Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

@me said: "700 birds at once"

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

That was poor phrasing on my part.  The whole point was that a single company wants to launch 700 sats.  Iridium is the closest thing we have to that, and I thought the original plan was 77 (thus named after element #77), now 66.  Buying up room to launch 700 sats is going to be a bit different than any previous customer.

Come to think of it, would they really need more than 11 different orbits (for Falcon*).  I suspect that we are missing the fundamental question behind OneWeb economics: are they mass producing the satellites or not?  If they are, then you would expect all 700+ available at the same time.  You want the launches at the same time as well.  You also don't have any issues ordering an extra 65 (or 130) in case a falcon 9 fails.  If you don't mass produce them, you get them in drips and drabs, but you still want them in orbit and returning some money.  So you put them up in groups of 10-30, and try to keep the various orbits with roughly the same number of satellites.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rocket chosen has little to do with the performance and cost of boosters (within reason) and a lot more to do with the satellite building schedule.

* Somehow I think they need more than 11 orbits.  But they might well want 65 birds on some of those orbits, but I doubt they want to have to deal with Falcon's schedule in scheduling 11 (or any fairly large number) in a row, as Fredinno pointed out.

Edited February 1, 2016 by wumpus
move falcon to its own section as it just got in the way.

[wumpus]

20 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

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.

As long as they are unmanned, that's fine (or aren't pushed).  Long, long, ago there was another group doing monthly launches.  I'm sure you heard about it recently.

[magnemoe]

11 minutes ago, wumpus said:

That was poor phrasing on my part.  The whole point was that a single company wants to launch 700 sats.  Iridium is the closest thing we have to that, and I thought the original plan was 77 (thus named after element #77), now 66.  Buying up room to launch 700 sats is going to be a bit different than any previous customer.

Come to think of it, would they really need more than 11 different orbits (for Falcon*).  I suspect that we are missing the fundamental question behind OneWeb economics: are they mass producing the satellites or not?  If they are, then you would expect all 700+ available at the same time.  You want the launches at the same time as well.  You also don't have any issues ordering an extra 65 (or 130) in case a falcon 9 fails.  If you don't mass produce them, you get them in drips and drabs, but you still want them in orbit and returning some money.  So you put them up in groups of 10-30, and try to keep the various orbits with roughly the same number of satellites.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rocket chosen has little to do with the performance and cost of boosters (within reason) and a lot more to do with the satellite building schedule.

* Somehow I think they need more than 11 orbits.  But they might well want 65 birds on some of those orbits, but I doubt they want to have to deal with Falcon's schedule in scheduling 11 (or any fairly large number) in a row, as Fredinno pointed out.

They mass produce them, they are also likely to produce spares while the production line is up this is why they order extra. 
My guess is that they have an limited number of orbits and use an lower orbit to each satellite up in its position. 
Number of satellites are not only limited by weight, you need an buss for them during launch, as this deployment process can easy last minimum an day it need to be an satellite too with power and rcs for stability. 
This adds weight it might also be an volume issue. 
For replacement they will want an small launcher. 

[Rune]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

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.

 

That, or the internet sats could turn out to be another multi-billion industry, just like satellite TV, that co-exists with traditional TV broadcasting because it caters for a slightly different market, or like 3G networks are coexisting with cable and fiber. The jury is still out, of course, but it could go both ways. I've been looking at today's internet satellite providers in the US, and it's damn near competitive with the tariffs here where I live (northern Spain), where I can't get a decent connection anyway because the network is so crappy in my suburban area (old copper lines everywhere, and they won't upgrade to fiber for a low population density area, so 3G services are actually better, only incredibly overpriced and limited). That is with geostationary commsats, today. Who knows what could happen with mass-produced small satellites launched on cheaper rockets, and actual competition between several networks?

3 hours 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 is already confirmed, so yeah, that. I can link you something even, here.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

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)

Well, for heavier satellites in similarly-sized constellations (i.e: more capacity), F9 would be ideal then. Or for shared rides. In any case, if OneWeb succeeds financially (and I will admit that is an "if", and of the first order), the case for cheaper launchers is clear, because launch rate will have to increase to support the new constellations. You seem to be denying that less and less, so I guess my argument is working!

As to reusability not making things cheaper, well, that is far form proven IMO. And even if it only worked a bit... a 50% cheaper Falcon 9R would be cheaper than a Soyuz, for twice the payload. I honestly don't know how you don't see that as a game changer for these small, 5~20 million dollar launchers, that can loft a small fraction of the payload. They are all crowding for a market that is going to be minimal, with everyone trying to bunch their projects on the more cost-effective medium launchers and only having the odd super-important unpairable satellite of finicky requirements as a market. To build a big constellation with these smallsat launchers is a bit silly to think about, frankly, the sheer amount of flights would mean such a deployment time that the whole project could crumble financially. 20 launches can be carried off in a couple years or four, but a hundred? That can take a decade.

 

Rune. BTW, that looks like a suspiciously low figure for a Soyuz... you sure that wiki source ain't outdated?

[fredinno]

6 minutes ago, Rune said:

That, or the internet sats could turn out to be another multi-billion industry, just like satellite TV, that co-exists with traditional TV broadcasting because it caters for a slightly different market, or like 3G networks are coexisting with cable and fiber. The jury is still out, of course, but it could go both ways. I've been looking at today's internet satellite providers in the US, and it's damn near competitive with the tariffs here where I live (northern Spain), where I can't get a decent connection anyway because the network is so crappy in my suburban area (old copper lines everywhere, and they won't upgrade to fiber for a low population density area, so 3G services are actually better, only incredibly overpriced and limited). That is with geostationary commsats, today. Who knows what could happen with mass-produced small satellites launched on cheaper rockets, and actual competition between several networks?

Soyuz is already confirmed, so yeah, that. I can link you something even, here.

Well, for heavier satellites in similarly-sized constellations (i.e: more capacity), F9 would be ideal then. Or for shared rides. In any case, if OneWeb succeeds financially (and I will admit that is an "if", and of the first order), the case for cheaper launchers is clear, because launch rate will have to increase to support the new constellations. You seem to be denying that less and less, so I guess my argument is working!

As to reusability not making things cheaper, well, that is far form proven IMO. And even if it only worked a bit... a 50% cheaper Falcon 9R would be cheaper than a Soyuz, for twice the payload. I honestly don't know how you don't see that as a game changer for these small, 5~20 million dollar launchers, that can loft a small fraction of the payload. They are all crowding for a market that is going to be minimal, with everyone trying to bunch their projects on the more cost-effective medium launchers and only having the odd super-important unpairable satellite of finicky requirements as a market. To build a big constellation with these smallsat launchers is a bit silly to think about, frankly, the sheer amount of flights would mean such a deployment time that the whole project could crumble financially. 20 launches can be carried off in a couple years or four, but a hundred? That can take a decade.

 

Rune. BTW, that looks like a suspiciously low figure for a Soyuz... you sure that wiki source ain't outdated?

The smallsat  launchers being made are mainly more towards Cubesats, while existing small launchers like Minotaur-C are for the slightly larger sats with weights in the hundreds of Kg instead of the tens.

I merged Vega and such to the smaller SPARK-esque launchers when I said "smallsat". and the Cubesat market is booming. OneWeb might be unviable to launch on Vega (damn you Delta II, why did you have to retire), but smaller constellations of smallsats and replacement launches will be. Cubesat Constellations will also likely grow in number rapidly, as these are also very easy to masss-produce, and are already modular- giving things like SPARK a good market. We've already seen Cubesats explode over the last few years.

And large constellations can't be mass-produced (reason why smallsats are so great). These will alwasy be relatively small, and will likely be oriented towards GEO, where orbital slots are limited and you can't make largge amounts of smalsats (or possibly MEO, but that's up to debate.) This area is unlikely to grow too much- it's even possible that LEO comsats outcompete the longer-latency GEO sats, reducing the number of launches for F9.

This is why I wish Elon decided to keep Falcon I and make Falcon V, like he originally planned. With the necessary increases in capacity made for F9, he could have a edge on his comsat constellation creation, with a smaller, LEO-oriented launcher.

Admittedly, I think it's the cost for Soyuz-U, instead of Soyuz-II. I don't think it's that much different though, since Soyuz-II is bascially a modernised Soyuz-U. Honestly, F9 costs are also 'suspiciously low'.

[sojourner]

1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

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.

Don't hold your breathe on that.  Most indications are that it has been delayed until at least late Feb.

[KerbonautInTraining]

1 hour ago, sojourner said:

Don't hold your breathe on that.  Most indications are that it has been delayed until at least late Feb.

Well, my point still stands. I thought it was normal to wait 5 months for whatever reason, I didn't know their launch schedule.

[The Yellow Dart]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

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.

Or maybe they are, for any number of possible reasons, just being quiet about it. Managing expectations is pretty important for a big, well known company. Musk just mentioned at the hyperloop comp "If you're trying to create a company, uh, it's important to, uh, limit the number of miracles in series." (that is sure to become a household phrase in the days to come. It just rolls off the tongue.) It makes perfect sense to keep it under wraps until there is actually something to show people.

[Hcube]

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

As long as they are unmanned, that's fine (or aren't pushed).  Long, long, ago there was another group doing monthly launches.  I'm sure you heard about it recently.

Yeah, let's not do this again

[Albert VDS]

1 hour ago, Hcube said:

Yeah, let's not do this again

Why not? That was a much complexer machine.

[Nibb31]

7 hours ago, Rune said:

That, or the internet sats could turn out to be another multi-billion industry, just like satellite TV, that co-exists with traditional TV broadcasting because it caters for a slightly different market, or like 3G networks are coexisting with cable and fiber. The jury is still out, of course, but it could go both ways. I've been looking at today's internet satellite providers in the US, and it's damn near competitive with the tariffs here where I live (northern Spain), where I can't get a decent connection anyway because the network is so crappy in my suburban area (old copper lines everywhere, and they won't upgrade to fiber for a low population density area, so 3G services are actually better, only incredibly overpriced and limited). That is with geostationary commsats, today. Who knows what could happen with mass-produced small satellites launched on cheaper rockets, and actual competition between several networks?

cable, fiber, and 3G/4G coexist mainly because they are operated by the same companies, and they cover 95% of the population. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but here in France, ISPs and cellular operators merged a long time ago and our telecom prices are among the lowests (~20€/month for unlimited 3G/4G and ~30€ for unlimited internet on ADSL or fiber, and you can get joint deals that combine both for  even cheaper). This is because there is an extremely competitive market.

The reason prices are higher elsewhere is probably because those telecom companies have higher margins. if you introduce another competitor, you would see prices go down and service go up to align themselves. In the end, I see some people preferring satellite internet, but in populated areas where people have a choice, they will go with the lower price or better service (and 5G is coming soon...)

I guess this is where every national market is different, with different legal and competitive requirements. That means that a constellation operator would either have to set up a sales infrastructure in each country, or have to partner with an existing operator. In any case, the competition will be fierce

It also turns out that existing satellites often operate as a backhaul service for the consumer-oriented companies mentioned above. If SpaceX goes head to head against them, there is a chance that those companies will start buying their launch services elsewhere, which could hurt SpaceX's revenue stream.

 

 

[Hcube]

2 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

Why not? That was a much complexer machine.

I meant let's not push the launches and try to maintain crazy schedules when it comes to manned launches. Because last time it was done it didn't end up very well. I don't see what complexité has to do in here, its all about impossible launch schedules

 

This is getting pretty much off topic though

[AngelLestat]

It seems that we might have another barge landing try for later this month.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/spacex-sets-launch-date-for-later-this-month-sea-landing-likely/

Gwynne Shotwell also said they will start to improve production speed and hopes to make launches every few weeks for the end of this year.
We have also the falcon heavy test.
They did some changes to the falcon9 to avoid the recent issues with the reusable stage on one of their engines.
They will shown the mars rocket design with their other plans on ISRU. 
They also plan to reuse a stage for the end of the year.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/spacex-updates-falcon-heavy-in-2016-astronauts-in-2017

There are more sources that explain other things that I said.  But I dont have the links at hand.

[Mitchz95]

Interesting... it now looks like they're thinking of skipping the landing attempt to give SES a bigger boost and get it back on schedule.

http://spacenews.com/ses-applauds-spacexs-willingness-to-sacrifice-falcon-9-first-stage-recovery-for-main-satelilte-mission/

[Streetwind]

No, they're not thinking of skipping the landing. They will still attempt it, but the changed trajectory will make the landing more difficult.

The F9 usually flies an abnormally steep trajectory in order to facilitate first stage recovery (the second stage has an oversized engine and the lion's share of dV to compensate). I'm assuming that they're simply going to let the booster tip over faster during the first stage burn, achieving a flatter, more efficient trajectory with a higher final speed before staging. This lets them give the satellite an extra push that lets it save a few of the many months of ion-driven slowboating before it reaches its geostationary destination. That's basically SpaceX saying "sorry sir customer, it was our fault that your launch date repeatedly slipped, here's our offer to help prevent loss of revenue for you".

It however also means that the first stage is subject to higher reentry stresses and greater difficulties in putting itself exactly on target on the barge. Fuel margins are also much tighter, since it needs a bigger boostback burn but cannot reserve extra fuel (that would defeat the point of the exercise).

So it's possible that a.) the stage goes out of control during descent, or that b:) it misses the barge, or that c.) it runs out of fuel during the final couple meters. But SpaceX will definitely still try anyway. I'm not sure where SpaceNews got the idea that it will likely be skipped (it won't) or that it used to be a launch site return (it was always a barge landing, SES-9 is simply too heavy).

Edited February 9, 2016 by Streetwind

[magnemoe]

41 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

No, they're not thinking of skipping the landing. They will still attempt it, but the changed trajectory will make the landing more difficult.

The F9 usually flies an abnormally steep trajectory in order to facilitate first stage recovery (the second stage has an oversized engine and the lion's share of dV to compensate). I'm assuming that they're simply going to let the booster tip over faster during the first stage burn, achieving a flatter, more efficient trajectory with a higher final speed before staging. This lets them give the satellite an extra push that lets it save a few of the many months of ion-driven slowboating before it reaches its geostationary destination. That's basically SpaceX saying "sorry sir customer, it was our fault that your launch date repeatedly slipped, here's our offer to help prevent loss of revenue for you".

It however also means that the first stage is subject to higher reentry stresses and greater difficulties in putting itself exactly on target on the barge. Fuel margins are also much tighter, since it needs a bigger boostback burn but cannot reserve extra fuel (that would defeat the point of the exercise).

So it's possible that a.) the stage goes out of control during descent, or that b:) it misses the barge, or that c.) it runs out of fuel during the final couple meters. But SpaceX will definitely still try anyway. I'm not sure where SpaceNews got the idea that it will likely be skipped (it won't) or that it used to be a launch site return (it was always a barge landing, SES-9 is simply too heavy).

With an barge landing you could technically letting the first stage go ballistic and just do adjustment burns before braking.
Yes this might put the landing zone far out in the Atlantic with higher waves.. the shallow trajectory will also make the reentry less accurate and it might be harder to kill horizontal velosity. 

[Hcube]

4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

No, they're not thinking of skipping the landing. They will still attempt it, but the changed trajectory will make the landing more difficult.

The F9 usually flies an abnormally steep trajectory in order to facilitate first stage recovery (the second stage has an oversized engine and the lion's share of dV to compensate). I'm assuming that they're simply going to let the booster tip over faster during the first stage burn, achieving a flatter, more efficient trajectory with a higher final speed before staging. This lets them give the satellite an extra push that lets it save a few of the many months of ion-driven slowboating before it reaches its geostationary destination. That's basically SpaceX saying "sorry sir customer, it was our fault that your launch date repeatedly slipped, here's our offer to help prevent loss of revenue for you".

It however also means that the first stage is subject to higher reentry stresses and greater difficulties in putting itself exactly on target on the barge. Fuel margins are also much tighter, since it needs a bigger boostback burn but cannot reserve extra fuel (that would defeat the point of the exercise).

So it's possible that a.) the stage goes out of control during descent, or that b:) it misses the barge, or that c.) it runs out of fuel during the final couple meters. But SpaceX will definitely still try anyway. I'm not sure where SpaceNews got the idea that it will likely be skipped (it won't) or that it used to be a launch site return (it was always a barge landing, SES-9 is simply too heavy).

Interesting but how do you know that ? 

[StrandedonEarth]

Well, it should make good practice for barge-landing the centre core of an F9H

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Hcube said:

Interesting but how do you know that ? 

I stalk /r/spacex and read the stuff that gets linked there. Such as this tweet, for example, which is context for "was barge landing before, still is barge landing now". Not the only source for this, but an example.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Streetwind

[AngelLestat]

2 hours ago, Hcube said:

Interesting but how do you know that ? 

This site explain that and it also confirm the date for 24 feb.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/09/ses-says-spacex-will-launch-its-satellite-in-late-february/

 

[The Yellow Dart]

Here is a pretty cool shot of the successful landing:

 

[Motokid600]

I wonder why we never got the supposed "amazing onboard video."

[Wjolcz]

5 hours ago, The Yellow Dart said:

Here is a pretty cool shot of the successful landing:

 

Is this the one that landed on solid ground (AKA the only succesful one?) or something new? I wasn't keeping the track of launches and landings recently.

 

Ok it's the old landing.

Had to write a new post because saving after editing does nothing on the mobile version of the forum. Hope those two podts get merged.

[softweir]

@The Yellow Dart: Nice shot! Thanks for posting that.

[Kerbal01]

Static fire for SES-9 scheduled for Saturday