11–20 of 26 posts
Can't wait to watch this one. It will be absolutely amazing to watch 3 boosters come back down to earth and all land. Even if they don't all land this time, they will one day.
At this point, the landings seem like one of the least likely things to go wrong. Which is pretty amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which new possibilities? BFR definitely will; FH seems to be just an incremental improvement: D-IVH level of capability combined with reusability, on a much cheaper price - but nothing which would enable doing something which wasn't done before.
Doesn't it have much higer payload to LEO and GTO though? It's much more than D-IVH payload if Wikipedia is to be believed: FH: 63800kg LEO, 26700kg GTO D-IVH: 28790kg LEO, 14220kg GTO The Falcon 9 actually comes closer to the D-IVH in expendable mode than the D-IVH comes to the Falcon Heavy.
The Falcon Heavy is looking at a cost of around $85 million. The Delta-4 Heavy starts at $400 million. Compare price per kg and it's quite insane. For low earth orbit that's $1,332/kg for a Falcon Heavy and $13,893/kg at the low end pricing for a Delta-4 Heavy. The Falcon 9 weighs in at $2,684/kg.
Each cut in price opens up possibilities that were not there before. Make it $1/kg and that'd be rather self evident, but each price decline opens up the doors for companies and individuals who previously were only being held back by price.
Considering the number of delays, push-backs and holds on this rocket, don't be surprised if it doesn't. And that's okay- once a rocket is more than a meter off the ground, it's either going to space or exploding, so caution is the right trait to have. All that said, I'll still be watching live whenever it happens. If they pull this off, it'll open up a lot of new possibilities for the space industry.
Unless you're a Grasshopper!
Although the Falcon Heavy is almost as big as the Saturn V, the launch setup is far simpler. It's lifted into vertical position at the pad. No vertical assembly building, no crawler-transporter. That's a big improvement. Takes some extra structural strength, which costs some payload, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which new possibilities? BFR definitely will; FH seems to be just an incremental improvement: D-IVH level of capability combined with reusability, on a much cheaper price - but nothing which would enable doing something which wasn't done before.
Doesn't it have much higer payload to LEO and GTO though? It's much more than D-IVH payload if Wikipedia is to be believed: FH: 63800kg LEO, 26700kg GTO D-IVH: 28790kg LEO, 14220kg GTO The Falcon 9 actually comes closer to the D-IVH in expendable mode than the D-IVH comes to the Falcon Heavy.
Much more when expended, but not so much when reused.
Could still launch double shots of heavy comsats as Ariane 5 launch heavy + light, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it have much higer payload to LEO and GTO though? It's much more than D-IVH payload if Wikipedia is to be believed: FH: 63800kg LEO, 26700kg GTO D-IVH: 28790kg LEO, 14220kg GTO The Falcon 9 actually comes closer to the D-IVH in expendable mode than the D-IVH comes to the Falcon Heavy.
The Falcon Heavy not only lifts vastly more (it will be the most powerful rocket excepting the Saturn V - which has not been in commission since 1973), but I think understating the scale of price difference is also not really reasonable. The Falcon Heavy is looking at a cost of around $85 million. The Delta-4 Heavy starts at $400 million. Compare price per kg and it's quite insane. For low earth orbit that's $1,332/k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, the landings seem like one of the least likely things to go wrong. Which is pretty amazing.
I'm a little worried about the two nearly synchronized landings not far from each other. Any interference between them and... well, we'd get a fireworks show.
It's been on the launch pad for weeks, and had a successful static test. Space-X has to launch it soon or tilt it back down and take it away. Although the Falcon Heavy is almost as big as the Saturn V, the launch setup is far simpler. It's lifted into vertical position at the pad. No vertical assembly building, no crawler-transporter. That's a big improvement. Takes some extra structural strength, which costs some pa…
It's been on the launch pad for weeks, and had a successful static test. Space-X has to launch it soon or tilt it back down and take it away. Although the Falcon Heavy is almost as big as the Saturn V, the launch setup is far simpler. It's lifted into vertical position at the pad. No vertical assembly building, no crawler-transporter. That's a big improvement. Takes some extra structural strength, which costs some pa…
The fact that Falcon 9/Heavy only support horizontal integration is a bot of an issue for some payloads (particularly those with people, or big optics). SpaceX will be adding vertical integration (the ability to mount the payload after the rocket is vertical) to its pad at LC-39A.
It's been on the launch pad for weeks, and had a successful static test. Space-X has to launch it soon or tilt it back down and take it away. Although the Falcon Heavy is almost as big as the Saturn V, the launch setup is far simpler. It's lifted into vertical position at the pad. No vertical assembly building, no crawler-transporter. That's a big improvement. Takes some extra structural strength, which costs some pa…
It's been up and down several times over the past few weeks. It only takes a couple hours to move it in or out. The fact that Falcon 9/Heavy only support horizontal integration is a bot of an issue for some payloads (particularly those with people, or big optics). SpaceX will be adding vertical integration (the ability to mount the payload after the rocket is vertical) to its pad at LC-39A.