9 ms·

This is fantastic news! Hopefully this means that the price of taking things to orbit will fall rapidly (relative to what governments could achieve, at least),

This is fantastic news! Hopefully this means that the price of taking things to orbit will fall rapidly (relative to what governments could achieve, at least), allowing all kinds of new developments that couldn't otherwise have happened.

stcredzero 16y ago
I read that there's a contract with the government for $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the ISS. I think this means they have NASA and the Shuttle beat by a factor of 7.
- edj 16y ago
  Details and citations in case anyone is curious... "December 23, 2008 – NASA today announced its selection of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion." http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 and: "The $1.6 billion contract represents a minimum of 12 flights..." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
aidenn0 16y ago
A little over $50M to put up to 10000kg in LEO: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php Similar prices for GTO of up to 4500kg, but presumably a lot of that is going to be fuel to move from GTO to GEO; since the Delta IV can (and does) take multiple satelites to GTO at up to 12000kg, I'm not sure how favorably that is going to compare (nor do I have any first hand knowledge of launch prices for something as big as a delta IV. [edit] Just noticed the footnote on above page that at $45M for <3000kg to GTO they want to book a co-passenger, so presumably the ~4500kg limit is enough for at least 2 satelites + fuel.
- angstrom 16y ago
  Supposedly there is also a "Heavy" configuration that uses 2 additional boosters for a larger mass payload than the shuttle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
  - aidenn0 16y ago
    It's untested and has no pricing information or schedule that I've seen though. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      Not so different from a Titan IV heavy lift. One difference: Falcon boosters are liquid fuel. They are copies of the 1st stage.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        This is, AFAIK, the same route a Delta IV Heavy takes.
physcab 16y ago
I don't really buy this argument. The price of taking things to orbit is reflected in the reliability of the launcher. If you have a launcher that fails unreliably, your cost of launching is going to be rather uncertain. No company is going to risk putting their cargo into space at this early stage of development. The only entity that has the cash to burn is the government, which is why NASA is footing the bill [1]. Oh, and by the way, NASA doesn't like failures all that much and they are going to send out their team of inspectors and demand a bunch of revisions be made to the launcher in the event that it fails. Guess what happens to the cost of launching? Yup, goes up. Pretty soon you're going to end up with another company just like all the other ones operating at exactly the same cost. Then NASA will find a new "SpaceX" in 10 years that satisfies their "entrepreneurship" specifications in their contracts and the whole process begins anew. The only way to break this cycle and bring down costs is to 1) Not deal with the government and find a private company willing to take on the risk of development. 2) Change the model of the program entirely and operate like the Russians--i.e, Pick one launcher and make that one as efficient as possible. [1]. http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223

stcredzero 16y ago

I read that there's a contract with the government for $1.6 billion for 12 flights to the ISS. I think this means they have NASA and the Shuttle beat by a factor of 7.

edj 16y ago
Details and citations in case anyone is curious... "December 23, 2008 – NASA today announced its selection of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion." http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 and: "The $1.6 billion contract represents a minimum of 12 flights..." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

aidenn0 16y ago

A little over $50M to put up to 10000kg in LEO: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php Similar prices for GTO of up to 4500kg, but presumably a lot of that is going to be fuel to move from GTO to GEO; since the Delta IV can (and does) take multiple satelites to GTO at up to 12000kg, I'm not sure how favorably that is going to compare (nor do I have any first hand knowledge of launch prices for something as big as a delta IV. [edit] Just noticed the footnote on above page that at $45M for <3000kg to GTO they want to book a co-passenger, so presumably the ~4500kg limit is enough for at least 2 satelites + fuel.

angstrom 16y ago
Supposedly there is also a "Heavy" configuration that uses 2 additional boosters for a larger mass payload than the shuttle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
- aidenn0 16y ago
  It's untested and has no pricing information or schedule that I've seen though. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Not so different from a Titan IV heavy lift. One difference: Falcon boosters are liquid fuel. They are copies of the 1st stage.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      This is, AFAIK, the same route a Delta IV Heavy takes.

physcab 16y ago

I don't really buy this argument. The price of taking things to orbit is reflected in the reliability of the launcher. If you have a launcher that fails unreliably, your cost of launching is going to be rather uncertain. No company is going to risk putting their cargo into space at this early stage of development. The only entity that has the cash to burn is the government, which is why NASA is footing the bill [1]. Oh, and by the way, NASA doesn't like failures all that much and they are going to send out their team of inspectors and demand a bunch of revisions be made to the launcher in the event that it fails. Guess what happens to the cost of launching? Yup, goes up. Pretty soon you're going to end up with another company just like all the other ones operating at exactly the same cost. Then NASA will find a new "SpaceX" in 10 years that satisfies their "entrepreneurship" specifications in their contracts and the whole process begins anew. The only way to break this cycle and bring down costs is to 1) Not deal with the government and find a private company willing to take on the risk of development. 2) Change the model of the program entirely and operate like the Russians--i.e, Pick one launcher and make that one as efficient as possible. [1]. http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223