8 ms·
Capabilities and Services
- phkahler 11y agoLook like a typo. Falcon 9 up to 4.85mT to GTO. Falcon Heavy up to 6.8mT to GTO. <-- really? But down below we see 4850kg and 21,200kg which seems more likely.
- baq 11y agoit says $90m for 6.5t. it doesn't say how much it costs to put 21t on GTO. i'd expect that price to be in the 'call us' area.
- phkahler 11y ago>> baq 5 minutes ago | parent it says $90m for 6.5t. it doesn't say how much it costs to put 21t on GTO. i'd expect that price to be in the 'call us' area. Good point. The later figure does not include a price. OTOH since the price is given for the lower payload which covers all/most the cost of the hardware, one may be a bit angry if the price per kg doesn't drop a lot after that. But they are the only game in town at those prices right?
- cosmie 11y ago>> OTOH since the price is given for the lower payload which covers all/most the cost of the hardware, one may be a bit angry if the price per kg doesn't drop a lot after that. That's not necessarily true. The Falcon 9 has the potential to be reused, but requires additional fuel reserves in order to handle the return procedure. I'm not certain, but it's possible that a full 21t payload wouldn't allow for that additional fuel capacity and therefore your single launch would have to account for the entire cost of the rocket, whereas smaller payloads would be able to spread the cost of the rocket across multiple launches.
- Gravityloss 11y ago4.85 milliteslas. Too bad the unit usage in the business is a bit wonky.
- LoSboccacc 11y agosaw that a little while ago. it's fun you can now purchase a lift in LEO and with a direct quote even! so, doing some weird math, you can get about 5000 person ashes in LEO for about 62M, so one could theoretically (I think law forbids it) run a kickstarter campaign to get people ashes in space for 15k each. Just think of the possibilities! private launch space with a price allows all people a fair access to space (still pricey, but fair)
- Arnt 11y agoThere are many small and light relics of Jesus, both Marys etc around. How about a kickstarter campaign to send one into low earth orbit to watch over us all?
- pluma 11y agoA kickstarter campaign to send all religious paraphernalia to space? Count me in.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TomGullen 11y agoI can't think of anything more wasteful!
- mrfusion 11y agoIt seems to list two different weights to GTO for the falcon heavy. Could there be a typo?
- vladd 11y agoIt depends on how far up you want the weight to go: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
- JosephRedfern 11y agoHmm, in that case, why are the Falcon 9 numbers the same?
- mrfusion 11y agoNope, that's not it. I mean "Falcon heavy is listed as 6.4 mT to GTO under the price, but 21.2 mt below in the table"
- adwn 11y agoThe different payload masses are most likely for different grades of reusability: all cores expendable, center core expendable + boosters reusable, fully reusable. Hard to tell for sure, because SpaceX has, to the best of my knowledge, never provided details regarding which Falcon Heavy configuration delivers the 6.4 mT to GTO.* * probably a 1800 m/s to GSO, 26° inclination orbit
- mrfusion 11y agoSo it's listing the min and max masses to GTO for Falcon Heavy? But why wouldn't they list the same thing for regular Falcon? Can't you also choose if that is reusable or not?
- adwn 11y agoThe concensus among several people on the nasaspaceflight.com forum who simulated the numbers, is that 13 mT is already the estimated capability of the reusable F9 v1.1; the full capability of the expendable configuration is approx. 16 mT to LEO.
- dougmwne 11y agoIs this a mistake on their site? Falcon heavy is listed as 6.4 mT to GTO under the price, but 21.2 mt below in the table.
- mrfusion 11y agoRight, that's what I was asking, but someone thought I was confused about LEO vs GTO :-(
- larrydag 11y agoI believe that is price vs capacity. Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to take a vehicle to Mars.
- adwn 11y ago> Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to take a vehicle to Mars. No, it's not; the business model for the Falcon Heavy is heavy comsats (communication satellites) to GEO with reusability of all three cores. The Mars science mission idea is a nice use-case, but more of an every-once-in-a-while kind of thing. For their Mars colonization effort, SpaceX is currently developing a fully reusable rocket with a larger payload capacity than any rocket that ever existed; Falcon Heavy is too small for that.
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y agoSpecifically the Mars Colonial Transporter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
- croddin 11y agoFalcon Heavy can take a vehicle to mars, but not a vehicle large enough for colonization. You are both right. "In expendable mode, Falcon Heavy can send a fully loaded Dragon to Mars or a light Dragon to Jupiter's moons. Europa mission wd be cool." -Elon Musk https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/643538701981716481 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/643538701981716481
- devit 11y agoIt's interesting that Falcon Heavy costs 1.5x as much as Falcon 9, but carries 4x the payload. Why doesn't SpaceX offer the Falcon Heavy exclusively and launch multiple payloads per launch, thus more than halving costs? Are there payload volume or orbit separation limitations or is the pricing info not complete?
- adwn 11y agoArianespace does that with their Ariane V, but it comes with organizational headaches, because you need two payloads of appropriate mass, that are ready at the same time, and that go into the same orbital plane. If one payload is delayed (happens often enough), you can't shuffle the other one around on short notice.
- baq 11y ago>It's interesting that Falcon Heavy costs 1.5x as much as Falcon 9, but carries 4x the payload. where did you get that numbers from? the page says $60m for ~4.85t to GTO for F9 and $90m for 6.4t to GTO for FH. price for maximum performance isn't quoted; i believe without reusability it'll be about 3x F9 (there's three F9's in the FH, after all).
- kogepathic 11y agoThere's an inconsistency on the page. The pricing subtext for the FH says 6.4mT to GTO, but lower on the page the FH specs say 21,200kg to GTO. For the F9, it's clear that 4.85mT to GTO is the same as listed below. So I'm assuming the 21,200kg to GTO for the FH is incorrect. Or there is something I'm missing? (additional weight required for GTO and which subtracts from the 21,200kg?)
- votingprawn 11y agoThe Falcon Heavy can take 21 tons to GTO, but for $90 million you can only take 6.4 tons. I.e. 21 tons is the max payload, and the guide price they're giving is just for 6.5 tons.
- hit8run 11y agoI would pay money to not get shot into space :D
- vinceyuan 11y agoCool. According to Space launch market competition[1] "Falcon 9 rockets [were] already the cheapest in the industry." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...
- anemic 11y agoAs a pricing page its missing the Most Popular! -badge.
- wener 11y agoAny free trial ?
- AUmrysh 11y agoI think they have a payment plan, at least. It says there's a standard payment plan, but it doesn't say how long you have to pay it off or what the interest is.
- ceejayoz 11y agoI'm just hoping for the "free forever!" tier.
- scottcanoni 11y agoWhere is the "BUY NOW" button?
- OJFord 11y agoLike an extension of the old "if you have to ask [the price].."
- 69_years_and 11y agoDo you mean something like this http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
- lalwanivikas 11y agoNo way to enter discount coupon code? This is outrageous!
- joezydeco 11y agoIt's on the checkout page, which you then abandon to search retailmenot to find a code that expired last year.
- sbarre 11y agoUnder launch facilities, the one in California, that is suited for "defense intelligence" also touts a "launch path completely over the ocean".. I guess that makes sense, if your super secret launch payload is going to fail, better that it falls in the ocean?
- dr_zoidberg 11y agoI think it's almost standard (save for Rusia) to launch near the ocean. If the rocket fails, it's easier and less dangerous to sink in in water than have it crash on land go boom over any kind of structure (civilian, military, cities, etc).
- jccooper 11y agoAnd China: https://twitter.com/SinoDefence/status/637174369677123584 https://twitter.com/SinoDefence/status/637174369677123584
- outworlder 11y agoProbably more to do with overflight issues in other countries. Edit: also avoids "dog leg maneuvers". Like countries such as India are forced to do. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pslvc16-puts-3-satellites-in-orbit/article1711767.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pslvc16-puts-3-satelli...
- jarek 11y agoIt is completely standard to seek to launch over the ocean. The spaceports in Florida and Guiana are where they are because of that and because it is easier to launch towards the east. Where launches aren't over the ocean they are usually over very sparsely populated territory (as is the case for Baikonur). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport#Placement_considerations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport#Placement_considerat...
- logfromblammo 11y agoThere are likely other considerations. You may not want another nation's ground-based radars tracking your launch, for instance. Though I suspect that superpower nations have satellites in orbit intended to detect rocket launches, for the obvious nuclear war reasons. They all have an interest in knowing whether the payload is bound for orbit or for ballistic re-entry within their borders. I think the main concern is that a payload that might fall into the ocean can be guarded by heavily armed naval vessels, whereas one that falls on land might have bits stolen by locals before the soldiers get there, in such a way that no one could be sure whether those bits were destroyed or captured. Military payloads are also probably more likely to want to be in polar orbits. That doesn't have much to do with launching over the ocean so much as the direction of the launch from California being southward.
- owenversteeg 11y agoIf you found this interesting, I would recommend taking a look at https://www.astrobotic.com/configure-mission https://www.astrobotic.com/configure-mission, another "space travel pricing page" - this one gives tweakable parameters that change the price, which is nice. Sidenote: It's absolutely amazing that we can now get a satellite orbiting the Moon for $200k.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> Sidenote: It's absolutely amazing that we can now get a satellite orbiting the Moon for $200k. It'll be amazing when they manage it. Right now it's a pretty website and a speculative and much-delayed first mission.
- owenversteeg 11y agoWell, it's a hell of a lot more than just a pretty website and speculation - they've got NASA contracts worth tens of millions and have reserved a Falcon 9 launch for late 2016. I agree - there's no guarantee they can achieve their target even with all of that - but the fact that they've gotten much closer than others is still extraordinary.
- than 11y agoNo up-selling travel insurance? They're leaving money on the launchpad.
- pluma 11y agoFlying is the safest method of transport. Unless you're flying into space.
- knodi123 11y agoIf you buy a launch ticket with your chase sapphire card, you can get free travel insurance with coverage for baggage losses. Do telecom satellites count as baggage? Some cards also offer warranty-type protections on your purchases. Seems like a smart move.
- benihana 11y agoFor comparison, The Delta IV Heavy costs ~$350 million to send 28,790 kg into LEO, or 14,220 kg into GTO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy the Saturn V, the rocket that sent men to the moon could send 140,000 kg to LEO and 48,600 kg on a translunar injection, which is a higher orbit (i.e. takes more energy) than a geostationary transfer. It's estimated that it cost upwards of a billion dollars per Saturn V launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V Basically, this is a powerful and freaking cheap rocket.
- rebootthesystem 11y agoIs there an easy to understand resource somewhere that covers issues related to the rocket equation, inclination angles, low and geosynchronous orbit requirements? I would like a better understanding of the math and physics of what it takes to get a vehicle up to various altitudes and orbits.
- rplnt 11y agoNot the answer you are looking for, but KSP[1] taught me about rockets, orbits and whatnot more than schools did. It's fun, accessible.. but won't really teach you exact math and physics (but might encourage you to do so). 1. https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/ https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/
- baq 11y agoit'll teach you that 'more boosters' is really 'exponentially more boosters' which gets unfeasible fast.
- m_samuel_l 11y agoeverything is feasible in ksp with enough struts.
- Gravityloss 11y agoNot maybe easy but I'd start from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v#/media/File:Delta-Vs_for_inner_Solar_System.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v#/media/File:Delta-Vs_f... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit edit: More in-depth: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-346-astrodynamics-fall-2008/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-3...
- marktangotango 11y agoJudging from the landings legs on heavy center stage, they are planning to land it, but where? It will be flying much higher and faster than the side boosters I believe.
- Already__Taken 11y agoThe center landings would have to be on the barges due to the extra range involved.
- ceejayoz 11y agoDepends on the payload. SpaceX's FH videos show all three cores landing on land.
- mholt 11y agoRockets as a Service. We live in a cool era. And these prices may go down dramatically after the first stages prove themselves reusable (depending on SpaceX's strategy).
- utuxia 11y agohaha.
- allsystemsgo 11y agoI'll wait for black Friday.
- onion2k 11y agoUsing the smaller Falcon 9 you could send approximately 1500 people's ashes in to space (assuming an average of 3kg left after cremation for each person), at a cost of $39,000 each. I wonder if that could be a viable business.
- calinet6 11y agoI'd settle for 50g or so, and then you could get far more up.
- andrewstuart2 11y agoUh, if you go with the falcon heavy you can transport 17,666 people's ashes at $5,094 a pop. But you may be waiting a lot longer to accumulate that many buyers. Two-tier model? :-P
- solaris00 11y agoStrangely this was a topic of discussion with my family the other day. It's definitely selfish, but I need a way to get to space somehow. We could justify it as aiding the budding commercial space industry :) It would have mass market appeal at ~12k USD a pop. The question becomes where would you send it? Personally, I would love to drift into deep space, but could settle for the sun. Possibly a remembrance countdown on the web with clips of everyone to be sent off until launch.
- PhaseMage 11y agoIf you can settle for the Sun, and be patient... Just wait ~8 billion years for the sun to turn into a red giant (engulfing the earth, along with your remains). You may even get lucky and some of your remains may be swept away in the solar wind.
- rch 11y agoWhy send ashes when you can send DNA?
- idlewords 11y agoSurprised there's no freemium tier or bulk discount.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]