SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#51

Post by benl » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 9:52 PM UTC

cstross wrote: post #38

benl wrote: post #14

The table here doesn't give cost comparisons for the other launch vehicles, but in the press conference Elon Musk said that the Delta IV Heavy costs roughly 3x the Falcon Heavy, meaning that the FH is approximately 6x cheaper in $/lb to low earth orbit. The figures quoted on the page work out to $1,070 per lb to LEO. That's less than $200k to lift the mass of a 180lb human.

Ahem: a Russian Orlan-M spacesuit, about the best available off the shelf today, weighs 112-120Kg (or up to 250 of your quaint imperial "pounds"). Then you need to include air, water, and food. The structural mass of the seat the astronaut sits in isn't insignificant, either. A Mercury capsule -- a can sized to hold one guy in a space suit -- weighs around 1100Kg at splash-down, minus retro-rockets, parachutes, escap…

Of course, I fully agree. Please don't read any implication about space tourism into a simple FYI calculation. But a 6x cost reduction is a big deal, and this figure illustrates that very well. See the follow up comment I'd already posted here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2412096

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#52

Post by Jabbles » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #28

physcab wrote: post #24

With all their partnerships and contracts, SpaceX is now a viable alternative in the industry. Clearly they can compete on price. What remains to be determined however is if they can compete on mission success and reliability. You can bet their competitors are playing the fear card to their customers.

How much does a satellite cost to build? Even with a lower success rate, with a cheaper launch cost, it might end up being a better bargain launching twice as many satellites and losing half of them. Of course, that wouldn't be acceptable for human cargo.

I think such an attitude would seriously harm SpaceX's future space tourism strategy. Also the environmental damage caused by failed launches could be disastrous, and outweigh the cost of the payload.

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#53

Post by hugh3 » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 9:56 PM UTC

bfe wrote: post #48

This is excellent. Isn't 53 tonnes to LEO also somewhere around 12 tonnes to the surface of Mars?

Wouldn't be surprised. That'd probably be enough for a sizeable unmanned sample-return mission, though not nearly enough for a manned mission.

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#54

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:00 PM UTC

modoc wrote: post #49

bradleyland wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. Space X can quote a price on their website, but if I want to know what "Infrastructure Monitoring Tool XYZ" costs, I have to call and talk to some retired used car salesman. I now have hope for our future.

I started a company that sells to enterprise customers and we thought we could differentiate ourselves by making our pricing public, simple, and affordable. It was VERY easy for anyone to figure out how much we'd charge them without having to call. There were no hidden fees, nothing tricky or weird. This has proven to be a mistake for two main reasons: Firstly, everyone expects huge discounts (since all their other e…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#55

Post by hugh3 » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:01 PM UTC

benl wrote: post #23

jessriedel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's less than $200k to lift the mass of a 180lb human. Before anyone tries to estimate how much space tourism will cost, remember that the actual weight of humans will make up a tiny fraction of the total weight of any orbiting hotel. Probably need to multiply by an order of magnitude or two.

Yes, indeed. And even disregarding the mass of the destination and of the ferrying craft, the mass of life support systems and consumables for each individual on the way up and down are likely at least double this anyway. But, longer term, consider what happens if/when there is existing infrastructure in LEO and highly productive and profitable work for an individual to do there. The cost of actually getting to LEO w…

Longer term you'd hope for another order of magnitude reduction in launch costs. If SpaceX can make a fully reusable Falcon 9 as Elon Musk has said he really wants to:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-...

then we can start looking at paying ten times less.

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#56

Post by physcab » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:03 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #28

physcab wrote: post #24

With all their partnerships and contracts, SpaceX is now a viable alternative in the industry. Clearly they can compete on price. What remains to be determined however is if they can compete on mission success and reliability. You can bet their competitors are playing the fear card to their customers.

How much does a satellite cost to build? Even with a lower success rate, with a cheaper launch cost, it might end up being a better bargain launching twice as many satellites and losing half of them. Of course, that wouldn't be acceptable for human cargo.

I think it depends on the customer. Probably somewhere between $50 and $300 million [1,2]. My guess is that the more successful programs will retain their current (probably defense) customers, but SpaceX will effectively serve a new generation of private companies who can take the risk. You also have to keep in mind that a lot of this is political and regulated. Depending on how a government contract swings, it might favor SpaceX or their competitors.

[1] http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Ja... [2] http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/July/Pag...

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#57

Post by arctangent » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:07 PM UTC

benologist wrote: post #46

arctangent wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Branson is a good example of an "adventure capitalist". Here is his Wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson Here is the Wikipedia page for his space tourism company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic Also worthy of a mention is Mark Shuttleworth, who was the world's second space tourist (and also the founder of the Ubuntu Foundation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttl…

And Richard Garriot aka Lord British - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott

Everyone on the list of space tourists has an interesting past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_spa...

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#58

Post by nickpinkston » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

modoc wrote: post #49

bradleyland wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. Space X can quote a price on their website, but if I want to know what "Infrastructure Monitoring Tool XYZ" costs, I have to call and talk to some retired used car salesman. I now have hope for our future.

I started a company that sells to enterprise customers and we thought we could differentiate ourselves by making our pricing public, simple, and affordable. It was VERY easy for anyone to figure out how much we'd charge them without having to call. There were no hidden fees, nothing tricky or weird. This has proven to be a mistake for two main reasons: Firstly, everyone expects huge discounts (since all their other e…

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you. Sales through lack of information actually works in some markets. Is this just old man-ery, wanting special rates "cuz we're business!", or are we all susceptible to this?

I feel like it is, but maybe not - I have friends who still like to walk into their bank to deposit a big check...

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#59

Post by jessriedel » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:41 PM UTC

benl wrote: post #23

jessriedel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's less than $200k to lift the mass of a 180lb human. Before anyone tries to estimate how much space tourism will cost, remember that the actual weight of humans will make up a tiny fraction of the total weight of any orbiting hotel. Probably need to multiply by an order of magnitude or two.

Yes, indeed. And even disregarding the mass of the destination and of the ferrying craft, the mass of life support systems and consumables for each individual on the way up and down are likely at least double this anyway. But, longer term, consider what happens if/when there is existing infrastructure in LEO and highly productive and profitable work for an individual to do there. The cost of actually getting to LEO w…

> consider what happens if/when there is ... highly productive and profitable work for an individual to do there.

What productive work is there to do in LEO? I can hardly think of any, and NASA was scrapping the bottom of the barrel looking for worthwhile science to do on the international space station.

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit

#60

Post by nickpinkston » Tue, Apr 05, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

garyrichardson wrote: post #6

Wow, I like how candid they are about the pricing. It feels like they are targeting consumers more than governments -- most 'expensive,' enterprise targeted products are of the 'call us and ask for pricing' variety.

I think this is an important macro trend. We're doing this for manufacturing quoting at our startup using 3D files and some specs. Most suppliers give elaborate reasons why they're needed for very simple parts. With a few constraints on specs, you can really simplify even complex orders.