I don't see GTO mentioned in this paper. I know the falcon 9 has GTO specs; is the theory that you won't want to put something that large in GEO?
SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
11–20 of 102 posts
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#12Apparently the Saturn V could lift 119 metric tons to LEO.
The Falcon XX is planned to have a 140 metric ton to LEO capacity, but that comes later, for when we need to ship cargo to Mars colony without requiring a space station stop.
http://news.discovery.com/space/will-a-commercial-flight-be-...
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#13Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#14The 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.
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#15I don't see GTO mentioned in this paper. I know the falcon 9 has GTO specs; is the theory that you won't want to put something that large in GEO?
Haha, nooooo. GEO will actually probably be the major market for the Falcon Heavy. I suspect specs weren't in there due to the fact that they would be heavily dependent on the performance of the upper stage, which I think is still being developed. I think the current estimate of GTO capacity for Falcon Heavy is 19,500kg.
Which ironically would make the Falcon Heavy the best choice for launching a lot of the most secretive NRO payloads (due to bloated satellite size). For servicing the commercial satellite market it's likely that a lot of launches would be 2 or 3 comm-sats at once.
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#16Wow, 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.
Very true. I almost expected there to be an "Add to cart" button at the end of the article. :-P
But seriously, there are cases in which both hiding and flaunting prices make sense. If you believe cost is a competitive advantage and your competition is unable to match it, it makes sense to flaunt it. When one or both of those things aren't true, it makes sense to hide them, give quotes, etc.
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#17Can this eventually carry people into orbit, I wonder?
"Anticipating potential astronaut transport needs, Falcon Heavy is also designed to meet NASA human rating standards. Falcon Heavy is designed to higher structural safety margins of 40% above flight loads, rather than the 25% level of other rockets, and triple redundant avionics. Despite being designed to higher structural margins than other rockets, the Falcon Heavy side booster stages have a mass ratio (full vs. em…
There's no taking away from "better than any launcher in history". On the other hand, the comparison to the Delta IV isn't as informative as you might think it is. Falcon uses kerosene for fuel and kerosene is quite a bit denser than the liquid hydrogen used by the Delta IV. Liquid hydrogen not only needs a larger tank, that tank also needs to be heavily insulated. One consequence of this is that you simply can't get as high a mass ratio with liquid hydrogen as you can get with kerosene. On the flip side, hydrogen delivers a higher specific impulse, so extra tank weight is offset by fuel that is substantially lighter.
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#18This really is impressive news.
Out of curiosity, is there a plan by any government to clean up the ever increasing mess of space junk in LEO ?
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#19The 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.
> 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.
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy announced: 53 metric tons to low earth orbit
#20This really is impressive news. Out of curiosity, is there a plan by any government to clean up the ever increasing mess of space junk in LEO ?