Capabilities and Services(spacex.com)
spacex.com
Capabilities and Services
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
96 comments
As a pricing page its missing the Most Popular! -badge.
^ You know, we laugh about this but in the next decade we may very well be able to deploy payloads into space just by clicking a few buttons like any other online shopping. They may even pick up the shipment right from our facilities with their drones.
Where is the "BUY NOW" button?
Do you mean something like this http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
Like an extension of the old "if you have to ask [the price].."
I'm just hoping for the "free forever!" tier.
No way to enter discount coupon code? This is outrageous!
It's on the checkout page, which you then abandon to search retailmenot to find a code that expired last year.
Where is my shopping cart anyways?
Either way - I'd wait it out. They'll drop the price for black friday
Either way - I'd wait it out. They'll drop the price for black friday
They should offer quick buy it now sales through mobile via Stripe Relay.
what? no free tier? nobody will ever use this.
What, no 30-day money back guarantee?!
Found the marketing guru.
It's interesting that Falcon Heavy costs 1.5x as much as Falcon 9, but carries 4x the payload.
Why doesn't SpaceX offer the Falcon Heavy exclusively and launch multiple payloads per launch, thus more than halving costs?
Are there payload volume or orbit separation limitations or is the pricing info not complete?
Why doesn't SpaceX offer the Falcon Heavy exclusively and launch multiple payloads per launch, thus more than halving costs?
Are there payload volume or orbit separation limitations or is the pricing info not complete?
Arianespace does that with their Ariane V, but it comes with organizational headaches, because you need two payloads of appropriate mass, that are ready at the same time, and that go into the same orbital plane. If one payload is delayed (happens often enough), you can't shuffle the other one around on short notice.
>It's interesting that Falcon Heavy costs 1.5x as much as Falcon 9, but carries 4x the payload.
where did you get that numbers from? the page says $60m for ~4.85t to GTO for F9 and $90m for 6.4t to GTO for FH. price for maximum performance isn't quoted; i believe without reusability it'll be about 3x F9 (there's three F9's in the FH, after all).
where did you get that numbers from? the page says $60m for ~4.85t to GTO for F9 and $90m for 6.4t to GTO for FH. price for maximum performance isn't quoted; i believe without reusability it'll be about 3x F9 (there's three F9's in the FH, after all).
There's an inconsistency on the page.
The pricing subtext for the FH says 6.4mT to GTO, but lower on the page the FH specs say 21,200kg to GTO.
For the F9, it's clear that 4.85mT to GTO is the same as listed below. So I'm assuming the 21,200kg to GTO for the FH is incorrect. Or there is something I'm missing? (additional weight required for GTO and which subtracts from the 21,200kg?)
The pricing subtext for the FH says 6.4mT to GTO, but lower on the page the FH specs say 21,200kg to GTO.
For the F9, it's clear that 4.85mT to GTO is the same as listed below. So I'm assuming the 21,200kg to GTO for the FH is incorrect. Or there is something I'm missing? (additional weight required for GTO and which subtracts from the 21,200kg?)
The Falcon Heavy can take 21 tons to GTO, but for $90 million you can only take 6.4 tons.
I.e. 21 tons is the max payload, and the guide price they're giving is just for 6.5 tons.
I.e. 21 tons is the max payload, and the guide price they're giving is just for 6.5 tons.
I guess the reason for that discrepancy is that for the $90m price tag, SpaceX wants to re-use the first stage cores. In re-usable configuration, quite a bit of the fuel has to be used for the re-entry burns.
Still interesting that they advertise the re-use price, while not having successfully landed a single core yet (admittedly, they came really close to a successful landing a couple of times).
Still interesting that they advertise the re-use price, while not having successfully landed a single core yet (admittedly, they came really close to a successful landing a couple of times).
No inconsistency. The price is:
1. 12 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon 9 with a maximum load of 4.85 tonnes
2. 14 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon Heavy with a maximum load of 21.2 tonnes
If you buy the 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy package, Space X will sell the additional space to another two customers on same launch.
1. 12 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon 9 with a maximum load of 4.85 tonnes
2. 14 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon Heavy with a maximum load of 21.2 tonnes
If you buy the 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy package, Space X will sell the additional space to another two customers on same launch.
saw that a little while ago. it's fun you can now purchase a lift in LEO and with a direct quote even!
so, doing some weird math, you can get about 5000 person ashes in LEO for about 62M, so one could theoretically (I think law forbids it) run a kickstarter campaign to get people ashes in space for 15k each.
Just think of the possibilities! private launch space with a price allows all people a fair access to space (still pricey, but fair)
so, doing some weird math, you can get about 5000 person ashes in LEO for about 62M, so one could theoretically (I think law forbids it) run a kickstarter campaign to get people ashes in space for 15k each.
Just think of the possibilities! private launch space with a price allows all people a fair access to space (still pricey, but fair)
Sounds like http://elysiumspace.com/
I think they only send up a small sample of the ashes rather than the whole urn though. They charge $2k so there's probably some good margins if you can do the same with SpaceX.
I think they only send up a small sample of the ashes rather than the whole urn though. They charge $2k so there's probably some good margins if you can do the same with SpaceX.
[deleted]
I can't think of anything more wasteful!
Considering that life has no meaning anyway, I can't think of anything less wasteful either.
Some people seem to unironically agree with this, so I'll say the obvious: I don't think the absence of a meaning to life has anything to do with the wastefulness of sending your ashes into orbit. It's more wasteful than spreading them over the sea, for example. Unless you're actually saying that you don't believe in the concept of waste, which would be really sad for you and for everyone around you.
[deleted]
That's a pretty bleak and limiting view.
I find it liberating.
many, if not most, find meaning of life in kids. for me, it's a bit more more broad - kids and future generations as part of mankind.
your selfish behavior would pollute planet unnecessarily, taking away precious resources, giving back more pollution. you might not care what will happen after you pass away, but I do.
(I say this as a space lover whose biggest dream is to get to space one time... but there are far more important things in life than polishing one's ego, which can be anyway achieved in many, many ways. climbed Matterhorn last week, that's a good starter I can recommend to some :))
your selfish behavior would pollute planet unnecessarily, taking away precious resources, giving back more pollution. you might not care what will happen after you pass away, but I do.
(I say this as a space lover whose biggest dream is to get to space one time... but there are far more important things in life than polishing one's ego, which can be anyway achieved in many, many ways. climbed Matterhorn last week, that's a good starter I can recommend to some :))
Oh that is just the tip of the iceberg when you start studying philosophy. I love Philosophy but the starting questions of what is life and meaning can be over whelming.
BTW I named my son Soren for Soren Kierkegaard and man he can be extremely bleak. It kind of goes everything is not understandable till you lose yourself in the madness of nothing being certain AKA Leap of Faith (Which is Leap to Faith but translations screwed it up)
BTW I named my son Soren for Soren Kierkegaard and man he can be extremely bleak. It kind of goes everything is not understandable till you lose yourself in the madness of nothing being certain AKA Leap of Faith (Which is Leap to Faith but translations screwed it up)
You don't have much of an imagination then.
Look like a typo. Falcon 9 up to 4.85mT to GTO. Falcon Heavy up to 6.8mT to GTO. <-- really?
But down below we see 4850kg and 21,200kg which seems more likely.
But down below we see 4850kg and 21,200kg which seems more likely.
4.85 milliteslas. Too bad the unit usage in the business is a bit wonky.
it says $90m for 6.5t. it doesn't say how much it costs to put 21t on GTO. i'd expect that price to be in the 'call us' area.
>>
baq 5 minutes ago | parent
it says $90m for 6.5t. it doesn't say how much it costs to put 21t on GTO. i'd expect that price to be in the 'call us' area.
Good point. The later figure does not include a price. OTOH since the price is given for the lower payload which covers all/most the cost of the hardware, one may be a bit angry if the price per kg doesn't drop a lot after that. But they are the only game in town at those prices right?
it says $90m for 6.5t. it doesn't say how much it costs to put 21t on GTO. i'd expect that price to be in the 'call us' area.
Good point. The later figure does not include a price. OTOH since the price is given for the lower payload which covers all/most the cost of the hardware, one may be a bit angry if the price per kg doesn't drop a lot after that. But they are the only game in town at those prices right?
>> OTOH since the price is given for the lower payload which covers all/most the cost of the hardware, one may be a bit angry if the price per kg doesn't drop a lot after that.
That's not necessarily true. The Falcon 9 has the potential to be reused, but requires additional fuel reserves in order to handle the return procedure. I'm not certain, but it's possible that a full 21t payload wouldn't allow for that additional fuel capacity and therefore your single launch would have to account for the entire cost of the rocket, whereas smaller payloads would be able to spread the cost of the rocket across multiple launches.
That's not necessarily true. The Falcon 9 has the potential to be reused, but requires additional fuel reserves in order to handle the return procedure. I'm not certain, but it's possible that a full 21t payload wouldn't allow for that additional fuel capacity and therefore your single launch would have to account for the entire cost of the rocket, whereas smaller payloads would be able to spread the cost of the rocket across multiple launches.
Is this a mistake on their site? Falcon heavy is listed as 6.4 mT to GTO under the price, but 21.2 mt below in the table.
Right, that's what I was asking, but someone thought I was confused about LEO vs GTO :-(
I believe that is price vs capacity. Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to take a vehicle to Mars.
> Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to take a vehicle to Mars.
No, it's not; the business model for the Falcon Heavy is heavy comsats (communication satellites) to GEO with reusability of all three cores. The Mars science mission idea is a nice use-case, but more of an every-once-in-a-while kind of thing.
For their Mars colonization effort, SpaceX is currently developing a fully reusable rocket with a larger payload capacity than any rocket that ever existed; Falcon Heavy is too small for that.
No, it's not; the business model for the Falcon Heavy is heavy comsats (communication satellites) to GEO with reusability of all three cores. The Mars science mission idea is a nice use-case, but more of an every-once-in-a-while kind of thing.
For their Mars colonization effort, SpaceX is currently developing a fully reusable rocket with a larger payload capacity than any rocket that ever existed; Falcon Heavy is too small for that.
Specifically the Mars Colonial Transporter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
Falcon Heavy can take a vehicle to mars, but not a vehicle large enough for colonization. You are both right.
"In expendable mode, Falcon Heavy can send a fully loaded Dragon to Mars or a light Dragon to Jupiter's moons. Europa mission wd be cool." -Elon Musk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/643538701981716481
"In expendable mode, Falcon Heavy can send a fully loaded Dragon to Mars or a light Dragon to Jupiter's moons. Europa mission wd be cool." -Elon Musk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/643538701981716481
It seems to list two different weights to GTO for the falcon heavy. Could there be a typo?
The different payload masses are most likely for different grades of reusability: all cores expendable, center core expendable + boosters reusable, fully reusable.
Hard to tell for sure, because SpaceX has, to the best of my knowledge, never provided details regarding which Falcon Heavy configuration delivers the 6.4 mT to GTO.*
* probably a 1800 m/s to GSO, 26° inclination orbit
Hard to tell for sure, because SpaceX has, to the best of my knowledge, never provided details regarding which Falcon Heavy configuration delivers the 6.4 mT to GTO.*
* probably a 1800 m/s to GSO, 26° inclination orbit
So it's listing the min and max masses to GTO for Falcon Heavy? But why wouldn't they list the same thing for regular Falcon? Can't you also choose if that is reusable or not?
The concensus among several people on the nasaspaceflight.com forum who simulated the numbers, is that 13 mT is already the estimated capability of the reusable F9 v1.1; the full capability of the expendable configuration is approx. 16 mT to LEO.
What will the full capability of expandable v1.2 be then?
It depends on how far up you want the weight to go:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
Nope, that's not it. I mean "Falcon heavy is listed as 6.4 mT to GTO under the price, but 21.2 mt below in the table"
Hmm, in that case, why are the Falcon 9 numbers the same?
Using the smaller Falcon 9 you could send approximately 1500 people's ashes in to space (assuming an average of 3kg left after cremation for each person), at a cost of $39,000 each.
I wonder if that could be a viable business.
I wonder if that could be a viable business.
Uh, if you go with the falcon heavy you can transport 17,666 people's ashes at $5,094 a pop. But you may be waiting a lot longer to accumulate that many buyers.
Two-tier model? :-P
Two-tier model? :-P
Strangely this was a topic of discussion with my family the other day.
It's definitely selfish, but I need a way to get to space somehow. We could justify it as aiding the budding commercial space industry :)
It would have mass market appeal at ~12k USD a pop. The question becomes where would you send it?
Personally, I would love to drift into deep space, but could settle for the sun. Possibly a remembrance countdown on the web with clips of everyone to be sent off until launch.
It's definitely selfish, but I need a way to get to space somehow. We could justify it as aiding the budding commercial space industry :)
It would have mass market appeal at ~12k USD a pop. The question becomes where would you send it?
Personally, I would love to drift into deep space, but could settle for the sun. Possibly a remembrance countdown on the web with clips of everyone to be sent off until launch.
If you can settle for the Sun, and be patient... Just wait ~8 billion years for the sun to turn into a red giant (engulfing the earth, along with your remains). You may even get lucky and some of your remains may be swept away in the solar wind.
I'd settle for 50g or so, and then you could get far more up.
Why send ashes when you can send DNA?
If you found this interesting, I would recommend taking a look at https://www.astrobotic.com/configure-mission, another "space travel pricing page" - this one gives tweakable parameters that change the price, which is nice.
Sidenote: It's absolutely amazing that we can now get a satellite orbiting the Moon for $200k.
Sidenote: It's absolutely amazing that we can now get a satellite orbiting the Moon for $200k.
> Sidenote: It's absolutely amazing that we can now get a satellite orbiting the Moon for $200k.
It'll be amazing when they manage it. Right now it's a pretty website and a speculative and much-delayed first mission.
It'll be amazing when they manage it. Right now it's a pretty website and a speculative and much-delayed first mission.
Well, it's a hell of a lot more than just a pretty website and speculation - they've got NASA contracts worth tens of millions and have reserved a Falcon 9 launch for late 2016.
I agree - there's no guarantee they can achieve their target even with all of that - but the fact that they've gotten much closer than others is still extraordinary.
I agree - there's no guarantee they can achieve their target even with all of that - but the fact that they've gotten much closer than others is still extraordinary.
Cool. According to Space launch market competition[1] "Falcon 9 rockets [were] already the cheapest in the industry."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...
Under launch facilities, the one in California, that is suited for "defense intelligence" also touts a "launch path completely over the ocean"..
I guess that makes sense, if your super secret launch payload is going to fail, better that it falls in the ocean?
I guess that makes sense, if your super secret launch payload is going to fail, better that it falls in the ocean?
It is completely standard to seek to launch over the ocean. The spaceports in Florida and Guiana are where they are because of that and because it is easier to launch towards the east. Where launches aren't over the ocean they are usually over very sparsely populated territory (as is the case for Baikonur).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport#Placement_considerat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport#Placement_considerat...
I think it's almost standard (save for Rusia) to launch near the ocean. If the rocket fails, it's easier and less dangerous to sink in in water than have it crash on land go boom over any kind of structure (civilian, military, cities, etc).
There are likely other considerations.
You may not want another nation's ground-based radars tracking your launch, for instance.
Though I suspect that superpower nations have satellites in orbit intended to detect rocket launches, for the obvious nuclear war reasons. They all have an interest in knowing whether the payload is bound for orbit or for ballistic re-entry within their borders.
I think the main concern is that a payload that might fall into the ocean can be guarded by heavily armed naval vessels, whereas one that falls on land might have bits stolen by locals before the soldiers get there, in such a way that no one could be sure whether those bits were destroyed or captured.
Military payloads are also probably more likely to want to be in polar orbits. That doesn't have much to do with launching over the ocean so much as the direction of the launch from California being southward.
You may not want another nation's ground-based radars tracking your launch, for instance.
Though I suspect that superpower nations have satellites in orbit intended to detect rocket launches, for the obvious nuclear war reasons. They all have an interest in knowing whether the payload is bound for orbit or for ballistic re-entry within their borders.
I think the main concern is that a payload that might fall into the ocean can be guarded by heavily armed naval vessels, whereas one that falls on land might have bits stolen by locals before the soldiers get there, in such a way that no one could be sure whether those bits were destroyed or captured.
Military payloads are also probably more likely to want to be in polar orbits. That doesn't have much to do with launching over the ocean so much as the direction of the launch from California being southward.
No; all US launches are over ocean to satisfy FAA that you have a very small chance of damaging something on the ground. You could launch over land if you could prove that your rocket was about as likely to fail as an airliner, but there's currently no such thing.
Vandenburg AFB's launch facilities are good for defense sats because (1) they're from a DoD facility and (2) that's the premier US site for polar orbits. Most surveillance sats do polar or polar-ish orbits because that can put any particular part of the planet directly underneath it several times a day.
SpaceX also has an Air Force pad at Cape Canaveral, but that site is suited only for equatorial orbits, again due to geography. Those are mostly for comm sats, science (incl. interplanetary), and human missions.
Vandenburg AFB's launch facilities are good for defense sats because (1) they're from a DoD facility and (2) that's the premier US site for polar orbits. Most surveillance sats do polar or polar-ish orbits because that can put any particular part of the planet directly underneath it several times a day.
SpaceX also has an Air Force pad at Cape Canaveral, but that site is suited only for equatorial orbits, again due to geography. Those are mostly for comm sats, science (incl. interplanetary), and human missions.
Probably more to do with overflight issues in other countries.
Edit: also avoids "dog leg maneuvers". Like countries such as India are forced to do.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pslvc16-puts-3-satelli...
Edit: also avoids "dog leg maneuvers". Like countries such as India are forced to do.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pslvc16-puts-3-satelli...
No up-selling travel insurance? They're leaving money on the launchpad.
If you buy a launch ticket with your chase sapphire card, you can get free travel insurance with coverage for baggage losses. Do telecom satellites count as baggage? Some cards also offer warranty-type protections on your purchases. Seems like a smart move.
Flying is the safest method of transport.
Unless you're flying into space.
Unless you're flying into space.
Judging from the landings legs on heavy center stage, they are planning to land it, but where? It will be flying much higher and faster than the side boosters I believe.
The center landings would have to be on the barges due to the extra range involved.
Depends on the payload. SpaceX's FH videos show all three cores landing on land.
[deleted]
I'll wait for black Friday.
For comparison, The Delta IV Heavy costs ~$350 million to send 28,790 kg into LEO, or 14,220 kg into GTO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy
the Saturn V, the rocket that sent men to the moon could send 140,000 kg to LEO and 48,600 kg on a translunar injection, which is a higher orbit (i.e. takes more energy) than a geostationary transfer. It's estimated that it cost upwards of a billion dollars per Saturn V launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Basically, this is a powerful and freaking cheap rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV_Heavy
the Saturn V, the rocket that sent men to the moon could send 140,000 kg to LEO and 48,600 kg on a translunar injection, which is a higher orbit (i.e. takes more energy) than a geostationary transfer. It's estimated that it cost upwards of a billion dollars per Saturn V launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Basically, this is a powerful and freaking cheap rocket.
Is there an easy to understand resource somewhere that covers issues related to the rocket equation, inclination angles, low and geosynchronous orbit requirements?
I would like a better understanding of the math and physics of what it takes to get a vehicle up to various altitudes and orbits.
I would like a better understanding of the math and physics of what it takes to get a vehicle up to various altitudes and orbits.
Not the answer you are looking for, but KSP[1] taught me about rockets, orbits and whatnot more than schools did. It's fun, accessible.. but won't really teach you exact math and physics (but might encourage you to do so).
1. https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/
1. https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/
it'll teach you that 'more boosters' is really 'exponentially more boosters' which gets unfeasible fast.
everything is feasible in ksp with enough struts.
Not maybe easy but I'd start from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v#/media/File:Delta-Vs_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
edit: More in-depth: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-3...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v#/media/File:Delta-Vs_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
edit: More in-depth: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-3...