SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[JoerTex]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

To those having this discussion, I recommend they read the book "Slide Rule" by Nevil Shute.  Focus on the parts about the R100 and R101 airships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_Rule:_Autobiography_of_an_Engineer

[Star One]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

[dlapine]

In this case we don't have to think about it.

A simple comparison of the money currently being spent on FH development versus that being spent on SLS over the same period of time would be reasonable and objective. First flight dates and cost per flight/payload to orbit (mass and volume) would be reasonable metrics.

Or we could just look at it from a taxpayers perspective- I'm paying for a $3B/yr effort to develop a general purpose heavy lift vehicle for government use. And those commercial guys over there are working on their HL GP vehicle using their own money. If they can produce in the same timeframe that is cheaper to use, more readily available and I didn't have to contribute any funds to develop it, yea!

Why would I complain that they didn't deliver it sooner?

[the_other_Doug]

It helps that SpaceX is actually flying a launch vehicle (Falcon 9 block whatever) that they've upgraded to the point that it's about on par with the earlier Falcon 9 Heavy plan, have already flown the FH's boosters, and are already working on a better, bigger rocket.

FH will fly. In 6 months, it'll be in the rear view mirror.

With the greatest of respect, sir... FH has been "within the next six months", off and on, for five years, now.

I totally agree with you -- with the caveat that we are using the time unit of SpaceX months.  This time unit is, in fact, variable to an ever-changing degree...

[BobHk]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

Pointing to a company that DOES do more with less is not fallacious, its pointing out a fact.  Even if the OP  you responded to isn't separating SpaceX from 'all' private companies give SpaceX its due.

[abaddon]

I know it's tempting to compare SLS and Falcon Heavy, but they really are very different projects in almost every way.

The gating item here, as we all know, is not FH itself, but LC-40.  Launch site construction / re-construction is really hard and expensive, and SpaceX clearly was overly optimistic about their timelines here.  The loss of the Amos mission and destruction of the pad were big setbacks, there's no way around that.  And if that all does slip to early next year, SpaceX is going to have some tight scheduling here with the upcoming installation of the crew access arm at 39a as well as the CCP demo flight.

For me, the exciting thing is that FH hardware not only exists, but is very close to ready for launch.  The core stage and one of the boosters (flight-proven!) are ready and waiting at the Cape.  The second booster has undergone its qualifying fire at McGregor and is presumably headed back to the Cape soon.  All that remains is the second stage and PLC and the rocket is ready and waiting for LC-39a upgrades.  I would bet those take longer than hoped for as well.  This stuff is hard and TELs are built and installed infrequently.  But it's all going to shake out sooner than later and we'll get to finally see this beast fly.  Hopefully successfully .

[Kenp51d]

It may have bean discussed previously, (if so I was sleeping in class, apologies) but is there any thought or possibly need or market for heavy out of Vandenberg?
Heck, I only live 4 hours away

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

[mme]

I look forward to FH flying so we can move on to being really upset that ITSy is behind schedule.

[gdjacobs]

I expect so. Improved Crystal IMINT payloads are too heavy for Atlas V as well as Falcon 9. With Delta IV winding down, Falcon Heavy will be the only platform for optical spy satellites until/unless Vulcan or New Glenn become available at Vandenberg.

Notice that the strongback at SLC-4 appears to be designed for Falcon Heavy. I'm not sure about the hold-down clamps, though.

[gongora]

It may have bean discussed previously, (if so I was sleeping in class, apologies) but is there any thought or possibly need or market for heavy out of Vandenberg?

Probably not for at least a few years.  The Air Force/NROL has already purchased heavy vehicles from ULA for their launches through 2023, and those get ordered at least five years ahead of time.  If SpaceX goes ahead with their internet constellation the initial deployment (first few years) could be from KSC/CCAFS, and they may not even use FH for that.  Depending on the development timelines for their next vehicle, and what vehicles they choose to get certified for government launches, there is some possibility FH never flies from the west coast.  (There is definitely a chance of getting a government FH launch in the mid-2020's, but we won't know for at least a couple years.)

[llanitedave]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly.  SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.

[Kenp51d]

It may have bean discussed previously, (if so I was sleeping in class, apologies) but is there any thought or possibly need or market for heavy out of Vandenberg?

Probably not for at least a few years.  The Air Force/NROL has already purchased heavy vehicles from ULA for their launches through 2023, and those get ordered at least five years ahead of time.  If SpaceX goes ahead with their internet constellation the initial deployment (first few years) could be from KSC/CCAFS, and they may not even use FH for that.  Depending on the development timelines for their next vehicle, and what vehicles they choose to get certified for government launches, there is some possibility FH never flies from the west coast.  (There is definitely a chance of getting a government FH launch in the mid-2020's, but we won't know for at least a couple years.)

Thanks for the detailed answer

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

[Star One]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly.  SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.

But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.

[wannamoonbase]

But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.

Yes but so did the railroads and air travel.

Perhaps looking at things from a perspective of what they may mean in decades and not months helps.

Government has a role to play.

[envy887]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly.  SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.

But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.

Have they taken any money for Heavy that wouldn't otherwise have been spent for F9 and Dragon anyway? I don't recall any. There might have been prepayments for the STP-2 mission, though I don't think the details of that contract were released.

[vaporcobra]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly.  SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.

But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.

The issue, again, is one of efficiency. The CRS, COTS, and Crew contracts SpaceX have received over a period of 5ish years will amount to several billion dollars at most. SLS eats up the same amount of money in maybe 18 months at most, and that money barely makes a dent in the actual construction of a functional, useful launch vehicle. The contractors have every reason to actively avoid expedience, given the complete lack of consequence for any delays, whereas SpaceX is literally losing money when they put capital into FH without any launches to show for it.

SpaceX has limited capital and at least several capital-intensive projects that take clear precedent over Falcon Heavy. SLS's contractors have cost-plus contracts that actively reward delays and inefficiency, so long as it is agreed upon beforehand and ensconced within a maze of legal documents and bureaucracy. 

[Proponent]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated. 

I agree with the sentiment, but the cost of SLS is "only" about $2 billion per year.  You're perhaps thinking of Orion and SLS together?

[Robotbeat]

It helps that SpaceX is actually flying a launch vehicle (Falcon 9 block whatever) that they've upgraded to the point that it's about on par with the earlier Falcon 9 Heavy plan, have already flown the FH's boosters, and are already working on a better, bigger rocket.

FH will fly. In 6 months, it'll be in the rear view mirror.

With the greatest of respect, sir... FH has been "within the next six months", off and on, for five years, now.

SpaceX is now "within two months." 6 months is my estimate.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Clearly they have the stages tested and on site, and have applied/received launch/landing license.

Consider FH another means to apply booster reuse, just more of them at once.

No surprise that 40 is taking time to rebuild/refit.

What threatens past that is unresolved issues with getting to static fire that might delay months. Like constantly messing with TE/launch mount/other due to issues.

The vehicle strategy seems more than good enough.

They'll be within two months once a launch is scheduled for LC40. They'll be within a month once they have the vehicle erect and stop fiddling with TE/launch mount.

[raketa]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.

Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.

A private company without government hands out, has to be nature more effective. Because they will die to be in red number for a long time and they have to provide real value for customers or lose them. Whenever company success is decided by a person/institution not involved directly in consuming the product, feed back in price is distorted and pressure on an efficiency of provider is relax.