7 ms·

Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really h

Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?

nerdponx 9y ago
What's BFR?
- phpnode 9y ago
  the Big Falcon Rocket - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Big F..alcon Rocket.
- neillyons 9y ago
  Big Fucking Rocket
jacquesm 9y ago
Fairing diameter of Falcon heavy is rather smaller than BFR and BFR should be cheaper.
- phpnode 9y ago
  Not to mention that BFR can carry approx 3x the payload of Falcon Heavy to LEO
mabbo 9y ago
I think the BFR is just the next logical step. One more size of rocket you can use to do more things. BFR is also simpler, being one big rocket with one landing to do rather than 3 synchronized rockets with 3 landings. Plus faring size is much bigger on the BFR, which is needed for the Mars plans.
AlanSE 9y ago
> Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? He argued exactly why in his 2nd presentation (with the revised and smaller BFR). His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. This isn't accounting for payload, he was saying the cost of of single launch would be lower for the BFR - it's a bombastic claim. Having read about this subject, I can at least grok the economic argument. SpaceX is already in the rocket reuse business, and over the long run their costs will limit to the costs involved with refurbishment. Falcon Heavy will always have a higher operational cost because of the management of the 3 separate cores. Having only a single massive core offers obvious cost reduction. There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. Since the large rocket can launch small payloads, they can just use it for all their customers. Cost savings come in the form of simplification of the company's processes. Again, since they are now a rocket reuse business, this is possibly their primary cost driver. While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments and consolidation. Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".
- iamcreasy 9y ago
  > While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments Probably BFR will lower the launch cost low enough that would create new customers.
  - le-mark 9y ago
    Absolutely this; also current customers can launch cheaper satellites, because they're easier to replace. For example, spend $500M on a satellite that has to have extreme reliability due to high launch cost and availability, or $50M on one you can replace at whim.
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper. If it's not, there will be room for a competitor. >> There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. That was my take on what he said, and if there's a case for BFR then perhaps it makes sense. >> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". Nice thing about a private company. Elon doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Well, actually he's got enough investors that maybe he does, but they all understand his goals are bigger than just making money. BFR will be the ferry to mars and that opens a door. Nobody know what lies behind that door and I think his investors want to know as much as anyone.
mikeash 9y ago
BFR is vastly more capable. Falcon Heavy is mostly reusable and can send a capsule to Mars. BFR is 100% reusable and can send a hundred people to Mars.
ceejayoz 9y ago
The Falcon 9's second stage wasn't designed to be reusable, and I'd imagine there are quite a few lessons learned they'd like to incorporate in a totally new vehicle instead of attempting to rework the F9.
jccooper 9y ago
FH is (1) not big enough for economic Mars flights, and (2) cannot be fully reusable because it can't support a large enough upper stage.
nickik 9y ago
The difference in size is huge 140000t to 64t. A single core makes more sense, specially because you can put a bigger space ship on top for a rocket of equal power. The 3 core design is only a economic way to get a bigger rocket with a existing design. Look at the Delta 4 Heavy for example.

nerdponx 9y ago

What's BFR?

phpnode 9y ago
the Big Falcon Rocket - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Big F..alcon Rocket.
neillyons 9y ago
Big Fucking Rocket

jacquesm 9y ago

Fairing diameter of Falcon heavy is rather smaller than BFR and BFR should be cheaper.

phpnode 9y ago
Not to mention that BFR can carry approx 3x the payload of Falcon Heavy to LEO

mabbo 9y ago

I think the BFR is just the next logical step. One more size of rocket you can use to do more things. BFR is also simpler, being one big rocket with one landing to do rather than 3 synchronized rockets with 3 landings. Plus faring size is much bigger on the BFR, which is needed for the Mars plans.

AlanSE 9y ago

> Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? He argued exactly why in his 2nd presentation (with the revised and smaller BFR). His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. This isn't accounting for payload, he was saying the cost of of single launch would be lower for the BFR - it's a bombastic claim. Having read about this subject, I can at least grok the economic argument. SpaceX is already in the rocket reuse business, and over the long run their costs will limit to the costs involved with refurbishment. Falcon Heavy will always have a higher operational cost because of the management of the 3 separate cores. Having only a single massive core offers obvious cost reduction. There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. Since the large rocket can launch small payloads, they can just use it for all their customers. Cost savings come in the form of simplification of the company's processes. Again, since they are now a rocket reuse business, this is possibly their primary cost driver. While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments and consolidation. Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".

iamcreasy 9y ago
> While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments Probably BFR will lower the launch cost low enough that would create new customers.
- le-mark 9y ago
  Absolutely this; also current customers can launch cheaper satellites, because they're easier to replace. For example, spend $500M on a satellite that has to have extreme reliability due to high launch cost and availability, or $50M on one you can replace at whim.
phkahler 9y ago
>> His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper. If it's not, there will be room for a competitor. >> There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. That was my take on what he said, and if there's a case for BFR then perhaps it makes sense. >> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". Nice thing about a private company. Elon doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Well, actually he's got enough investors that maybe he does, but they all understand his goals are bigger than just making money. BFR will be the ferry to mars and that opens a door. Nobody know what lies behind that door and I think his investors want to know as much as anyone.

mikeash 9y ago

BFR is vastly more capable. Falcon Heavy is mostly reusable and can send a capsule to Mars. BFR is 100% reusable and can send a hundred people to Mars.

ceejayoz 9y ago

The Falcon 9's second stage wasn't designed to be reusable, and I'd imagine there are quite a few lessons learned they'd like to incorporate in a totally new vehicle instead of attempting to rework the F9.

jccooper 9y ago

FH is (1) not big enough for economic Mars flights, and (2) cannot be fully reusable because it can't support a large enough upper stage.

nickik 9y ago

The difference in size is huge 140000t to 64t. A single core makes more sense, specially because you can put a bigger space ship on top for a rocket of equal power. The 3 core design is only a economic way to get a bigger rocket with a existing design. Look at the Delta 4 Heavy for example.