4 ms·

I think this is just confirmation of something that's been true for a while. Stage 2 reusability went from "we're working on it" to "yeah, that's interesting, w

I think this is just confirmation of something that's been true for a while. Stage 2 reusability went from "we're working on it" to "yeah, that's interesting, we'll take a look at it when we have time". I think they were a little burned by the Falcon Heavy we well. It's an awesome rocket, but it'll take a while for them to even break even on its R&D, as it looks like it won't ever fly more than 2 times per year and then it'll be quickly supplanted by the BFR. And so, while we won't see a reusable Falcon Stage 2, we will see some kind of weird test hybrid / mini BFS build around the falcon stage 2. I imagine it's just a Stage 2 with the shape and control surfaces of BFS to test their re-entry procedures. https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-modify-falcon-9-upper-stage-to-test-bfr-technologies/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-modify-falcon-9-upper-stage-...

exabrial 8y ago
I read somewhere that the Falcon Heavy will find a new niche in direct-to-Geosynchronous launches. Currently, most launches take you to a transfer orbit, then you have to use your satellite's fuel to position yourself in synchronous orbit, a maneuver that can take months. The Falcon Heavy skips the second step and you save your satellite's fuel. Can't seem to find the article at the moment though.
- wolf550e 8y ago
  1. It only takes months if your satellite uses only ion engines. If it has regular hypergolic propellant engines it only takes hours. 2. ULA's (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) Atlas V and Delta IV can make direct-to-GEO insertion, and basically only the DoD wants that. SpaceX plans to use FH to get DoD contracts, but it's not a very large market. It used to be very lucrative for ULA, but SpaceX will lower prices so it won't be as lucrative for them.
  - jryle70 8y ago
    Months going to GEO are months of revenue lost, and mass for propellant is less mass for payload. That's the tradeoffs that may not be compelling for some customers.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  SpaceX's first direct-to-gso order was Oct 16: https://spacenews.com/swedish-firm-buys-falcon-heavy-launch/ https://spacenews.com/swedish-firm-buys-falcon-heavy-launch/

exabrial 8y ago

I read somewhere that the Falcon Heavy will find a new niche in direct-to-Geosynchronous launches. Currently, most launches take you to a transfer orbit, then you have to use your satellite's fuel to position yourself in synchronous orbit, a maneuver that can take months. The Falcon Heavy skips the second step and you save your satellite's fuel. Can't seem to find the article at the moment though.

wolf550e 8y ago
1. It only takes months if your satellite uses only ion engines. If it has regular hypergolic propellant engines it only takes hours. 2. ULA's (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) Atlas V and Delta IV can make direct-to-GEO insertion, and basically only the DoD wants that. SpaceX plans to use FH to get DoD contracts, but it's not a very large market. It used to be very lucrative for ULA, but SpaceX will lower prices so it won't be as lucrative for them.
- jryle70 8y ago
  Months going to GEO are months of revenue lost, and mass for propellant is less mass for payload. That's the tradeoffs that may not be compelling for some customers.
greglindahl 8y ago
SpaceX's first direct-to-gso order was Oct 16: https://spacenews.com/swedish-firm-buys-falcon-heavy-launch/ https://spacenews.com/swedish-firm-buys-falcon-heavy-launch/