Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday August 31 2016, @07:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the selective-recycling dept.

SES will launch a satellite using one of SpaceX's "flight-proven" rockets, or in other words, used goods:

The telecommunications giant SES is boldly going where no company has gone before by making history in inking a deal today, Aug. 30, to fly the expensive SES-10 commercial satellite on the first ever launch of a 'Flight-Proven' SpaceX booster.

Luxembourg-based SES and Hawthrone, CA-based SpaceX today jointly announced the agreement to "launch SES-10 on a flight-proven Falcon 9 orbital rocket booster" before the end of this year. "The satellite, which will be in a geostationary orbit and expand SES's capabilities across Latin America, is scheduled for launch in Q4 2016. SES-10 will be the first-ever satellite to launch on a SpaceX flight-proven rocket booster," according to a joint statement.

That first launch of a flight-proven Falcon 9 first stage will use the CRS-8 booster that delivered a SpaceX Dragon to the International Space Station in April 2016. The reflight could happen as soon as October 2016.

-- OriginalOwner_ adds The Register.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by fishybell on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:23PM

    by fishybell (3156) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:23PM (#395841)

    If this flight doesn't go exactly correct, the likelihood that SpaceX will recover IMHO is very slim.

    Why they don't fly it without any payload first is beyond me. No one really cared when they blew up a few rockets trying to land them since there was no payload lost. Losing a customers payload on a new idea would be the end of that idea.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:32PM

    by Snow (1601) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:32PM (#395844) Journal

    They won't lose customers. At worst, they might have to fly a few of the reused rockets with no payload to prove that they are safe.

    SpaceX has a pretty huge cost advantage and also has a pretty decent track record. One failure on an experimental rocket won't affect much. If their customers are scared to use a used rocket, then Spacex will happily make them a new one (I believe this is a requirement that NASA has set for it's SpaceX launches).

    As an aside, I'm sure SES got a pretty great deal on that rocket.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by draconx on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:01PM

    by draconx (4649) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:01PM (#395859)

    Pretty sure basically everyone launching expensive payloads into orbit has launch insurance. SES is likely receiving a substantial discount on this launch and they obviously considered the risk worth it.

    I love the "Flight-Proven" label. Just brilliant.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Snow on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:12PM

      by Snow (1601) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:12PM (#395864) Journal

      Yes, they do have insurance, and SES said that the insurance premium difference between a new rocket and the used rocket was insignificant. I'm sure any additional premiums were greatly offset by the discount provided by SpaceX.

      • (Score: 1) by aim on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:29AM

        by aim (6322) on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:29AM (#396093)

        Yes, they do have insurance, and SES said that the insurance premium difference between a new rocket and the used rocket was insignificant. I'm sure any additional premiums were greatly offset by the discount provided by SpaceX.

        Note that back when SES had their first Astra satellite launched (on an Ariane 4 IIRC), they were unable to pay for insurance - that launch was an all-or-nothing bet, that ultimately paid off.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:21PM (#395866)

      Brilliant? No. Manipulative and dishonest? Oh, that's what you meant? Good on you?

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:26PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:26PM (#395869)

        The proper label, straight from the concrete industry, would have been pre-stressed.
        The car dealers would have replace "used" with "550-points inspection. One owner".
        One could imagine why they didn't go for those.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 31 2016, @10:19PM

          by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @10:19PM (#395896) Journal

          Pre-stressed concrete doesn't fit in that same category, Because it is LESS likely to fail the more you load it (up to the design point).

          Cars and houses are a much better fit to the flight tested model. I've taken cars for test drives that lasted longer than this booster has flown before. Factory-certified pre-owned cars aren't always a good deal, but unless you are a crackerjack mechanic they are probably better than Craig's list cars - with or without a Carfax report.

          Besides, we don't know how many components were swapped out on the booster. I'd bet its way more than the 550 point inspection.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by davester666 on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:21AM

          by davester666 (155) on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:21AM (#396072)

          Less than 30 minutes on the hour meter!

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 01 2016, @04:28PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 01 2016, @04:28PM (#396237)

            Low mileage, older owner, hangar-kept, pet-free and teen-free.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:42PM (#395877)

        Companies aren't going to hand millions of dollars to SpaceX without understanding that "flight-proven" means used.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday August 31 2016, @10:05PM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @10:05PM (#395888) Journal

    Its already built into the launch price. And I imagine it comes with a replacement cost clause to the client. Then, Insurance.
    The payload is a bog standard com-sat, there are probably 5 more in the build queue just like it. Nobody's life depends on this launch. Its a perfect test case.

    Space-X Will not recover? That's been predicted time after time. Go to the back of the doom-sayer line.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.