6 ms·

According to wikipedia the Falcon 9 has increased GTO payloads from 4,500 kg to 8,000 kg from the 1.0 version to the Full Thrust version. And payload to LEO fro

According to wikipedia the Falcon 9 has increased GTO payloads from 4,500 kg to 8,000 kg from the 1.0 version to the Full Thrust version. And payload to LEO from 10,450 kg to 22,800 kg. These improvements have been passed on to the Falcon Heavy, and it's expect to put 64,000 kg into LEO, just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg.

pinewurst 10y ago
Does anyone actually believe that the Senate Launch System (SLS) will fly, much less carry a significant payload?
- yborg 10y ago
  It may have had some real function as a hedge against failure of the commercial launch ventures to retain an in-house American launch capability, but this no longer looks like a problem. I believe that there is a use for NASA and even the manned program, but building a booster is stupid at this point, it's just literal corporate welfare now.
  - rst 10y ago
    That function was served not by SLS but by the formation of United Launch Alliance (a/k/a ULA), which merged the former rocket divisions of both Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, operating both their boosters (Atlas V and Delta IV). The formation of this venture was effectively brokered by government, which also let it charge above-market rates for launches, and until recently gave it an additional $1 billion or so per year on top of that to preserve "launch capability and readiness". Like the speciality shipyards that make nuclear submarines, the Pentagon was arranging to make very sure they stayed in business -- though that may be changing, now that lower-priced, American commercial competition has emerged (in the form of SpaceX, with Blue Origin perhaps coming along as well, having announced plans for an orbital booster with capabilities comparable to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy). SLS isn't really suitable for defense satellite launches. It's oversized for the job, and won't be capable of the required flight rates (several launches per year at least) for a very long time, if ever. (Current schedule is years between launches.) It also isn't necessary for launching crew to at least low earth orbit; one of the commercial crew contractors (Boeing) is expecting to send crew up on man-rated versions of the ULA Atlas V.
tibbe 10y ago
Aside: does that mean that Falcon 9 could carry ~20,000 CubeSats at the cost of 62M/20k = USD 3,100 per satelite? That would be awesome. Now if I could just find another 19,999 people who want to ride-share with me.
- jjcm 10y ago
  I wonder if this is a good thing. On one hand, the common availability of cubesats would be so much fun from a hacker point of view, but on the other I worry that such a low cost per satellite will start to pollute space. If every bay area hobbiest has one floating in the sky, we're inevitably going to have ones that go unmanaged, rogue, etc with no plans for cleanup/repair if things go wrong.
  - tibbe 10y ago
    Perhaps SpaceX could offer (a slightly more expensive) CubeSat module that has built in deorbiting thrusters that will bring it down after X years.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Air resistance will already take care of that, depending on the orbit. (And for 3k, you aren't getting an ultra-high orbit)
  - maxander 10y ago
    If a cloud of 20000 cubesats were released by a single rocket, at least they would all be in approximately the same orbit, which is better than having 20000 cubesats spread out over 20000 orbits. Not to mention, they don't stay up indefinitely- launched into a low orbit, drag eventually pulls them back down. I'd definitely buy a cubesat launch slot for 3k. Perhaps someone should set up a kickstarter or something.
  - devrandomguy 10y ago
    Yet another use case for solar sail laser arrays: deorbiting clouds of debris and tiny satellites.
aphextron 10y ago
>just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg. Is the SLS system even worth it anymore? They are using repurposed 1970's shuttle era technology at massively inflated costs. To be fair, no one could have possibly foreseen the quantum leap in rocket technology SpaceX has made over the past 8 years since the SLS was designed. But it's beginning to seem more and more like a government welfare program for Boeing rather than an effective launch system.
- dotancohen 10y ago
  Boeing and ULA became complacent without competition. The same would likely happen to SpaceX if Boeing didn't have a heavy launch vehicle to rival the Falcon Heavy. Like most things associated with manned space exploration, the tangential benefits of keeping Boeing and USA in operation far outweigh the direct cost and direct benefit.
  - crush-n-spread 10y ago
    Regarding SpaceX potential complacency, I think Elon's insanity would prevent that from ever happening. The problem with Boeing and ULA is that they don't have Elon at the helm, just lobbyists and conservative engineers. Better to give all the money to SpaceX and let SpaceX's momentum get us to Mars even faster IMO.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Let's...not rely on that? Bad gamble as a tax payer.
      - crush-n-spread 10y ago
        You can think what you want. But if you're perceptive and think really hard about the individuals at the front of companies, and you've spent time thinking about Elon Musk, it's really clear that he will never stop until someone assassinates him. The guy had a dad who psychologically tortured him, he got thrown down stairs by gangs of blacks in apartheid South Africa, and he completely detached himself from any social connections when he was 17 by moving to Canada. The guy's only reason to live is to fulfill his dreams that he gained from reading every single science fiction book that existed. Anyway you can think what you want but I know that he's not like the other CEOs that are career CEOs. He's on a mission fueled by intense hardship and retribution
Symmetry 10y ago
The LEO payloads for FH and SLS block 1 are similar but SLS can put nearly twice as much mass on a trans-lunar injection. There's also the larger faring size on SLS and future blocks will have more performance. All of which isn't to say that SLS is cost effective, but it does have capabilities which will be unique for at least a window of time.
- nickik 10y ago
  The SLS will have a unique capability for a while, but it will only launch once and then it will not be available again until a time that will look very different.

pinewurst 10y ago

Does anyone actually believe that the Senate Launch System (SLS) will fly, much less carry a significant payload?

yborg 10y ago
It may have had some real function as a hedge against failure of the commercial launch ventures to retain an in-house American launch capability, but this no longer looks like a problem. I believe that there is a use for NASA and even the manned program, but building a booster is stupid at this point, it's just literal corporate welfare now.
- rst 10y ago
  That function was served not by SLS but by the formation of United Launch Alliance (a/k/a ULA), which merged the former rocket divisions of both Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, operating both their boosters (Atlas V and Delta IV). The formation of this venture was effectively brokered by government, which also let it charge above-market rates for launches, and until recently gave it an additional $1 billion or so per year on top of that to preserve "launch capability and readiness". Like the speciality shipyards that make nuclear submarines, the Pentagon was arranging to make very sure they stayed in business -- though that may be changing, now that lower-priced, American commercial competition has emerged (in the form of SpaceX, with Blue Origin perhaps coming along as well, having announced plans for an orbital booster with capabilities comparable to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy). SLS isn't really suitable for defense satellite launches. It's oversized for the job, and won't be capable of the required flight rates (several launches per year at least) for a very long time, if ever. (Current schedule is years between launches.) It also isn't necessary for launching crew to at least low earth orbit; one of the commercial crew contractors (Boeing) is expecting to send crew up on man-rated versions of the ULA Atlas V.

tibbe 10y ago

Aside: does that mean that Falcon 9 could carry ~20,000 CubeSats at the cost of 62M/20k = USD 3,100 per satelite? That would be awesome. Now if I could just find another 19,999 people who want to ride-share with me.

jjcm 10y ago
I wonder if this is a good thing. On one hand, the common availability of cubesats would be so much fun from a hacker point of view, but on the other I worry that such a low cost per satellite will start to pollute space. If every bay area hobbiest has one floating in the sky, we're inevitably going to have ones that go unmanaged, rogue, etc with no plans for cleanup/repair if things go wrong.
- tibbe 10y ago
  Perhaps SpaceX could offer (a slightly more expensive) CubeSat module that has built in deorbiting thrusters that will bring it down after X years.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Air resistance will already take care of that, depending on the orbit. (And for 3k, you aren't getting an ultra-high orbit)
- maxander 10y ago
  If a cloud of 20000 cubesats were released by a single rocket, at least they would all be in approximately the same orbit, which is better than having 20000 cubesats spread out over 20000 orbits. Not to mention, they don't stay up indefinitely- launched into a low orbit, drag eventually pulls them back down. I'd definitely buy a cubesat launch slot for 3k. Perhaps someone should set up a kickstarter or something.
- devrandomguy 10y ago
  Yet another use case for solar sail laser arrays: deorbiting clouds of debris and tiny satellites.

aphextron 10y ago

>just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg. Is the SLS system even worth it anymore? They are using repurposed 1970's shuttle era technology at massively inflated costs. To be fair, no one could have possibly foreseen the quantum leap in rocket technology SpaceX has made over the past 8 years since the SLS was designed. But it's beginning to seem more and more like a government welfare program for Boeing rather than an effective launch system.

dotancohen 10y ago
Boeing and ULA became complacent without competition. The same would likely happen to SpaceX if Boeing didn't have a heavy launch vehicle to rival the Falcon Heavy. Like most things associated with manned space exploration, the tangential benefits of keeping Boeing and USA in operation far outweigh the direct cost and direct benefit.
- crush-n-spread 10y ago
  Regarding SpaceX potential complacency, I think Elon's insanity would prevent that from ever happening. The problem with Boeing and ULA is that they don't have Elon at the helm, just lobbyists and conservative engineers. Better to give all the money to SpaceX and let SpaceX's momentum get us to Mars even faster IMO.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    Let's...not rely on that? Bad gamble as a tax payer.
    - crush-n-spread 10y ago
      You can think what you want. But if you're perceptive and think really hard about the individuals at the front of companies, and you've spent time thinking about Elon Musk, it's really clear that he will never stop until someone assassinates him. The guy had a dad who psychologically tortured him, he got thrown down stairs by gangs of blacks in apartheid South Africa, and he completely detached himself from any social connections when he was 17 by moving to Canada. The guy's only reason to live is to fulfill his dreams that he gained from reading every single science fiction book that existed. Anyway you can think what you want but I know that he's not like the other CEOs that are career CEOs. He's on a mission fueled by intense hardship and retribution

Symmetry 10y ago

The LEO payloads for FH and SLS block 1 are similar but SLS can put nearly twice as much mass on a trans-lunar injection. There's also the larger faring size on SLS and future blocks will have more performance. All of which isn't to say that SLS is cost effective, but it does have capabilities which will be unique for at least a window of time.

nickik 10y ago
The SLS will have a unique capability for a while, but it will only launch once and then it will not be available again until a time that will look very different.