3 ms·
> * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA. Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
by JshWright 9y ago
> * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.
Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
- robin_reala 9y agoWhy’s that? Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to take up considerably more payload.
- TrainedMonkey 9y agoDo you have a specific example? AFAIK Falcon Heavy can beat Delta Heavy on everything but some deep space and missions requiring super long coast. I am not sure how many of those UAF has.
- andrewwharton 9y agoAre you sure about that? The marketing materials [1] for the Falcon Heavy say: "Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy - at one-third the cost." [1] http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
- JshWright 9y agoThat depends on the orbital destination. Delta IV Heavy has a _very_ eficient upper stage, which makes it better for high energy destinations. Additionally, the Falcon upper stage has very limited on-orbit capabilities. It can't coast for a long time in order to insert a payload directly into a high orbit. (Though SpaceX is working on this, and did some tests in that direction on the recent NROL-76 launch)
- nickik 9y agoThis is false. There are some mission that they can not fly yet but the additional capabilities for the upper stage are already in development and have been partly tested. I would expect that by the time the FH flys the upgrades to the upper stage should be rolled out, so they can fly direct insertions. There is still the additional problem of vertical integration. SpaceX will start doing that on pad 39A.
- JshWright 9y agoMy comment was based on the current reality. It is not "false". You're speculating about future capabilities which SpaceX is working towards (and certainly seem likely to achieve), but have not yet accomplished.