SpaceX selected to launch NASA mission probing the creation of matter

The Falcon 9 rocket is pretty much the only rocket available to launch this mission.

See full article...

 

[trimeta]

Any word on the mass of COSI? Given the equatorial orbit, I'm wondering if it could in theory have launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne, were that rocket not discontinued.

As for the price, $69M (or really, $69.75M) is the current "standard payment plan" for a Falcon 9 launch. So NASA isn't getting a discount due to the low mass of the payload, but they're also not paying a premium for the unusual orbit or government overhead. (Or realistically, both of those do apply, they just cancel out.) Really, IXPE is the outlier, and seems to have been priced as it was mostly to compete with Pegasus XL, which is also no longer flying.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

Any word on the mass of COSI? Given the equatorial orbit, I'm wondering if it could in theory have launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne, were that rocket not discontinued.

As for the price, $69M (or really, $69.75M) is the current "standard payment plan" for a Falcon 9 launch. So NASA isn't getting a discount due to the low mass of the payload, but they're also not paying a premium for the unusual orbit or government overhead. (Or realistically, both of those do apply, they just cancel out.) Really, IXPE is the outlier, and seems to have been priced as it was mostly to compete with Pegasus XL, which is also no longer flying.

It's in line with public numbers but it seems Globalstar got it for 64MM

 

[dmsilev]

Well, Falcon is the only launching-from-the-US rocket that is currently suitable. ESA has that nice equatorial launch site available...

(I don't think NASA would have considered a partnership arrangement for an Explorer-class mission the way they did with Webb; too small to make it worth while)

 

[Wickwick]

Wow, an equatorial, LEO launch. That's about the worst performance orbit for anything not launching from very low latitudes.

 

[J.C. Helios]

This is about a 37 percent increase in the price NASA paid SpaceX in a 2019 contract for launch of the similarly sized IXPE X-ray telescope into a similar orbit as COSI. The higher price is at least partially explained by inflation.

Specifically, the 37% inflation in the launching-a-short-wavelength-telescope-into-a-low-equatorial-orbit market.

 

[Wickwick]

Any word on the mass of COSI? Given the equatorial orbit, I'm wondering if it could in theory have launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne, were that rocket not discontinued.

As for the price, $69M (or really, $69.75M) is the current "standard payment plan" for a Falcon 9 launch. So NASA isn't getting a discount due to the low mass of the payload, but they're also not paying a premium for the unusual orbit or government overhead. (Or realistically, both of those do apply, they just cancel out.) Really, IXPE is the outlier, and seems to have been priced as it was mostly to compete with Pegasus XL, which is also no longer flying.

I don't think the particular orbit has much bearing on price. In the end, the booster can only get so far downrange so that's where the barge parks. I doubt there's any dogleg acceleration until deep into the second stage burn. After that, it's a fully-loaded F9 launch, one way or another.

That NASA is getting a market-rate price suggests they're not asking for a lot of the extra inspections or paperwork they often do for higher cost payload classes.

 

[Wickwick]

"The higher price is at least partially explained by inflation."

In can be argued that the higher price is completely explained by inflation, given that that's what inflation is. But as we today well know, inflation can be related broadly to economy-wide factors, or it can just be an individual service-provider saying "Yeah, you need to pay me a whole lot more" because they can. And since SpaceX has the only suitable rocket, I know which explanation my money's on.

A difference in costs between two launches can also relate to what's purchased. No word as to what processing premiums, if any, are being requested (documentation, air conditioned storage, security-cleared prep personnel, etc.).

Edit: It could also be explained by a change in competition in the market. Absent Pegasus or Virgin Orbit to launch it, SpaceX could charge more. This is one of the few times where air launch could make a substantial improvement to ground launch.

 

[Tridus]

Well, Falcon is the only launching-from-the-US rocket that is currently suitable. ESA has that nice equatorial launch site available...

(I don't think NASA would have considered a partnership arrangement for an Explorer-class mission they way they did with Webb; too small to make it worth while)

I think it would have to use a European rocket to do that, though, which would dramatically inflate the cost. Since F9 can do the job and they're not just price gouging on it, there's little point in doing a partnership that would just make it more expensive.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Any word on the mass of COSI? Given the equatorial orbit, I'm wondering if it could in theory have launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne, were that rocket not discontinued.

The Fine Article indicates "less than a ton" - one would presume not all that much less.

 

[stefan_lec]

For more info on antimatter(?!!) being emitted by the center of the galaxy, found this:

Cosmic antimatter hints at origins of huge bubbles in our galaxy’s center

An excess of positrons in Earth’s vicinity supports the idea that the Fermi bubbles were burped by the Milky Way’s supermassive black hole long ago.

www.sciencenews.org

I'd never heard of this before. Any recommended sources to read up on it would be welcome, it's pretty cool.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

I think it would have to use a European rocket to do that, though, which would dramatically inflate the cost. Since F9 can do the job and they're not just price gouging on it, there's little point in doing a partnership that would just make it more expensive.

Ariane 6 isn't yet an operational rocket, and I highly suspect will not have all that much of a flight record by 2027.

 

[trimeta]

Edit: It could also be explained by a change in competition in the market. Absent Pegasus or Virgin Orbit to launch it, SpaceX could charge more. This is one of the few times where air launch could make a substantial improvement to ground launch.

I'm pretty sure this is the answer. IXPE needed to compete with the $40M Pegasus XL, and so SpaceX charged $50M. COSI had no competition, so SpaceX could charge their normal base price.

 

[trimeta]

The Fine Article indicates "less than a ton" - one would presume not all that much less.

The details may matter -- for example, if it's low enough it's theoretically possible that ABL could put their mobile launchpad at Guiana Space Center and have the performance to reach the target orbit. Not that NASA would have contracted with them for such a service, when they've never had a successful orbital launch (and ABL hasn't actually announced plans to fly from Guiana), but it would be interesting for considering pricing.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

But it was an electric semi and we'd never seen one before

 

[rabidchaos]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

Yes? Semis are way more interesting than wine. Plus, I expect more discussion on the observatory once it's deployed and started observing.

 

[Wickwick]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

Because TFA was about the launch selection and not a technical description of the telescope at all. In fact, the only remotely technical bit was that the detector is based on observatories that have flown on balloons.

 

[Malmesbury]

"The higher price is at least partially explained by inflation."

In can be argued that the higher price is completely explained by inflation, given that that's what inflation is. But as we today well know, inflation can be related broadly to economy-wide factors, or it can just be an individual service-provider saying "Yeah, you need to pay me a whole lot more" because they can. And since SpaceX has the only suitable rocket, I know which explanation my money's on.

A couple of online inflation calculators seem to agree on 22.4% cumulative inflation, in the US, since 2019

 

[alisonken1]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

Of course.

Wine can be had for almost penny's on the dollar (and available at 7-Eleven). A semi dropped from a gondola is much rarer and taking bets on (a) crater size and/or (b) RSD* parts spread area are much more fun.

* Rapid Scheduled Disassembly

 

[blackhawk887]

Well, Falcon is the only launching-from-the-US rocket that is currently suitable. ESA has that nice equatorial launch site available...

(I don't think NASA would have considered a partnership arrangement for an Explorer-class mission the way they did with Webb; too small to make it worth while)

There aren't any options there that would interest NASA. Ariane 6 wouldn't be cheaper, and Vega has been quite unreliable. Soyuz is no longer available.

 

[Dtiffster]

I'm pretty sure this is the answer. IXPE needed to compete with the $40M Pegasus XL, and so SpaceX charged $50M. COSI had no competition, so SpaceX could charge their normal base price.

That's a fairly negative slant to put on it. A more positive one would be that pegasus while still technically a going concern when the bid was put out for IXPE, was not commercially competitive in any meaningful way (IXPE was the very rare payload where it would actually make sense) and was suffering so many technical issues that it could take years to actually put payloads into orbit. SpaceX did not take a loss on the bid, but they certainly ate into a healthy margin to win the bid. And NASA was relieved as hell because it meant they didn't have to award a contract to a rocket they had no faith could fulfill it. Thus SpaceX did NASA a solid back then. Now that pegasus is kaput, they no longer have to underbid them. Are they charging them out the wazoo for this launch as a consequence? Nope, they are charging them their market rates. Seems absolutely reasonable to me.

 

[Zloster]

Yes? Semis are way more interesting than wine. Plus, I expect more discussion on the observatory once it's deployed and started observing.

Not to mention, if they are shipping fresh grapes there's one whole set of logistical requirements, while shipping finished wine comes with different set. So not only do we have the semi, there's a bunch of other important factors to discuss in loading said semi.

 

[henryhbk]

Is the launch expendable? That also raises the cost I’m sure if you want to dump their nice reusable booster into the ocean?

 

[Dtiffster]

I don't think the particular orbit has much bearing on price. In the end, the booster can only get so far downrange so that's where the barge parks. I doubt there's any dogleg acceleration until deep into the second stage burn. After that, it's a fully-loaded F9 launch, one way or another.

That NASA is getting a market-rate price suggests they're not asking for a lot of the extra inspections or paperwork they often do for higher cost payload classes.

The equator is so far down range (think of the coast that GEO missions have to do), that the second stage will have to go to orbit before it can do much of a dog leg. It might take a deg or 2 off of the inclination with some out of plane burning, but I'd expect it to have a 27ish deg orbit which means a 3.7 km/s plane change on crossing the equator. That's a c3 of about 14 km^2/s^2 equivalent (or pretty much the equivalent of sending this puppy to Mars), but even with ASDS landing F9 can do 1.7-1.8 tonnes to that orbit (well above the less than a tonne the article quotes). I would expect the droneship to be positioned downrange SE like a normal GTO mission. I'm sure there are some specials payload processing steps, but they are probably hiring someone else to do it since I'm sure it's pretty specialized.

 

[Nick Andros]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

It's not the first gamma ray observatory in space, in case anyone is wondering.

 

[Wickwick]

The equator is so far down range (think of the coast that GEO missions have to do), that the second stage will have to go to orbit before it can do much of a dog leg. It might take a deg or 2 off of the inclination with some out of plane burning, but I'd expect it to have a 27ish deg orbit which means a 3.7 km/s plane change on crossing the equator. That's a c3 of about 14 km^2/s^2 equivalent (or pretty much the equivalent of sending this puppy to Mars), but even with ASDS landing F9 can do 1.7-1.8 tonnes to that orbit (well above the less than a tonne the article quotes). I would expect the booster to be positioned downrange SE like a normal GTO mission. I'm sure there are some specials payload processing steps, but they are probably hiring someone else to do it since I'm sure it's pretty specialized.

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure there the optimization would be and was too lazy to work it out. But I was pretty sure one didn't start to cancel any of the southward velocity component and/or add excess eastward until you're very close to where you want the corner to be. Obviously, one has to round the corner, but not by 20 degrees of latitude.

Edit: The coast phase for GTO missions is more about getting up to GEO altitude than getting to 0 latitude. The latter can be done in about 7 minutes.

 

[Chuckstar]

Under $300 million sounds downright affordable for a specialty space observatory. I guess because it’s “just” attaching existing tech to a satellite instead of balloon?

I obviously wish JWST hadn’t been quite so expensive (understatement) but a mix of occasional big-budget observatories with smaller-budget, more specialty ones in between strikes me as a good approach to getting a good mix of science done.

 

[Dtiffster]

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure there the optimization would be and was too lazy to work it out. But I was pretty sure one didn't start to cancel any of the southward velocity component and/or add excess eastward until you're very close to where you want the corner to be. Obviously, one has to round the corner, but not by 20 degrees of latitude.

Edit: The coast phase for GTO missions is more about getting up to GEO altitude than getting to 0 latitude. The latter can be done in about 7 minutes.

They don't do much of a plane change in GTO missions, but they do coast to the equator. Then need to because if the new apogee is going to be at the equator, they need the apogee raise burn to start there. Anyway I was only using the GTO mission to illustrate far down range the equator was even at 7.8 km/s, and thus how impossible it is to launch from 28 deg N and get in much of a dogleg before entering orbit.

 

[Wickwick]

Cant wait until we have some competition. Spacex prices have only ever moved in 1 direction, and thats up.

As per this article, the base price of a launch in 2017 was $65M while it is apparently now $69M.

And please tell me you're not so much of an idiot or so disingenuous as to argue that that's a price increase. A 2017 dollar is worth $1.28 today thanks to inflation. So the cost of a base launch in 2017 would have been $83.2M in 2024 dollars. So, in fact, it appears that launch prices have fallen by 17% from 2017 to 2024 while the delay for launch has gone to essentially zero.

 

[Wickwick]

They don't do much of a plane change in GTO missions, but they do coast to the equator. Then need to because if the new apogee is going to be at the equator, they need the apogee raise burn to start there. Anyway I was only using the GTO mission to illustrate far down range the equator was even at 7.8 km/s, and thus how impossible it is to launch from 28 deg N and get in much of a dogleg before entering orbit.

I think we're arguing at cross purposes. Because the orbit one achieves prior to the coast phase of a GTO mission is highly elliptical, the coast phase doesn't change latitude very fast vs. the miles traveled or the impulse exerted. It's cheapest to execute a plane change at low speed so one can do a small amount during boost or you wait until you're way up high.

But yeah, in the 28 deg. from Canaveral to the equator plus a bit of eastward velocity, I suspect SpaceX has achieved most of its perigee raise prior to reaching the equator if not most of its apogee raise as well.

One wonders if the optimal burn doesn't intentionally throttle down just to reduce the speed prior to reaching the equator since that's less velocity change needed.

 

[Chuckstar]

I think we're arguing at cross purposes. Because the orbit one achieves prior to the coast phase of a GTO mission is highly elliptical, the coast phase doesn't change latitude very fast vs. the miles traveled or the impulse exerted. It's cheapest to execute a plane change at low speed so one can do a small amount during boost or you wait until you're way up high.

But yeah, in the 28 deg. from Canaveral to the equator plus a bit of eastward velocity, I suspect SpaceX has achieved most of its perigee raise prior to reaching the equator if not most of its apogee raise as well.

One wonders if the optimal burn doesn't intentionally throttle down just to reduce the speed prior to reaching the equator since that's less velocity change needed.

Would the math be simpler to just launch straight south and then 90° turn at the equator?

 

[Wickwick]

Would the math be simpler to just launch straight south and then 90° turn at the equator?

I don't think that's the optimal route, but yes, the math is far simpler.

 

[Wickwick]

Seems only fair for SpaceX to add a discount for a telescope launch, given how its constellations are impacting ground-based observation.

I'm pretty sure Starlink satellites aren't blocking anything that the atmosphere already blocks.

 

[Chuckstar]

I don't think that's the optimal route, but yes, the math is far simpler.

Oh… optimal route you wanted? Then not that.

 

[BigDXLT]

Jesus Christ. A gamma ray observatory in space and you people are taking about the rocket they’re going to launch it with If somebody bought you pack of sad nerds a hot air balloon trip in Napa you’d be floating around up there ignoring the wine in your hand and the magical view while talking about the semi that dropped off the gondola

Ars really needs threaded comments. The discussions (generally speaking) have their own interesting tangents but some of them really drown out the others in this flat structure.