The ATK thing was Hatch, (Orin Hatch, R-Utah) not Shelby.
Quote from: newpylong on 02/13/2014 05:37 pm...Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional....Where did I say anything like that? All I said is that it's not a certainty that NASA funds would be necessary for SpaceX's BFR.By the time any of this is relevant, SpaceX will have revenue from Falcon Heavy, as well. If there are a significant number of customers for 53t to LEO, then a single-core, fully reusable (two-stage) variant of the BFR should be able to service those needs for cheaper than the expendable, tri-core, effectively-three-stage Falcon Heavy.
...Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional....
Also, did Falcon 1 flights solely support the development of Falcon 9? Nope. The initial money was from private sources for Falcon 9's development, helped along by firm-fixed price contracts for delivering a service.
Also, Falcon Heavy is being developed right now and already has customers signed up, with either money-down or contractual (and bankable) commitment which can be used for capital.
SpaceX doesn't need NASA's money. Certainly not to pay directly for development ala SLS. SpaceX's BFR's chances /would/ be improved if NASA agreed ahead of time to buy launches on the BFR for a competitive, fixed price. NASA (indirectly) bought a Delta IV Heavy to test Orion, and a single-core, reusable BFR launch may be offered for less than that. Remember, NASA is required /by law/ to use commercial launch services where they exist (yes, there are loop-holes... but remember Orion-on-Delta is flying within a year).
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 02/13/2014 04:36 pmThe problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding....You don't actually know that.
The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding....
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2014 05:44 pmFalcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.It's not really a billion dollar development project either.
Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.
What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0.
Quote from: M129K on 02/13/2014 06:10 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2014 05:44 pmFalcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.It's not really a billion dollar development project either.It would be much more than a billion dollar development project if LM or Boeing were doing it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2014 07:06 pmQuote from: M129K on 02/13/2014 06:10 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2014 05:44 pmFalcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.It's not really a billion dollar development project either.It would be much more than a billion dollar development project if LM or Boeing were doing it.Irrelevant. When you talk about how much SpaceX puts into their projects, it's pointless to say "well x would require much more".
Quote from: newpylong on 02/13/2014 06:45 pm What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0. GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.
MCT is not for profit or revenue generation, at least not the first several missions, that is clear by Elon and Gwynne. MCT will be much larger and way more ambitious than anything NASA is planning and a much more aggressive timeline as well. And it is not a flags and footprints mission for 4 Astronauts-Cosmonauts. It is also going to happen whether or not it is has any backing of NASA, other than technical help.
5-10 billion dollar, 10 year, internally funded MCT is highly plausible. Once you start talking about the usual Mars missions that everyone has thought of, the numbers become too large for SpaceX or any private company. Also its the main reason Congress reuses to fund such large missions.
True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes. You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/13/2014 07:17 pmQuote from: newpylong on 02/13/2014 06:45 pm What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0. GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes. You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.
Nope and nope, FHs GTO payload is 21 metric tons according to SpaceX:http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
The block1 SLS needs to be completed to enable Orion and crew to do BLEO missions, what ever they maybe. Any missions that require larger payloads could be done with multiple launches of mixed LVs. Eg use D4H &FH to place HW in space and fuel it, then launch SLS with Orion.