year, you will get a $23 million dollar total cost per launch. Looking at their current manifest, and the number that need to go up, this seems to be a reasonable flight rate. More expensive, but you only launch 7 sats per launch, a LOT more manageable. Minotaur-C is estimated to be slightly cheaper, with a comparable payload, but that's more speculative. Vega/Minotaur-C split down would get 102 launches, by far enough to support both Minotaur-C and Vega, and still let both be mass-produced.

 

Or how about the venerable Soyuz?

That would cost $37 million per launch. http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=financial_effort_estimation#cite_note-1

You can launch 35 OneWeb sats on these. Might be difficult too coordinate all these sats to their correct orbits,but it's still cheaper than Vega, and it's not as ridiculous of a number as F9. You would need 21 Soyuzes to launch all those sats.

 

F9 likely isn't going to benefit from these constellations in the long run. They are all smallsat constellations, and are a pain to launch on F9 due to it's OP payload capacity. Currently, F9 is getting launches of smallsats because there is no low-cost alternative in the US right now- and their number does not justify reviving Falcon 1. If OneWeb really starts showing business and asks OrbitalATK, SpaceX, ArianeSpace, or some other company they want to launch sats, they will likely dust off their old smallsat launchers (though that's not really the case for ArianeSpace), and get ready for launch. F9 will not benefit- F1 will. Elon has stated he might revive F1 if there is demand for it. You can bet your a** that they would dust it off in this kind of scenario- otherwise, they will likely end up shunning the contract, as F9 is far too big.

20 hours ago, KSK said:

Back of the envelope calculation:

Falcon 9 can put a little over 13,000 kg into LEO. Dry mass of Dragon 2 is about 4,200 kg and it can carry a payload of just over 3,300 kg to ISS. Leaving SpaceX with 6,500 kg of spare capacity for fuel, consumables and redundant systems, assuming that they're not already factored into that dry mass.

In other words, SpaceX's current workhorse booster, which they're cheaply mass producing (inasmuch as rockets are ever mass-produced or ever cheap) has more than enough performance for the job. It's not like they have to develop a new, higher performance booster just for Dragon 2.

They can use that extra capacity to launch a few smallsats and do an inclination change after dragon separation to make the most use of the F9's payload capacity, so yes, it's useful.

[KSK]

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Oneweb is actually 720 sats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

 

Also, each is 200 kg in mass. Therefore, you'd only need 11 Falcon 9 launches to launch the entire thing, with 65 sats per F9, a F9 has 13T to LEO capacity resuable.

Of course, OneWeb would likely not want to launch it all on F9, as 65 sats per launch is really excessive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_%28rocket%29#Future_developments

Vega sounds like a good alternative, if you launch 4 times a year, you will get a $23 million dollar total cost per launch. Looking at their current manifest, and the number that need to go up, this seems to be a reasonable flight rate. More expensive, but you only launch 7 sats per launch, a LOT more manageable. Minotaur-C is estimated to be slightly cheaper, with a comparable payload, but that's more speculative. Vega/Minotaur-C split down would get 102 launches, by far enough to support both Minotaur-C and Vega, and still let both be mass-produced.

 

Or how about the venerable Soyuz?

That would cost $37 million per launch. http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=financial_effort_estimation#cite_note-1

You can launch 35 OneWeb sats on these. Might be difficult too coordinate all these sats to their correct orbits,but it's still cheaper than Vega, and it's not as ridiculous of a number as F9. You would need 21 Soyuzes to launch all those sats.

 

F9 likely isn't going to benefit from these constellations in the long run. They are all smallsat constellations, and are a pain to launch on F9 due to it's OP payload capacity. Currently, F9 is getting launches of smallsats because there is no low-cost alternative in the US right now- and their number does not justify reviving Falcon 1. If OneWeb really starts showing business and asks OrbitalATK, SpaceX, ArianeSpace, or some other company they want to launch sats, they will likely dust off their old smallsat launchers (though that's not really the case for ArianeSpace), and get ready for launch. F9 will not benefit- F1 will. Elon has stated he might revive F1 if there is demand for it. You can bet your a** that they would dust it off in this kind of scenario- otherwise, they will likely end up shunning the contract, as F9 is far too big.

They can use that extra capacity to launch a few smallsats and do an inclination change after dragon separation to make the most use of the F9's payload capacity, so yes, it's useful.

But  not essential. Given a choice between loading up with a couple of cubesats or extra safety measures on my flagship crewed spacecraft, I know which I'd go for.

 

[Rune]

On 30/1/2016 at 6:21 AM, fredinno said:

Oneweb is actually 720 sats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

 

Also, each is 200 kg in mass. Therefore, you'd only need 11 Falcon 9 launches to launch the entire thing, with 65 sats per F9, a F9 has 13T to LEO capacity resuable.

Of course, OneWeb would likely not want to launch it all on F9, as 65 sats per launch is really excessive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_%28rocket%29#Future_developments

Vega sounds like a good alternative, if you launch 4 times a year, you will get a $23 million dollar total cost per launch. Looking at their current manifest, and the number that need to go up, this seems to be a reasonable flight rate. More expensive, but you only launch 7 sats per launch, a LOT more manageable. Minotaur-C is estimated to be slightly cheaper, with a comparable payload, but that's more speculative. Vega/Minotaur-C split down would get 102 launches, by far enough to support both Minotaur-C and Vega, and still let both be mass-produced.

 

Or how about the venerable Soyuz?

That would cost $37 million per launch. http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=financial_effort_estimation#cite_note-1

You can launch 35 OneWeb sats on these. Might be difficult too coordinate all these sats to their correct orbits,but it's still cheaper than Vega, and it's not as ridiculous of a number as F9. You would need 21 Soyuzes to launch all those sats.

 

F9 likely isn't going to benefit from these constellations in the long run. They are all smallsat constellations, and are a pain to launch on F9 due to it's OP payload capacity. Currently, F9 is getting launches of smallsats because there is no low-cost alternative in the US right now- and their number does not justify reviving Falcon 1. If OneWeb really starts showing business and asks OrbitalATK, SpaceX, ArianeSpace, or some other company they want to launch sats, they will likely dust off their old smallsat launchers (though that's not really the case for ArianeSpace), and get ready for launch. F9 will not benefit- F1 will. Elon has stated he might revive F1 if there is demand for it. You can bet your a** that they would dust it off in this kind of scenario- otherwise, they will likely end up shunning the contract, as F9 is far too big.

They can use that extra capacity to launch a few smallsats and do an inclination change after dragon separation to make the most use of the F9's payload capacity, so yes, it's useful.

Well, the last I heard (last week? It was on spacenews.com anyway), the contract was to build 900. The first ten on Europe, the next in a to-be-built factory in the US. It's 648 operational, plus a really big amount of spares (I guess all the engineering units for testing and stuff go into that number). Which makes sense, since they are using a lot of orbital planes. Launched in Soyuz, BTW, from French Guiana and elsewhere. 21 soyuzes to be precise (don't you feel great that you came up with the right number there? ). With maybe a couple Vegas to fill slots if they need to, if memory serves (but this comes from the announcement way back, when SpaceX was also talking about their Seattle plant, so don't quote me on that). Polar launches, too, so you gotta count on that mass penalty. All of which, again, makes sense, since they are using 20 different orbital planes and are likely assuming they will loose a vehicle, because, you know, 95% reliability. Back-of-the-envelope calculation inserted here: 20²=400, so they are going to be busy orbital planes, and polar regions are getting awesome reception.

In any case, my point was that mega-constellations with hundreds of mass-produced satellites are already a thing. After the first, others will come if it has any success, and they are likely to be bigger still, to offer more capacity. So... maybe there is a trend towards cheaper, more numerous satellites that is already there. Did SpaceX start it? Could be, could be the other way around, that SpaceX just came at the right time. In any case, if things keep on going this way, the math for RLV's could really start to pay off.

 

Rune. If F9R is cheaper to reuse than launching a Soyuz, then things only get better the cheaper it is, for future competitors.

[TimePeriod]

An odd question which has bothered me a little, would the Spacex be considered a VTOL? (At least the booster stage)

[fredinno]

32 minutes ago, Rune said:

Well, the last I heard (last week? It was on spacenews.com anyway), the contract was to build 900. The first ten on Europe, the next in a to-be-built factory in the US. It's 648 operational, plus a really big amount of spares (I guess all the engineering units for testing and stuff go into that number). Which makes sense, since they are using a lot of orbital planes. Launched in Soyuz, BTW, from French Guiana and elsewhere. 21 soyuzes to be precise (don't you feel great that you came up with the right number there? ). With maybe a couple Vegas to fill slots if they need to, if memory serves (but this comes from the announcement way back, when SpaceX was also talking about their Seattle plant, so don't quote me on that). Polar launches, too, so you gotta count on that mass penalty. All of which, again, makes sense, since they are using 20 different orbital planes and are likely assuming they will loose a vehicle, because, you know, 95% reliability. Back-of-the-envelope calculation inserted here: 20²=400, so they are going to be busy orbital planes, and polar regions are getting awesome reception.

In any case, my point was that mega-constellations with hundreds of mass-produced satellites are already a thing. After the first, others will come if it has any success, and they are likely to be bigger still, to offer more capacity. So... maybe there is a trend towards cheaper, more numerous satellites that is already there. Did SpaceX start it? Could be, could be the other way around, that SpaceX just came at the right time. In any case, if things keep on going this way, the math for RLV's could really start to pay off.

 

Rune. If F9R is cheaper to reuse than launching a Soyuz, then things only get better the cheaper it is, for future competitors.

Only problem is that I demonstrated both Soyuz and Falcon 9 were too big to launch these things without huge numbers being launched at once, which would make deployment difficult. The next step down in terms of rockets would be the Antares, whihc would launch around 30 sats at once, which is still enormous.

This is why so many small launchers are being built- there is no other way to launch these things with larger rockets.

[Red Iron Crown]

39 minutes ago, TimePeriod said:

An odd question which has bothered me a little, would the Spacex be considered a VTOL? (At least the booster stage)

Yes. It both takes off and lands vertically, which are the only requirements to be considered a VTOL.

[Rune]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Only problem is that I demonstrated both Soyuz and Falcon 9 were too big to launch these things without huge numbers being launched at once, which would make deployment difficult. The next step down in terms of rockets would be the Antares, whihc would launch around 30 sats at once, which is still enormous.

This is why so many small launchers are being built- there is no other way to launch these things with larger rockets.

You say you show that, and then I tell you a few very important people have decided to spend billions on doing just that, with the full backing of Airbus Space (that's a lot of satellites), Ariannespace (they are calling the launch deal they won "the biggest in history"), Roskosmos (that's a lot of soyuzes), and a couple big US investment companies (that is a lot of billions). So... maybe you are wrong, or they are, but I would bet their analysts have thought long and hard about this, so I would go with them.

BTW, the first launch would be ten satellites (the ones built at Toulouse),form a Soyuz, on 2018. About 2mT for ~200kg satellites, without adapter, which means that they are wasting about half of soyuz's payload to, say, a 820km SSO, equipped with a Fregat upper stage (around 4mT). Again, it makes perfect sense that they launch the satellites 20 or 30 in each plane, that would be pretty much the full payload of Soyuz to that orbit. Which, incidentally, is an orbit I used because it was the first quick reference (wiki for the Soyuz-2), but I believe it is a good comparison to a polar orbit. Those extra 450m/s from the rotation of the Earth sure are felt, right?

I any case, to get this a little bit back on track, if a Falcon 9 in its reusable version can do the same thing for less than the Soyuz does... then how exactly does it matter if you waste payload? I mean, at most what you are showing is that the market is full of overpriced smallsat launchers.

 

Rune. The competitors are a bit quieter as of late, but no news is just no news.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Rune

[Nibb31]

SpaceX has gone quiet about their constellation. There are at least two possible reasons for this:

• Their main customers are in the communication business, and they don't want to upset them. Currently these folks are customers. If SpaceX becomes a comsat operator, then they become direct or indirect competitors, which means that they are likely to lose a lot of business.
• They have done the math on their business plan and the ROI analysis has shown that the comsat business is too competitive, that the margins are not as high as they expected, and that there isn't as much money to be made as they originally thought.

LEO comsat constellations have been tried before, but in the end, they are a niche for some very specialized applications. Going head to head against the established ISPs and cable and cellular operators in the consumer market is bound to be a tough struggle. Those companies (which are often backed by governments) have spent decades investing in infrastructure and they will not give up without putting up a fight.

Musk originally envisioned the constellation as a cash cow that was going to pay for the Mars stuff. Maybe they have found out that there isn't really that much money in that particular market, and that the drawback of upsetting their current launch customers might not be worth it. Musk is a pragmatist. He's very vocal when he has an idea, but sometimes those ideas don't work and he drops them when he realizes it.

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Nibb31

[wumpus]

On 1/30/2016 at 0:21 AM, fredinno said:

Oneweb is actually 720 sats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

 

Also, each is 200 kg in mass. Therefore, you'd only need 11 Falcon 9 launches to launch the entire thing, with 65 sats per F9, a F9 has 13T to LEO capacity resuable.

Of course, OneWeb would likely not want to launch it all on F9, as 65 sats per launch is really excessive.

Depends on the cost of the sats vs. the cost of the launch.  I really doubt that number of sats per launch is a deal breaker (Orbcomm just launched 11).  The problem with Falcon 9 is much more likely "only" 11 missions to cover the entire planet.   You would need a ton more fuel to fix all the attitudes, change orbits, and the like.  Putting 65 sats on nearly the same orbit wouldn't be that bad a thing (somebody put a webcam on the Lloyd's agent), at least compared to trying to get them into where they are needed.

I'd suspect that the Soyuz might be what they go with, although there could easily be a lot of political pushback of buying 20+ launches on Soyuz.  Also we are looking at a price tag well over a billion dollars: are any of the backers looking for a less than off-the-shelf rocket?  I'd suspect that ATK-Orbital would be the launcher most interested in using/developing something with multiple upper stages (something like a MIRV, only to put satellites in different orbits)*.

A bigger question is: "what point does the system have to start paying for itself".  If you have to have full coverage after only 1/3 of your birds are deployed, you can't save money by launching them in to the most similar orbits.  That one is going to keep the accountants running their spreadsheets for months.

* I may have to fuss with this in KSP.  I suspect it is just a bad idea and you might as well follow the path your booster set and then adjust the orbit, but can't be sure.  Of course, KSP won't be able to tell me if the system I successfully save millions with costs billions to develop.

[EladDv]

what you all seem to think is that the falcon has to launch 1 type of payload from 1 customer at a time - they have constructions that allow them to launch may payloads in one go, having stuff launching like the SpaceIL spacecraft and a few more sats and about 1/20th of the OneWeb sats that would have them split the costs even more and cost even less for OneWeb with the recovery, seeing now as SpaceX is the cheapest option AND with recovery AND with splitting room on the rocket? i say that there is little to no reason to choose any other launcher

Edited January 31, 2016 by EladDv

[wumpus]

13 minutes ago, EladDv said:

what you all seem to think is that the falcon has to launch 1 type of payload from 1 customer at a time - they have constructions that allow them to launch may payloads in one go, having stuff launching like the SpaceIL spacecraft and a few more sats and about 1/20th of the OneWeb sats that would have them split the costs even more and cost even less for OneWeb with the recovery, seeing now as SpaceX is the cheapest option AND with recovery AND with splitting room on the rocket? i say that there is little to no reason to choose any other launcher

A lot depends on who is launching, where they are launching (anywhere works for the first one, it gets worse as they go up), and what is the cost of each bird (typically, they are a lot.  But at 700, they might finally be mass produced).  At least one of SpaceX secondary customers lost a payload when the DoD (? might have been NASA) demanded that all fuel be used to cover their launch and reserve, while SpaceX could launch both (but not with full certainty).

I suspect that with launching 700 birds, they are going to break a few of the old rules.  Those rules just never were made for 700 birds all at once.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

You say you show that, and then I tell you a few very important people have decided to spend billions on doing just that, with the full backing of Airbus Space (that's a lot of satellites), Ariannespace (they are calling the launch deal they won "the biggest in history"), Roskosmos (that's a lot of soyuzes), and a couple big US investment companies (that is a lot of billions). So... maybe you are wrong, or they are, but I would bet their analysts have thought long and hard about this, so I would go with them.

BTW, the first launch would be ten satellites (the ones built at Toulouse),form a Soyuz, on 2018. About 2mT for ~200kg satellites, without adapter, which means that they are wasting about half of soyuz's payload to, say, a 820km SSO, equipped with a Fregat upper stage (around 4mT). Again, it makes perfect sense that they launch the satellites 20 or 30 in each plane, that would be pretty much the full payload of Soyuz to that orbit. Which, incidentally, is an orbit I used because it was the first quick reference (wiki for the Soyuz-2), but I believe it is a good comparison to a polar orbit. Those extra 450m/s from the rotation of the Earth sure are felt, right?

I any case, to get this a little bit back on track, if a Falcon 9 in its reusable version can do the same thing for less than the Soyuz does... then how exactly does it matter if you waste payload? I mean, at most what you are showing is that the market is full of overpriced smallsat launchers.

 

Rune. The competitors are a bit quieter as of late, but no news is just no news.

And that is partially because the cheaper ones are still in development, and small launchers are generally more expensvie per pound due to square cube law. Either way, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybox_Imaging is another company launching smallsats, and is launching them on smaller launchers,, like Vega. I'd guess they can use Soyuzes, because each satellite group is on the same Orbital plane. If they can do it like that and save costs, that's great for them. However, many companies need smaller rockets for this- Oneweb might be an exception due to the constellation being so large- and there are som many satellites placed on one orbital plane. 

 

Will it be the norm, or will the market be dominated by many smaller consellations competing against each other? I would bet on the latter, but I wouldn't ignoree the possibility of the former...

If the former, then Soyuzes might benefit from this. If the latter, Vegas will benefit. 

 

And the first launch is only wasting payload because it is a test series. The later launches use up all the Soyuz' capacity. Also, F9R has a little less than DOUBLE the Soyuz' capacity. If they need such an enormous constellato make launching on Soyuz viable, they won't be launching on Falcon 9, ever, unless F9 end up being cheaper than Soyuz (doubtful, since both are mass-produed, and Soyuz-V will futher reduce costs. Also, it's been demonstrated that reuse will be a small benefit to cost, at best, due to refurbrishment costs)

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Depends on the cost of the sats vs. the cost of the launch.  I really doubt that number of sats per launch is a deal breaker (Orbcomm just launched 11).  The problem with Falcon 9 is much more likely "only" 11 missions to cover the entire planet.   You would need a ton more fuel to fix all the attitudes, change orbits, and the like.  Putting 65 sats on nearly the same orbit wouldn't be that bad a thing (somebody put a webcam on the Lloyd's agent), at least compared to trying to get them into where they are needed.

I'd suspect that the Soyuz might be what they go with, although there could easily be a lot of political pushback of buying 20+ launches on Soyuz.  Also we are looking at a price tag well over a billion dollars: are any of the backers looking for a less than off-the-shelf rocket?  I'd suspect that ATK-Orbital would be the launcher most interested in using/developing something with multiple upper stages (something like a MIRV, only to put satellites in different orbits)*.

A bigger question is: "what point does the system have to start paying for itself".  If you have to have full coverage after only 1/3 of your birds are deployed, you can't save money by launching them in to the most similar orbits.  That one is going to keep the accountants running their spreadsheets for months.

* I may have to fuss with this in KSP.  I suspect it is just a bad idea and you might as well follow the path your booster set and then adjust the orbit, but can't be sure.  Of course, KSP won't be able to tell me if the system I successfully save millions with costs billions to develop.

Soyuz was what they went with. Also, Orbcomm used F9 because the contract was moved from Falcon I to F9 when the FI was retired. Smaller sats are launching on F9 becuase Delta II is dead in the water, Taurus has to be recertified and has a bad reputation for failure, Pegasus costs an arm and a leg, SPARK is still under development, Minotaur One to Six are owned by the USAF and need special permission, and Antares is probably still more expensive than F9. This is almost certainly destined to be a temporary situation.

42 minutes ago, wumpus said:

A lot depends on who is launching, where they are launching (anywhere works for the first one, it gets worse as they go up), and what is the cost of each bird (typically, they are a lot.  But at 700, they might finally be mass produced).  At least one of SpaceX secondary customers lost a payload when the DoD (? might have been NASA) demanded that all fuel be used to cover their launch and reserve, while SpaceX could launch both (but not with full certainty).

I suspect that with launching 700 birds, they are going to break a few of the old rules.  Those rules just never were made for 700 birds all at once.

They will never launch 700 at once- nobody ever needs 700 sats in a single orbit.

1 hour ago, EladDv said:

what you all seem to think is that the falcon has to launch 1 type of payload from 1 customer at a time - they have constructions that allow them to launch may payloads in one go, having stuff launching like the SpaceIL spacecraft and a few more sats and about 1/20th of the OneWeb sats that would have them split the costs even more and cost even less for OneWeb with the recovery, seeing now as SpaceX is the cheapest option AND with recovery AND with splitting room on the rocket? i say that there is little to no reason to choose any other launcher

I never said that. people could definately get cheap rides to orbit as a secondary payload on a Dragon, or another mission where F9 has overcapacity. And SpaceX is not the cheapest option for EVERYTHING. Soyuz is still cheaper for those who want LEO sats, secondary payloads are not always available, increasing cost. Sometimes, they might not be able to use F9 without wasting money and payload (smallsats) and things like Ariane Six are being developed for launch in four years with practically the same cost and payload as FH. Also, we know little about F9 and FH. Currently, F9 has a Ninety-five Percent success rate. They really only have twenty launches under their belt, so we really have no clue what their overall sucecess rate will be- it could very well end up like Proton- a cheaprocket prone to failure one tenth of the time. I doubt this, but it's still a possibiility, especially since rocket production at such a high rate can easily undermine safety.

 

Also, You would never choose F9 if you wanted to launch things at precise times, like a plantary launch. F9 is prone to launch delays, and the entire manifest gets squashed to the right due to it's launch scedule being so tightly packed together.

[KerbonautInTraining]

SES-9 is in exactly 5 days.

The first launch I watched after getting into spaceflight was CRS-7. I got used to the massive gap between launches that launching once a month is totally new to me and I love it.