Quote from: OV-106 on 04/07/2011 05:52 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2011 05:23 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/07/2011 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/07/2011 05:16 pmQuote from: majormajor42 on 04/07/2011 05:11 pm I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".Inevitable?In addition to Jim's accurate question, so it's ok for SpaceX to develop a rocket without "PAYLOADS!" but not to begin work on SLS? Curious. The double standard at play is interesting. Who is paying for SpaceX's Falcon Heavy? Answer: Either SpaceX or customers with payloads for it. Who is paying for SLS? Me.Little dramatic don't you think? So what you are saying is there is a double standard. Interesting still. How is there a double standard? SpaceX is not charging me for Falcon Heavy, NASA is charging me for SLS. Thus Robotbeat is unconcerned about the former (none of his business) and is about the latter (he has ownership in NASA's activities as he pays for them). Seems simple enough.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2011 05:23 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/07/2011 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/07/2011 05:16 pmQuote from: majormajor42 on 04/07/2011 05:11 pm I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".Inevitable?In addition to Jim's accurate question, so it's ok for SpaceX to develop a rocket without "PAYLOADS!" but not to begin work on SLS? Curious. The double standard at play is interesting. Who is paying for SpaceX's Falcon Heavy? Answer: Either SpaceX or customers with payloads for it. Who is paying for SLS? Me.Little dramatic don't you think? So what you are saying is there is a double standard. Interesting still.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/07/2011 05:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/07/2011 05:16 pmQuote from: majormajor42 on 04/07/2011 05:11 pm I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".Inevitable?In addition to Jim's accurate question, so it's ok for SpaceX to develop a rocket without "PAYLOADS!" but not to begin work on SLS? Curious. The double standard at play is interesting. Who is paying for SpaceX's Falcon Heavy? Answer: Either SpaceX or customers with payloads for it. Who is paying for SLS? Me.
Quote from: Jim on 04/07/2011 05:16 pmQuote from: majormajor42 on 04/07/2011 05:11 pm I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".Inevitable?In addition to Jim's accurate question, so it's ok for SpaceX to develop a rocket without "PAYLOADS!" but not to begin work on SLS? Curious. The double standard at play is interesting.
Quote from: majormajor42 on 04/07/2011 05:11 pm I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".Inevitable?
I can't blame Elon for being proud of this inevitable accomplishment and I am looking forward to seeing all of the new payloads that will be developed to take advantage of these "everyday low prices!".
If Falcon Heavy was only economical for ~50 ton payloads, I would very much agree that it has no payloads and is irrational.SpaceX still has to prove they can launch Falcon Heavy for the price they quoted, but it still seems to be economically viable for large comm sats to GTO, thus it has payloads.
Here's why I don't think the 53 mt to LEO version is around the corner. On the left is the "standard" 55m high version, on the right my impression of the 69m version (which would support the specified propellant load, 1st stages having almost a 50% stretch). Decide for yourself which one you actually see in the video and artwork.
Quote from: ugordan on 04/07/2011 05:08 pmHere's why I don't think the 53 mt to LEO version is around the corner. On the left is the "standard" 55m high version, on the right my impression of the 69m version (which would support the specified propellant load, 1st stages having almost a 50% stretch). Decide for yourself which one you actually see in the video and artwork.Please don't pollute this threads with facts or data.BTW, it would be interesting to show a Zenit in there, to scale. Zenit has a 4 meter diameter, compared with the 3 meters of Falcon. Clearly, Falcon was not designed for these kinds of loads.I would bet money that the stretched Falcon as you have shown will *never* fly and that the announcement by Elon was intended to inject FUD into the Congressional Launch Vehicle debate. This is not to say that Elon won't try to launch a Falcon with strap-ons, I just don't think that 50 tons is in the cards until and unless Raptor and/or Merlin 2 are available.
This is not to say that Elon won't try to launch a Falcon with strap-ons, I just don't think that 50 tons is in the cards until and unless Raptor and/or Merlin 2 are available.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2011 06:14 pmIf Falcon Heavy was only economical for ~50 ton payloads, I would very much agree that it has no payloads and is irrational.SpaceX still has to prove they can launch Falcon Heavy for the price they quoted, but it still seems to be economically viable for large comm sats to GTO, thus it has payloads.Are you contradicting yourself there? So you would agree that it is irrational but by invoking a nebulous statement about "large comm sats" then it makes it ok?
You know that $1000/lb to LEO really is starting to bug me...
IMHO the biggest difference is that FH will have a strong commonality with something that is flying and will keep flying regardless FH, it could survive a low launch rate, SLS must be kept flying to survive and has commonality with nothing.This is a bigger difference than just cost.Edit:typo.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2011 02:25 amYou know that $1000/lb to LEO really is starting to bug me...With time, SpaceX will charge whatever the market will bear. If they mange to keep costs down, establish a good record and gain market share - and those are Big 'ifs' - they'll still eventually charge whatever the market will bear. Hypothetically, what if Elon runs the company for the next ten years and can launch for 1/2 the price of his competitors. And what if he chooses to do this out of the kindness of his heart with a sizable market share of launches. What do you think his investors would have to say about it?
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2011 02:25 amYou know that $1000/lb to LEO really is starting to bug me...With time, SpaceX will charge whatever the market will bear.
Quote from: pummuf on 04/07/2011 06:32 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2011 02:25 amYou know that $1000/lb to LEO really is starting to bug me...With time, SpaceX will charge whatever the market will bear. If they mange to keep costs down, establish a good record and gain market share - and those are Big 'ifs' - they'll still eventually charge whatever the market will bear. Hypothetically, what if Elon runs the company for the next ten years and can launch for 1/2 the price of his competitors. And what if he chooses to do this out of the kindness of his heart with a sizable market share of launches. What do you think his investors would have to say about it?As long as he is the majority shareholder, they can say whatever they want, he's still in charge. In the press conference someone asked him about 'selling' SpaceX to one of the big companies. His reply was interesting. paraphrase- "SpaceX has certain philosophical and philantropical goals that would not align well with big defense industry businesses."Basically, Elon Musk is a starry eyed dreamer with both the skill and the money to make those dreams come true (or at least take one whale of a shot at doing so).
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/07/2011 06:22 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2011 06:14 pmIf Falcon Heavy was only economical for ~50 ton payloads, I would very much agree that it has no payloads and is irrational.SpaceX still has to prove they can launch Falcon Heavy for the price they quoted, but it still seems to be economically viable for large comm sats to GTO, thus it has payloads.Are you contradicting yourself there? So you would agree that it is irrational but by invoking a nebulous statement about "large comm sats" then it makes it ok?Erm, yes, there's an existing market of large comm sats in the 10-30mt range. Many of these launch every year on rockets that cost more than the FH. We've been over this already.If the FH were more expensive than existing rockets, there would be a contradiction. The FH is not more expensive than existing rockets in this class.
BTW, it would be interesting to show a Zenit in there, to scale. Zenit has a 4 meter diameter, compared with the 3 meters of Falcon.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/07/2011 06:37 pmQuote from: pummuf on 04/07/2011 06:32 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2011 02:25 amYou know that $1000/lb to LEO really is starting to bug me...With time, SpaceX will charge whatever the market will bear. If they mange to keep costs down, establish a good record and gain market share - and those are Big 'ifs' - they'll still eventually charge whatever the market will bear. Hypothetically, what if Elon runs the company for the next ten years and can launch for 1/2 the price of his competitors. And what if he chooses to do this out of the kindness of his heart with a sizable market share of launches. What do you think his investors would have to say about it?As long as he is the majority shareholder, they can say whatever they want, he's still in charge. In the press conference someone asked him about 'selling' SpaceX to one of the big companies. His reply was interesting. paraphrase- "SpaceX has certain philosophical and philantropical goals that would not align well with big defense industry businesses."Basically, Elon Musk is a starry eyed dreamer with both the skill and the money to make those dreams come true (or at least take one whale of a shot at doing so).I admire your faith.Most likely, SpaceX will run into its fair share of problems in the future and their prices will rise. But even if they don't, they'll find a reason to charge whatever they can - after establishing a market share. One obvious reason lies in your quote "philosophical and philantropical goals" ... there's always another project to be paid for.
Launch costs are a key inhibitor to achieving that dream, so I do not expect to see him do any more than trend the inflation line on his prices, and if possible, he will trend below that line.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/07/2011 07:17 pm Launch costs are a key inhibitor to achieving that dream, so I do not expect to see him do any more than trend the inflation line on his prices, and if possible, he will trend below that line.No going to happen, see F9 prices
Quote from: Jim on 04/07/2011 07:26 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/07/2011 07:17 pm Launch costs are a key inhibitor to achieving that dream, so I do not expect to see him do any more than trend the inflation line on his prices, and if possible, he will trend below that line.No going to happen, see F9 prices What, the published prices that have not changed in 3 or 4 years? Kinda proves my point.