This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

SpaceX Launches SES-8

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 3, 2013
Filed under

SpaceX Launches SES-8
“SpaceX launched the SES-8 satellite this evening on a Falcon 9.1 rocket. Launch occured as the window opened at 5:41 pm ET. Second stage reignition and burn was a success. The SES-8 spacecraft is now in a nominal GEO transfer orbit. So far it seems that the flight was completely nominal.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

76 responses to “SpaceX Launches SES-8”

  1. cuibono1969 says:
    0
    0

    Congratulations to all those who worked the issues over the past few days. Magnificent! Now for many encores…

  2. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Once again the USA is competive in the GEO satellite launch business. When was the last time an american company launched a comunication satellite to Geo that was not paid for by my tax dollars????

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      The rocket was paid for with your tax dollars and I’d say it was a heck of a good investment. Taxes spent intelligently benefit us all.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        The rocket was paid for with substantial investment by SpaceX investors. Oh yes, who do you think paid to develop EELVs – i.e. Delta IV at Atlas V? Answer: the government.

        • Todd Austin says:
          0
          0

          Keith, how does the COTS investment in SpaceX break down? Are there any numbers showing the extent to which NASA supported the development of Falcon and Dragon?

          Aside from direct financial investment, SpaceX has received invaluable guidance from NASA. That’s a wise leveraging of a prior investment in the development of that expertise.

          Bean counting aside, it’s wonderful to see this project making such excellent steady forward progress.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You got it backwards. YOU made the claim. Now YOU go do the research and show how tax dollars paid for the development of Falcon 9. I am not going to do your research for you.

          • Todd Austin says:
            0
            0

            My sincere apologies to you, Keith. I meant no disrespect. As a professional journalist in the field, I thought you might have a sense of the answer in your head. I know I’ve read that Musk spent his investment getting Falcon 1 into orbit, but beyond that, I’m lacking information.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            You, my friend, have caught the car! Now what? 🙂

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Tedd:

            We have to ask ourselves why this didn’t happen long ago. I think COTS was about 800 million dollar split two ways. That’s half the money spent on the latest Mars Rover and if I’m not mistaken, that was completely government funding.

            tinker

        • Byeman says:
          0
          0

          No, Boeing and LM paid for a larger share of EELV than Spacex did for the Falcon 9.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I don’t really see this as a meaningful comparison because a large part of what Boeing and LM put into EELVs had nothing to do with EELV development, but rather resulted from the way they do business — much higher overheads, lobbying and campaign contributions, high-priced marketing, etc. SpaceX also saves themselves a lot of money through their vertical integration purchasing and manufacturing process.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            “The program office completed its Source Selection in October 1998 and awarded
            Development and Initial Launch Services contracts to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
            Both contractors received a $500M development contract. Boeing’s ILS contract
            was worth $1.38B and Lockheed Martin’s ILS contract was worth $650M. “

            and …

            EELV implements the 1994 Space Launch Modernization Plan Option 2 Upgrade
            Existing Launchers, which was estimated to have a pricetag of $1.5-$2.0 billion.
            Between $1.0 billion and $$2.5 billion may be spent on development and testing
            of an EELV, the launch of two medium lift and one heavy-lift demonstrators and
            modifications to launch pads. The EELV budget includes both Air Force and
            National Reconnaissance Office funds. Annual spending will be $76 million in
            FY1995, $75 million in FY1996, $73 million in FY1997, $104 million in FY 1998,
            $173 million in FY 1999, $108 million in FY 2000 and $120 million in FY 2001,
            for a total of $729 million. Subsequent funding is dependent on the specific
            vehicle concept selected. Although contractor cost sharing is expected, it is
            not required. Some additional funding will also be available from the National
            Reconnaissance Office.(2)”

            There was also more funding in the design area.

            “Initially the EELV program planned to conduct the first risk reduction phase
            over 8 to 24 months, with contract awards expected in July 1995. This phase was
            to refine concepts, conduct budget-constrained trade studies, and demonstrate
            technology. Rather than using computer models and simulations, risk reduction
            demonstrations will use hardware-in-the-loop. These would not be technology
            development demonstrations, but rather would show the maturity of proposals.
            This phase will also develop life-cycle cost and design reliability estimates.
            Roughly $225 million would be spent for these cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts”

            There was also a one time additional 100 million to each of them. Plus they got over 1 billion in a direct subsidy when they joined and formed ULA.

            http://www.fas.org/spp/mili

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          THIS rocket was paid for by the costumer for 56 million dollars.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Tedd:

        Instead of immediately dismissing you as a troll, I’ll try to explain a few things to you.

        SpaceX invested dollar for dollar the money NASA awarded them to develop the Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule, about 800 million dollars split two ways. What SpaceX delivered was a rocket that could be built for about a quarter of the cost of anything America could field on it’s launch pads at a 30th the launch cost of a single Space Shuttle flight (thus saving the ‘taxpayer’s’ dollars!). If SpaceX succeeds at making their booster stages reusable, the launch cost will go down to a 300th of the cost of a Shuttle mission.

        Obviously it was money intelligently spent!

        Meanwhile, the major aerospace companies cobbled together a couple of launch vehicles in the 90’s, the Atlas V (using Russian booster motors and the 50 year old Centaur stage) and the Delta IV (which in fact had an American built booster motor and an upper stage based on the Centaurs motor). Once these companies were flying for a few years, instead of developing follow up, cheaper launch vehicles, they actually combined forces to lower costs and insure that they had a monopoly on government launches. No commercial company would use them to launch their payloads because they were far too expensive.

        These aerospace companies had decades of practice leaching the government of ‘taxpayer’s’ dollars by demanding ‘cost plus’ contracts where their profit margin was guaranteed and they could spend what they wonted on actually building their inferior hardware. Maybe that’s why you are so bitter, because those companies put a bad taste in your mouth from all there waste.

        SpaceX has spent every penny (theirs and the governments) to bring space launch prices down and save your precious taxpayer’s money.

        Speaking of waste, that’s about all the time I’ll give you on this topic because I don’t think you’ll listen anyway (but others most certainly will!)

        Keith, if he uses the opportunity to just bad-mouth me… turf him! If he has any semblance of an argument… give him a chance.

        tinker

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          Tedd:

          Sincere apologies! I misread your earlier post! Shot from the hip there, I did!

          Geez, this is the first time I’ve had to flag my own content!

          tinker

          • Todd Austin says:
            0
            0

            No harm, no foul, Tinker. I promise I’m not a troll! I appreciate that you took the time to write a thoughtful reply. I completely agree that SpaceX’s improvement in efficiency is a great thing and am delighted that we’re backing him. I hope Congress has the sense to keep that going, despite SpaceX’s increasing ability to fund themselves. Now, before I get myself into trouble again by Commenting While Tired, I’ll wrap it up.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Todd:

            Thank you, my reputation is redeemable… over time and good behavior! I got your name wrong too! Ouch!

            I won’t make any excuses, I’ll just try to do better. All I can say is it had been a long day!

            I doubt Congress will ‘get it’ that they have a truly American space program on a silver platter though. To them, SpaceX is just an uncontrollable upstart threatening the districts (outdated and useless) job base and their own re-election prospects.

            Cheers:

            tinker

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Tinker,

            This is one of those I-don’t-know-if-I-should-post-it-or-not comments, but I’ve thought it through and typed it up, so I guess I’ll take a chance and hope I don’t upset anyone.

            I’d say it’s pretty clear that Congress, individually and collectively, does “get it,” and has all along. I firmly believe that they simply choose to do things the way they do, for their own personally-benefiting reasons.

            The catch is, as long as they all stick together, and new-comers willingly adopt their tainted rules, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it, short of drastic actions, which could easily make things worse for many innocent people instead of better.

            But Congress, for all its faults, can be seen to have a cooperative game plan covering much of its activities and a set of “rules” that they all play by, whereas the population collectively has neither, and therefore can’t begin to compete. I realize that this is a rather extreme assertion to make — that a population is competing with its own Congress, its own elected representatives — but unfortunately I think it’s an accurate assessment of the situation, at least as I see it as an outsider. The high spirits and dedication that we see at election times, from both the population and the Congressional candidates, is a temporary state of affairs, almost more like a holiday than a serious set of political decisions.

            The longer things go on as they have been, the harder it will be to bring about change, but what, short of another revolution, can be done to instigate that change? Representation by population is one of the fundamental concepts underlying the democracy that we all believe in, perhaps the most fundamental concept of all, but that representation, if it ever actually existed, seems to have faded away in the democratic republics, including the US, and we’re simply not doing anything about fixing that. Our lives are so full of day-to-day existence, that few if any of us have time to think about trying to fix the “representation” problem. And those who are in a position to fix it, and are responsible for fixing this sort of thing, are the problem.

            It’s a very disturbing state of affairs, but it seems that there’s very little in our modern lives that doesn’t intersect with federal politics in one way or another.

            I guess I’d better quit now before the mind police catch up with me.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            You seem to be right on the problem Steve.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      If Wikipedia is to be believed, 2009. (Atlas V, Intelsat 14)

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        It’s not just the four years since the last launch, but also the fact that there have been only a handful in the past ten years.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          V4:

          Back in the day, NASA was selling Shuttle flights to commercial satellite companies. Challenger was carrying two such when… well, you know.

          That was the last time Shuttles carried commercial payloads.

          tinker.

          • Bill Bard says:
            0
            0

            To my knowledge Challenger was not carrying two commercial satellites when it failed. Just the TDRS.

          • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
            0
            0

            Challenger was carrying a TDRS.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Bill:

            You’re absolutely right! Challenger’s cargo was a TDRS and a solid motor kick stage. I must have been thinking of the missions just prior, which were the last commercial comsats launched on the Shuttle.

            tinker

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Matt:

        It’s true. That factoid was widely publicized (they all read Wikipedia too!). I didn’t mention it because that one launch fell below the noise level of marketability. Maybe ULA gave them a deal (in other words, lowered their price to be just competitive enough).

        I’ve seen no evidence that ULA or the launch vehicle makers intend to change anything! No new, cheaper launch vehicles, no reusable boosters, no increase in launch rates. They’ll bow out of the launch vehicle business altogether before they do any of those things.

        That day may be coming sooner than they think.

        Not only has SpaceX put America back in the satellite launch business, they’ve done so at a price point that others will have to work very hard to beat!

        Some will fold, others will put their shoulders to the wheel. One things clear though… the game is on!

        tinker

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Tinker,

          You know that I’m full-speed-ahead with SpaceX, too, but let’s not run too fast just yet; count your chickens carefully and spread your eggs around. So far, SpaceX is standing alone in having succeeded using their methods. I’d like to see at least a couple more companies doing so, and all of them continuing to succeed for a few years before I think we can relax and feel like we’ve got it licked. I’m all for optimism, but this is too important to feel complacent before we’re absolutely certain.

          Steve

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            PS: I think extrapolating success too much from the current state of affairs also makes it harder to argue for killing SLS.

            I think that Congress and the entrenched aerospace machine would work that much harder (and less fairly) to retain and maintain their jobs program, since “bowing out” of the launch business would eliminate, or at least displace, many thousands of jobs in the US (the fact that a significant portion of those jobs was never really necessary will not enter into it).

            The collective public, who are without much in the way of actual data, will almost certainly buy the jobs argument (yet again) because it speaks to them on a level they can understand and is consistent with the level of data they do possess.

            I think we need to adopt the ways of marshall arts — don’t attack; don’t boast; rather, relax and apply subtle actions which will let the other guy’s own actions work against him. Since we can’t fight fire with fire, we set up subtle, carefully calculated fire breaks and let Congress and “Old Space” burn in self-defeating directions until they quietly run out of things to burn.

            Of course, this, too, requires a game plan, and a body of people to develop and implement tactics, to bring it about. Within the advocacy groups, the general public, and those companies on “our” side of the industry I’m sure we have people with enough smarts to do this. The only real challenges I see are to: 1) stay inside the law (not too hard); and 2) do it discretely without advertising it, so as not to tip our hand (a whole lot harder in today’s world).

            I know my suggestion sounds far-fetched on first hearing, but when you put down in words some of the things that have already been happening in space development for so many years, then this idea, by comparison, is not so far out.

            Just my thoughts.

            Steve

  3. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    This is hugely good news. It means access to the lucrative satellite launch business and a reliable independent source of cash for a privately-held SpaceX. That means money to fund the Martian dreams of millions that can’t be touched by the current political chaos in the country. Well done, SpaceX!

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      Someone ought to interview former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison about SpaceX. And while they are at it, there are a few choice questions about SLS that could be asked of her, as well. I’d pay to see that. 🙂

  4. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    Another step towards a clear and inevitable replacement of the SLS heavy launcher by Falcon Heavy. This maintains the SpaceX launch schedule. First launch of the Heavy is suppose to be the first half of 2014. There is no NASA first manned mission beyond LEO that could not be designed, at this time, to use Falcon Heavy instead of SLS and save tax dollars and be executed sooner.

    Thousands including me checked into the virtual town hall on restructuring the NASA planetary program. A vein of great concern is the loss of planetary scientists. There isn’t enough money to sustain the existing researchers. While some support of undergrad and grad programs remains, where will any new researchers find work? The savings from turning to the Falcon Heavy and abandoning the NASA SLS managed heavy lifter would more than replace the cuts in the SMD side of the NASA budget. If you like the great science NASA does, the great photos of discovery across the Solar System and Universe, then the manned program must function cost effectively. While SMD missions run over budget too, the overruns are a magnitude less than HEOMD projects. The choice of SLS/Orion or choosing the cost-effective commercial alternatives is a pivotal moment for NASA – for its future missions and space science research in the USA.

    Furthermore, for American commerce this marks the start of American re-entry into the international satellite launch industry. Atlas and Delta (ref. Spaceflightnow article) have not been competitive with Russian, Ukrainian, EU and Chinese vehicles. Falcon 9 and next the Heavy represents the value of the American economic system supporting foreigners and Americans alike to innovate. Congratulations to SpaceX.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      If planetary scientists want funds shifted from SLS/Orion to science, they are going to have to make their voices heard in Congress!

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        Exactly. So far the cries have been for “more money for NASA” only. Its time to start picking sides.

      • Andrew French says:
        0
        0

        So true! The SLS/Orion suporters threaten anyone who dares question their entitelment of $3B a year. Scientists are right to be scared. These people are vicious, but someone needs to stop the insanity.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          What is hilarious is the same people voting the pork will turn right around when SLS.MPCV are canceled and say they have been fighting for commercial for years…

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Rocky:

      Science missions also support entire fields of advanced eduction. Not only the educational programs that directly support those missions and analyze their data but also as inspiration to young students who want to study space sciences in the hope of being involved some day.

      Politicians should be less interested in jobs as the be all, end all but in the future jobs and the intellectual health of the nation that science programs deliver. I know that’s asking too much of them though.

      tinker

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        Politicians rarely look much a head of the next election. This has been allowed for – senators are elected for 6 year terms. So future jobs 5-6 years ahead can be important to them.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Future jobs don’t vote.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Delivering a no bid, cost plus, fixed fee FAR contract to one the usual suspects for a new development program in their district DOES mean future votes.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Folks:

            Obviously the successful strategy then is to take the politicians out of the loop when it comes to the space business. SpaceX has done a good job of that so far.

            If they had an IPO (sold shares), certain folks would work hard to buy up enough of them to destroy the company. So, SpaceX should stay the course and just keep doing what they’re doing how they’re doing it!

            tinker

    • Ed Kyle says:
      0
      0

      Falcon 9 Heavy is not a replacement for SLS. Not even two Falcon 9 Heavies could replace an SLS.

      First, there is evidence that it won’t lift anywhere near the advertised 50-some tonnes to low earth orbit. Second, with no high energy upper stage it won’t come anywhere close to SLS deep space payload capacity.

      Falcon 9 v1.1 is a winner, but it is not a competitor to Proton and Ariane 5 and Sea Launch and Atlas 5 and Delta 4 as is so often claimed. It simply can’t lift as much payload to GTO as those machines. It may thrive in its own niche category, but it won’t be able to fly the 6+ tonne GTO satellites flown by the others.

      – Ed Kyle

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        The difference in Falcon Heavy to SLS is 53 mT vs. 70 mT to LEO; not a 2 to 1 difference. In the end, SLS could just as well not lift as much as the claimed 70 mT. The World will know the capability of Falcon Heavy at least 3 years in advance of SLS.

        The upper stage of SLS would be more capable than Falcon’s, as is the Centaur on Atlas V. A Falcon Heavy will cost $130M vs. an Atlas V at $250M and the former will lift twice as much payload to LEO. As the answer to Keith Cowing’s question a couple weeks ago, NASA stated an SLS launch cost is $500 to $600M – 3x the cost of a F-H but only about 50% more lift. [This doesn’t include maintaining SLS year after year]

        Falcon 9 or Heavy payload can include a third stage engine that easily makes up for what the Falcon 2nd stage lacks. Or possibly the payload advantage to GTO (F-H @ 21,000 vs. 8900 kg of Atlas V 551 — the former half the price, mind you) could permit carrying an added/extended fuel tank for the Falcon 2nd stage and still carry the space probe.

        If you adapt to different formulas for lifting to LEO, GTO, TLI or Solar orbits, the cost savings of each launch and the reduced cost of maintaining SLS that only one customer can afford (NASA)[or can’t afford] outweighs the differences in lift capability. Adding a 3rd stage increases cost but there are COTS solutions that would still make the total launch costs significantly cheaper and even more if one considers not maintaining the SLS system on a once per year or two year schedule.

      • Tombomb123 says:
        0
        0

        yeah but falcon heavy could lift those 6+ tonne GTO sat’s and possibly two at once.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        First, there is evidence that it won’t lift anywhere near the advertised 50-some tonnes to low earth orbit.

        What evidence? SpaceX has exceeded its payload targets for F1 and F9. They tend to undersell performance, oversell schedule. That suggests that FH will loft over 53 tonnes but not launch until early to mid 2015.

        Second, with no high energy upper stage it won’t come anywhere close to SLS deep space payload capacity.

        So SpaceX has 7 years to develop one or adapt an existing one. Given their rate of progress that doesn’t seem like much of a stretch.

        Alternatively, if NASA wanted to replace SLS with FH for SLS’s unfunded “mission” (what that is), they would have around $18b in freed up funding to develop their own preferred upper, or pay SpaceX to develop one for them. (Or more likely, $1-2b for a mission-dedicated upper, and $16-17b for an actual honest to god mission.)

        But moreso, even if FH was twice as expensive as proposed, let’s say $300m per. And even if it only lofted 40 tonnes. It would still be cheaper to build a mission around FH launches than to continue to fund SLS development. Two launches for $600m to better SLS’s payload. And for the price of a single year of SLS development, you could buy 8 FH launches, or 4 equivalent SLS missions. And if FH flies by 2015, allow a year for bugs, you could fly four SLS-class missions every single year for the current SLS development budget over the next five years. 20 full 80-tonne-payload missions available over 5 years.

        Or one mission per year, and $2b left over to spend on each of 5 actual missions.

        Anyone who defends SLS on price or payload completely fails to comprehend just how hideously expensive and slow that monstrosity actually is.

        but it is not a competitor to Proton and Ariane 5 and Sea Launch and Atlas 5 and Delta 4 as is so often claimed.

        Then why are they so concerned?

        It may thrive in its own niche category,

        Hardly “niche”. Have you seen their launch manifest?

        but it won’t be able to fly the 6+ tonne GTO satellites flown by the others.

        If there was a market for it, and even if FH failed to work as advertised, SpaceX could develop an OMV. Two F9 launches, one for the non-reusable OMV, one for the cargo. Bam! 13 tonnes to GTO. And it would still be cheaper than Delta 4.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Sorry but we’ll know Falcon Heavy’s actual payload capabilities long before we’ll know SLS’s actual payload capabilities. I’m willing to bet that SLS won’t meet its claims.

  5. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    Great job SpaceX. Another milestone successfully achieved. Issues worked, resolved, and vehicle launched. Now onto Thiacom later this month, then CRS3 and return of the first stage, FH, Raptor, DragonCrew.
    Here’s a company doing what NASA should be doing.

    • MattW2 says:
      0
      0

      Here’s a company doing what companies should be doing.

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      No, this is exactly what private industry should be doing. As for Dragon – that too. In former NASA Administrator Griffin’s words: “Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial providers fill in for those activities that are not frontier.”

      Absolutely.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Yes except for one sorry fact and that is that NASA is not doing so and is instead building a phallic symbol that they’ll never be able to afford to fly. Only a jobs program.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Then Griffin should have fought tooth and nail to keep the VSE and not toss it aside for the ESAS.

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    A simple thought lol
    How much did THIS rocket cost???? About 56 million dollars!!! Today it only cost 56 million dollars to put 6000 pound payload Safely in GEO!!! That’s not a discounted price right, that is what it cost!!!! That’s where we are!!! and next year we will do better!!! No government paid for THIS rocket!! The customer did!!!

    That is why I can’t help but cheer for Spacex!

    The Space Settler

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Relax a little and ease up on the oneoneelevenses.

      SES definitely had a discount here for riding on unproven rocket. Also, cost and price are different concepts, dont confuse them. Whether the price charged is sufficient to cover the costs, long term, will remain to be seen.

      Cusomers are paying for rockets all the time, and governments subsidize launch companies one way or another everywhere. SpaceX is not much different in that regard. The achievement here was to finally bring a small slice of the global market share back to US

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      DTARS:

      The launch cost works out to $9,000 per pound. Reusable stages would bring that down to $900 per pound. Elementary schools could afford a couple thousand to put a cell phone based cubesat into orbit. Wouldn’t that be a good STEM program!

      tinker

  7. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    I’ll be waiting to see how the SpaceX nay-sayers move the goal posts this time. SpaceX is proving, time and time again, that access to space need not be as expensive as it has in the past. It’s absolutely incredible what SpaceX has done, in terms of launch costs, and they’ve not even begun to reuse flight hardware.

  8. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    I love how this board delves immediately into NASA bashing and politics. Why not just be happy for SpaceX’s incredible achievement and wish them best of luck in the future?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Maybe just misplaced in their 50 anger and frustration with the porkonauts in congress who are more concerned with their own districts and getting those cost place contracts for contributors.

  9. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    As I said 2 years, too bad SpaceX could not have a secondary payload and send it to Mars this opportunity. 50,000 miles out. The batteries would not last long, but they could have done like India and been on their way. The 2nd stage did not fire very long. I think they had plenty of fuel. No solar cells on the second stage though. Probably no room in the fairing for a small Mars probe. I suggested they use the Allan Array for deep space com. A person from there did say they had picked up signals from the spacecraft around Mars. SpaceX needs a little practice. Too bad. Maybe Thiacom. Happy to see it went perfect. Congratulations.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      S13:

      Elon Musk said that SES would get maximum performance so I expect they would have fired the 2nd stage to within their safety reserve. Letting the Merlin ‘run dry’ is not an option! Running out of either RP-1 or LOX has ramifications, neither of them good. They would have a safe amount of reserve left over but it wouldn’t have amounted to much.

      But, just that one minute’s worth of propellent weighed as much as the SES-8 satellite itself! Mind you, the vacuum Merlin was punching a tenth it’s thrust in mass to high orbit so it must have been quite a ride!

      tinker

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        I based that on that the payload was 6000lbs. and they can launch 10,000lbs. The timeline says the 2nd stage only burned for 5 min. on the first burn and 1 minute on the second burn. The old F9 use to burn 8 min. and still had enough for a 2nd. burn to go to 6000 miles out. The new one might have a bigger tank. The problem is batteries and how long the ox. can be pressured. That orbit takes a long time. It might take a day to get to to the right point to fire for Mars. India only spends 66 million for the whole flight. SpaceX can afford it, for some reason they don’t want to do it. A cube sat would do. Elon said 10 years to a flight to Mars. I thought that would be Crewed, so I thought they would be sending robots first. Just like IM we all have missions that NASA or SpaceX should be doing. The Mars people not going when they have an opportunity. Just like not reusing Dragon. But they have their reasons.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          S13:

          The new Falcon has a much larger set of second stage tanks. This gives them not only more flexible mission profiles but also the ability the recover the first stage if they want.

          If SpaceX chose to, they could use the new Falcon to send a probe to Mars. It wouldn’t be large and they couldn’t recover the booster stage but the numbers are there. Batteries could keep the stage alive for days and the helium tanks they use to pressurize the stage’s main tanks would just sit there waiting to be used. They could use existing hardware, either a Falcon 1 upper stage motor or a Draco based stage to insert a probe on it’s way to Mars.

          There’s really no show-stoppers for them to do this. Maybe next window in two years, eh?

          tinker

  10. Bill Bard says:
    0
    0

    Good job by SpaceX!
    So that was their 3rd launch this year. Their launch manifest shows 3 more launches this year and 12 launches next year. The big thing for them to demonstrate is that they can maintain high quality with a high launch rate. So hopefully by the end of 2014 we will see if they can deliver on their promise of low cost reliable launches. Good luck!

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      The Thaicom satellite is the only launch left on the schedule for this year. The Orbcomm and CRS3 flights have been pushed into 2014. It will be interesting to see whether SpaceX pushes the Thaicom launch down the road a bit after the extra week with SES8 on the pad.

  11. SpaceHoosier says:
    0
    0

    Congrats to all the hard-working people of SpaceX on another job well done!

  12. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The progress made by SpaceX has been a partnership between NASA and industry, much as NACA once provided for the aircraft industry. The primary goal of NASA should not be to put a few flags and footprints on Mars, but rather to help industry advance practical and sustainable technology that will contribute to the US economy. Significant science that advances our understanding of the universe is a reasonable secondary goal.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      You said that better than I was about to.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      From the Space Act of 1958 and one of NASA’s mandates::

      “(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles”
      I sincerely hope, that with the coming of domestic commercial transportation companies for crew and cargo, that NASA starts doing what they do for the aeronautics industry. With the next administration we will hopefully see an end to the SLS.MPCV and a commercial fuel station and NASA moving towards space based, reusable, “Gas n’ Go” vehicles.

      • richard_schumacher says:
        0
        0

        Do note that the current Administration is not responsible for SLS; it is nicknamed the “Senate Launch System” for a reason.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          I understand that, but the falcon heavy and crew launches will be going by the next admin, those will be the nails.

  13. pilgrim101 says:
    0
    0

    Congratulations to the space x team. This is your time to shine. My comments are to the team Mr. Musk not to you as a individual. You and your team stand on the shoulders of the titians that came before you and the tax payers that have injected funds-differed state/local taxe-developed/maintained support facilities-underwritten loan guaranties. Your hard work and dedication are to be admired. Much talk of turning over the human spaceflight outlet to so called private business but not much said about the true support sourcing for these companies. I am not against allowing other ships in the harbor but the country should own its own ships of the line to make sure the tail never wags the dog. As for funding of human spaceflight verse robotic missions….the time has come for NASA to be human spaceflight only and Huston to go away. JPL and other nasa centers need to be funded as stand alone agencies with there own budgets.

  14. Robert van de Walle says:
    0
    0

    NASAWatch has the best community of commenters.

  15. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    A perfect launch for SpaceX… on their sixth try in three launch windows!

    Well… I have an ‘app’ for that!

    What SpaceX should do is take a second stage tank set and fit it with an octaweb and nine Merlin engines. I call it the ‘Launch Practice Article’ (or LPA).

    Between launches, the ground and launch crews could have full wet dress rehearsals and static engine test firings. This would give them practical testing opportunities for new procedures and practice of existing launch procedures on a high resolution test bed. Since the second stage relies less on ground support (besides fueling) it could be simulated instead.

    How do you get to space? Practice, practice, practice!

    Just another crazy idea from TinkerTecKnowledgies!

    tinker

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Tinker

      Why does a second stage not have engine out capabity??

      You recall Apollo program sweating the service module start to get it out of lunar orbit??

      How many missions have been lost to second stage engine failure???

      Shouldn’t second stage/ service module have more than one engine?

      Could n’t multiple engine’s make for more mission flexabilty????

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        DTARS:

        I think you might have missed the target on this concept. The LPA would never leave the ground.

        Between launches, the ground and flight crews would put the LPA and the trasporter/erector, hook it up, fuel it and then static fire it’s nine Merlins to keep in practice and hone procedures. That way, they would have less chance of ground system based delays like we saw on this last launch campaign.

        Call it a ‘short’ Falcon, but it would be a flightless bird.

        tinker