SpaceX books another F9 flight

[docm]

Looks to be between COTS demo's 2 and 3.<br /><br />Link....<br /><br />Avanti home....<br /><br />HYLAS data sheet (PDF)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Avanti secures satellite launch services</b><br /><br />Satellite operator Avanti Communications has signed a contract to purchase launch services for the launch of its first satellite, HYLAS, on schedule and within budget from Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), USA.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">A launch window enabling the satellite to be launched between March and December 2009 has been booked. The satellite will be launched from the SpaceX launch facility on the US Air Force Range at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Avanti has also secured options for further launches.</font><br /><br />Avanti's chief executive, David Williams, said: "I am pleased to report the completion of another significant project milestone. The SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicles that we will use are also planned for use to transport US astronauts to the International Space Station, so for us to secure a service of this quality within the budget is pleasing. SpaceX share our vision of changing the speed and economics of space services so we look forward to working together."<br /><br />Monday, September 10, 2007<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

Nothing like having paying customers start lining up at the door! I hope it goes well, sounds like they like the pricing and spacex confidence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

Cool! I'll be excited to see Falcon 9 launches... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

David Williams, said: "I am pleased to report the completion of another significant project milestone. The SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicles that we will use are also planned for use to transport US astronauts to the International Space Station, so for us to secure a service of this quality within the budget is pleasing. SpaceX share our vision of changing the speed and economics of space services so we look forward to working together."<br />------------<br />Well, to be honest, this statement is so overboarding, it is already silly. He is talking about a launch vehicle that has never seen flight and of that only a first stage for testing has been built. Saying that it is a quality launcher because SpaceX wants to put a manned capsule on it in the future makes this guy sound like a Chinese propaganda officer.

 

[comga]

Got to agree with themanwithoutapast. <br /><br />SpaceX manifest lists three, count them three, Falcon 9 launches in the third quarter of '08 from the new (for them) pad at the Cape. Then they have one in the second quarter of '09, another one in the third quarter of 09, and another in the first quarter of '10. The only way they could THINK of inserting a launch customer is if one or more of the current customers cancels. Are they telling us something?

 

[mccorvic]

My guess is that you are correct about saying that SpaceX must know something that we don't know. They wouldn't purposely shoot themselves in the foot by not being able to deliver services in first opening months. <br /><br />My guess is that the failure of the Russian satellite launch the other day is/will drive up demand for other launchers and that maybe this has played a role in some of SpaceX's decisions. Pure speculation though.

 

[thereiwas]

In his update last month about F9 progress Musk said "<font color="yellow">As each part of the Falcon 9 production line activates, it goes into continuous production at a rate of one unit every three months.</font> So their target capability is four per year. I would think they need to complete their move to the new Hawthorne facility to sustain that.

 

[docm]

They already have one 1st stage tank, one engine bay and by now should have the first engine in Texas for testing. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Back in California, we’ve almost finished manufacturing the second engine bay and then will be starting on a third. As each part of the Falcon 9 production line activates, it goes into continuous production at a rate of one unit every three months.<br /> /><br />For the next phase of Falcon 9 first stage testing, the assembled tank and thrust structure will get lifted up on to the big stand and secured in place. If all goes reasonably well, we should do our first stage hold down firing, starting with one engine, within a few months and our first multi-engine firing in the December timeframe. Since we’ll have up to nine engines firing at once on the big test stand, our Texas team has installed extensive propellant management and data collection systems, and built out the flame trenches and related ground systems in preparation.<br /> /><br />We are gearing up to produce Merlin engines at a rate approaching one every two weeks by the end of this year.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

One engine every 2 weeks means 26 per year if they take no vacations. Each F9 launch uses 10 engines. That adds up to only 2.5 launches per year, not four, assuming no re-use of old engines. Maybe they plan to accelerate the engine production later.

 

[MeteorWayne]

They did say by the end of this year, which implies increased production later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

McCorvic - "My guess is that you are correct about saying that SpaceX must know something that we don't know. They wouldn't purposely shoot themselves in the foot by not being able to deliver services in first opening months."<br /><br />Well, I am going to have to disagree with your agreeing with me. SpaceX has included HyLAS on their manifest http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php<br />and it is in addition to and in amongst all the launches previously booked. <br /><br />This would strain credulity, if any were left. It is getting down right silly.

 

[mccorvic]

I still can't convience myself that SpaceX would hurt themselves in such an obvious way. Maybe there is something in the contract that these customers are signing that says "If we don't launch your merchandise within 3 months of when we say we're are you get a 50% discount" or something. <br /><br />Also, why would the customers sign-up if they don't believe it'd be worth their effort? Something just isn't adding up with our current available information.<br /><br />But, I've always been something of a dreamer and true believer...

 

[no_way]

the (non-)news about SpaceX start to sound a lot like this piece from TheOnion.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"We have to give this plan time to wop bop a loo bop, a wop bam boom, ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang,"... may as well have said<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In short, all the interesting stuff has been said, and as long as its not news about immediate launch or launch dates moving closer, its pretty much nonnews.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I still can't convience myself that SpaceX would hurt themselves in such an obvious way. ... Something just isn't adding up with our current available information. </i><br /><br />This is speculation, but perhaps SpaceX is outfitting a larger factory somewhere for much higher production rates? That would explain some of the discrepancy.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

You mean even larger than the half-million square foot one in Hawthorne they are just now moving into, that Boeing used to make 747 fuselage's in? Musk says <font color="yellow">"we can fit two Falcon 9s or five Falcon 1s, nose to tail, along the <i>short</i> side of the building!"</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[docm]

Yeah, something like that. <br /><br />That facility is bigger than the business district of the town I grew up in <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> You mean even larger than the half-million square foot one in Hawthorne they are just now moving into, that Boeing used to make 747 fuselage's in? Musk says "we can fit two Falcon 9s or five Falcon 1s, nose to tail, along the short side of the building!"</i><br /><br />No, that sounds exactly like what would be needed to build enough Falcons and Dragons to do what SpaceX is advertising. Wow that's huge.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Production rates don't mean squat, if launch site and integration doesn't have the throughput

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Production rates don't mean squat, if launch site and integration doesn't have the throughput</font>/i><br /><br />I am sure Musk is painfully aware of this after his first Falcon 1 sat at Vandenberg for months waiting for clearance to launch.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I wasn't referring to outside agencies, but to things under his control. His current flight rate is less than 1 per year

 

[thereiwas]

<i>Current</i> flight rate, I agree. To meet their schedule for 2008 they need to have gotten LC-40 converted to their needs. That is a lot of big construction work and subject to all sorts of delays, even if it doesn't get monkey-wrenched.<br /><br />Their current operational site is on the other side of the planet, a long sea voyage away, and isn't big enough for F9's anyway. LC-40 is the key; it is several times larger than all of Omelek Island, only half of which is improved.