Another date set for Falcon 9 Heavy

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03...heavy_liftoff/

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell has confirmed that the company's
much-delayed Falcon Heavy rocket will blast off from Cape
Canaveral in November.

The Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful rocket on the planet,
capable of lifting 53 metric tons of cargo into orbit and then
landing back on Earth for reuse. The first flight had been
scheduled for 2013, but design issues and SpaceX's explosive
Falcon 9 failure have set the launch date back.

...

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On 3/11/2016 6:05 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
the company's
much-delayed Falcon Heavy rocket will blast off from Cape
Canaveral in November.
It may not be intended as so, but I take this as bad news! The way
these schedules tend to slip, "November 2016" unfortunately means that
realistically we can't expect Falcon Heavy to fly this year.

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:43:54 AM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 3/11/2016 6:05 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
the company's
much-delayed Falcon Heavy rocket will blast off from Cape
Canaveral in November.
It may not be intended as so, but I take this as bad news! The way
these schedules tend to slip, "November 2016" unfortunately means that
realistically we can't expect Falcon Heavy to fly this year.

just compare any space X operations to nasa.....



SLS has had endless delays, and cost a billion dollars per flight just for the booster.

now look at space x building a reusable booster designed to land for reuse at a fraction of the cost of any current nasa booster.

delays are preferable to seeing a flight detonate and never reach orbit.

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
b.com...

On 2016-03-14 10:15, bob haller wrote:

SLS has had endless delays, and cost a billion dollars per flight just
for the booster.


In fairness, if SLS were to be productized, and disposable SSMEs built
in production line, wouldn't the cost per launch come down considerably
? Would it go below Space Shuttle costs or still be higher ?


No idea, but sort of irrelevant in a sense. The cost per seat of a 747 is
pretty low but if you only have 100 passengers per flight, it's going to
cost a lot no matter what.

That's a big part of the SLS problem. Even if the cost per kg comes down,
it's far too large right now for the payloads out there and there's no real
evidence that there's a big market for payloads that large any time soon.



Yes, as it stands, SLS has finite number of engines it can destroy, and
the development costs for just a couple of token flights make each
flight ridiculously expensive.

Just wondering what those costs would become if SLS actually had a long
term high frequency use.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:32:55 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"JF Mezei" wrote in message
b.com...

On 2016-03-14 10:15, bob haller wrote:

SLS has had endless delays, and cost a billion dollars per flight just
for the booster.


In fairness, if SLS were to be productized, and disposable SSMEs built
in production line, wouldn't the cost per launch come down considerably
? Would it go below Space Shuttle costs or still be higher ?


No idea, but sort of irrelevant in a sense. The cost per seat of a 747 is
pretty low but if you only have 100 passengers per flight, it's going to
cost a lot no matter what.

That's a big part of the SLS problem. Even if the cost per kg comes down,
it's far too large right now for the payloads out there and there's no real
evidence that there's a big market for payloads that large any time soon.



Yes, as it stands, SLS has finite number of engines it can destroy, and
the development costs for just a couple of token flights make each
flight ridiculously expensive.

Just wondering what those costs would become if SLS actually had a long
term high frequency use.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

lets assume a once a week flight rate would cut the cost per flight by half, making in av half a billion per week..

thats still around 25 billion a year,

while space x would likely be 10% of that billion per flight...

now what could we put in orbit thats massive enough to make a high flight rate affordable?

besides dont forget SLS cost is just the booster......... what sort of payload would be worth it

bob haller wrote:
now what could we put in orbit thats massive enough to make a high
flight rate affordable?

besides dont forget SLS cost is just the booster......... what sort
of payload would be worth it

Just a peanut-gallery guess, but a big, honking solar power satellite
is the first and only thing which comes to mind.

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:32:55 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"JF Mezei" wrote in message
b.com...

On 2016-03-14 10:15, bob haller wrote:

SLS has had endless delays, and cost a billion dollars per flight just
for the booster.


In fairness, if SLS were to be productized, and disposable SSMEs built
in production line, wouldn't the cost per launch come down considerably
? Would it go below Space Shuttle costs or still be higher ?


No idea, but sort of irrelevant in a sense. The cost per seat of a 747
is
pretty low but if you only have 100 passengers per flight, it's going to
cost a lot no matter what.

That's a big part of the SLS problem. Even if the cost per kg comes down,
it's far too large right now for the payloads out there and there's no
real
evidence that there's a big market for payloads that large any time soon.



Yes, as it stands, SLS has finite number of engines it can destroy, and
the development costs for just a couple of token flights make each
flight ridiculously expensive.

Just wondering what those costs would become if SLS actually had a long
term high frequency use.



--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

lets assume a once a week flight rate would cut the cost per flight by
half, making in av half a billion per week..

Let's assume faeries exist. That said, this is sort of the same issue with
the shuttle. Even if you COULD sustain such a flight rate (and we can't, for
one we can't make 52 1st stages a year at Michoud) as you point out, we
don't have the payloads.

50 SLS flights a year is like having 7 747 flights a week from NYC to
Winslow Az. Doable, but pointless.


thats still around 25 billion a year,

while space x would likely be 10% of that billion per flight...

now what could we put in orbit thats massive enough to make a high flight
rate affordable?

besides dont forget SLS cost is just the booster......... what sort of
payload would be worth it

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
bob haller wrote:
now what could we put in orbit thats massive enough to make a high
flight rate affordable?

besides dont forget SLS cost is just the booster......... what sort
of payload would be worth it

Just a peanut-gallery guess, but a big, honking solar power satellite
is the first and only thing which comes to mind.

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

far cheaper to launch the components on multiple space x reusable booster flights....

bob haller wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
Just a peanut-gallery guess, but a big, honking solar power
satellite is the first and only thing which comes to mind.

rick jones

far cheaper to launch the components on multiple space x reusable
booster flights....

Not looking to defend the SLS really, but is it still cheaper even if
the target for the solar power satellite is geosynchronous orbit?

You could assemble in LEO and then boost, and get an even bigger solar
power satellite there that way, but won't assembly in orbit call for
humans?

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 2:26:50 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
Just a peanut-gallery guess, but a big, honking solar power
satellite is the first and only thing which comes to mind.

rick jones

far cheaper to launch the components on multiple space x reusable
booster flights....

Not looking to defend the SLS really, but is it still cheaper even if
the target for the solar power satellite is geosynchronous orbit?

You could assemble in LEO and then boost, and get an even bigger solar
power satellite there that way, but won't assembly in orbit call for
humans?

rick jones

automated docking has been around a long time. most mir progress dockings were automated