Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday August 25 2017, @04:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the your-gazintas-needs-to-be-more-then-your-gazoutas dept.

The SpaceX launch of Taiwan's Formosat-5 satellite was delayed by years following a switch from the Falcon 1e rocket and the two Falcon 9 explosions in 2015 and 2016. SpaceX launched the satellite successfully and recovered the first stage booster on a drone ship, but the company won't make any profit on the launch:

The Formosat-5 is Taiwan's first satellite designed and built entirely with the nation's resources. More than 50 teams from across the country built it to facilitate academic research, disaster prevention, and humanitarian assistance. Originally, the sat was supposed to fly on SpaceX's Falcon 1e, an upgraded version of its first orbital-class Falcon 1 rocket with a lift capability of 2,200 pounds. And according to industry analysis site Space Intel Report, they paid $23 million for the privilege—compared to the typical $62 million for a commercial Falcon 9 launch today.

[...] Despite the delays, Taiwan didn't opt for another rocket provider like Orbital ATK, which operates the Minotaur rocket for missions to low-Earth orbit at a cost of around $30 million. Instead, SpaceX will pay 1.25 percent of the launch costs back to them for every month that Formosat-5 is delayed, according to the mission's contract.

So how much is SpaceX going to lose on this mission? If you remove the potential reusability of the Falcon 9 booster for a moment, a lot. According to a launch cost analysis by investment firm Jefferies International, SpaceX usually makes a 40 percent profit from $62 million commercial Falcon 9 launches with new boosters. That puts $25 million in the bank and $37 million toward direct launch costs. With Taiwan's severely reduced fare of $23 million, SpaceX is not only foregoing its profit but will be out-of-pocket for the remaining $14 million.

Also at NASASpaceFlight.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by Chrontius on Friday August 25 2017, @10:25AM (1 child)

    by Chrontius (5246) on Friday August 25 2017, @10:25AM (#558800)

    Sometimes, things don't go according to plan. Plan was, they'd hang this one up in the sky using a launch vehicle that was since decommissioned. Had they launched on time, on the right vehicle, it would have required literally 1/10th the Merlin engines (though an additional, if simpler, Kestrel would have been required) and a fraction of the fuel. Far less aluminum-lithium alloy in expendable components.

    Sometimes, a deal doesn't go as planned.

    How you deal with that, that speaks to character.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Friday August 25 2017, @01:10PM

    by Virindi (3484) on Friday August 25 2017, @01:10PM (#558841)

    How you deal with that, that speaks to character.

    Or, in this case, the fact that contracts are legally enforceable for damages. There is little point in just tearing up the contract when this amount of money is involved, the amounts dwarf potential legal costs and there is not likely to be much question as to the points of the case.

    That's the whole point of having the contract in the first place. Why would they write in such a provision if it didn't mean something.

    People are just too used to companies writing "you have no choice but to agree" contracts for them which are totally one-sided. All contracts aren't like that.