SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
If only.
Back in 1969, each Apollo mission cost around $400 million.
50 years on an equivalent type mission with an equivalent size rocket (e.g. the SLS) would probably cost well over $2 billion.
The SpaceX lunar mission profile is quite a bit simpler than an Apollo mission and it is probably also being run in a more efficient manner than an equivalent NASA mission, I would recon it will cost around $400 to $500 million.
Back in 1969, each Apollo mission cost around $400 million.
50 years on an equivalent type mission with an equivalent size rocket (e.g. the SLS) would probably cost well over $2 billion.
The SpaceX lunar mission profile is quite a bit simpler than an Apollo mission and it is probably also being run in a more efficient manner than an equivalent NASA mission, I would recon it will cost around $400 to $500 million.
Was at Kennedy Space Center on Monday and saw this on the bus tour.
had no idea they'd taken over one of the shuttle/apollo launchpads. Looking forward to seeing people go into deep space in my lifetime anyway. It looks like theres some exciting stuff in the pipeline with Nasa, too, with Orion, but its still years away.
Last time I was in Florida i think just before the whole Project Constellation thing was announced. Back then I thought we would have at least sen another US manned launch by now.
had no idea they'd taken over one of the shuttle/apollo launchpads. Looking forward to seeing people go into deep space in my lifetime anyway. It looks like theres some exciting stuff in the pipeline with Nasa, too, with Orion, but its still years away.
Last time I was in Florida i think just before the whole Project Constellation thing was announced. Back then I thought we would have at least sen another US manned launch by now.
MartG said:
Graphic showing relative size and payloads of various launchers... interesting that despite its greater size the 3 stage New Glenn will have a similar payload capacity to Falcon Heavy - the efficiency benefits of dropping off the boosters I guess
Also, what's with the difference in size/payload ratio between the Faclon 9 heavy and the Delta IV Heavy? It looks like much bigger rocket by tank volume with less payload. Surely the efficiency can't be that different?Caruso said:
MartG said:
Graphic showing relative size and payloads of various launchers... interesting that despite its greater size the 3 stage New Glenn will have a similar payload capacity to Falcon Heavy - the efficiency benefits of dropping off the boosters I guess
Also, what's with the difference in size/payload ratio between the Faclon 9 heavy and the Delta IV Heavy? It looks like much bigger rocket by tank volume with less payload. Surely the efficiency can't be that different?MartG said:
Caruso said:
MartG said:
Graphic showing relative size and payloads of various launchers... interesting that despite its greater size the 3 stage New Glenn will have a similar payload capacity to Falcon Heavy - the efficiency benefits of dropping off the boosters I guess
Also, what's with the difference in size/payload ratio between the Faclon 9 heavy and the Delta IV Heavy? It looks like much bigger rocket by tank volume with less payload. Surely the efficiency can't be that different?New Glenn is bigger because of the fuel they're using too. Methane is also less dense than RP1 and requires them to have a proportionally larger liquid oxygen tank too (about 15% larger I believe).
Falcon Heavy is certainly helped that they can drop the extra mass of the boosters on the way up. Plus, the boosters will share their fuel with the central rocket, allowing it to save much of its own reserves for a more sustained flight. It'll have more power off the deck than New Glenn too.
Falcon Heavy is certainly helped that they can drop the extra mass of the boosters on the way up. Plus, the boosters will share their fuel with the central rocket, allowing it to save much of its own reserves for a more sustained flight. It'll have more power off the deck than New Glenn too.
Beati Dogu said:
New Glenn is bigger because of the fuel they're using too. Methane is also less dense than RP1 and requires them to have a proportionally larger liquid oxygen tank too (about 15% larger I believe).
Falcon Heavy is certainly helped that they can drop the extra mass of the boosters on the way up. Plus, the boosters will share their fuel with the central rocket, allowing it to save much of its own reserves for a more sustained flight. It'll have more power off the deck than New Glenn too.
So in summary we saying that size doesn't matter and that the Saturn V is still the daddy until ITS comes along?Falcon Heavy is certainly helped that they can drop the extra mass of the boosters on the way up. Plus, the boosters will share their fuel with the central rocket, allowing it to save much of its own reserves for a more sustained flight. It'll have more power off the deck than New Glenn too.
RobDickinson said:
Yep F9H should be running 6 out of 9 centre core engines on fuel from the side boosters.
A technique known to those who play Kerbal Space Program as Asparagus staging 
http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_...MartG said:
RobDickinson said:
Yep F9H should be running 6 out of 9 centre core engines on fuel from the side boosters.
A technique known to those who play Kerbal Space Program as Asparagus staging http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_...Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff