Slashdot Mirror


World's Most Powerful Rocket Ready In 2012, SpaceX Says

Velcroman1 writes "Elon Musk, the millionaire founder of private space company Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SpaceX for short) said the long-planned Falcon Heavy vehicle would be ready for lift off at the end of 2012. The rocket, which he called the most powerful in the world, would be capable of taking men to the International Space Station, dropping vehicles and astronauts on the moon — and maybe even cruising to Mars and back."

14 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. "maybe" cruising to mars? by tulcod · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can one not know whether his/her rocket is capable of making it to Mars? Are we talking superpositions here or what?

    1. Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe part of his team is using metric, and another part is using imperial?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it depends on the engineering of what goes on top of it. The Falcon Heavy wouldn't actually go to Mars, it just has the heft to potentially launch a vehicle that could go there and back again in one shot.

      However, since no such vehicles exist or are far enough along in planning to have really believable numbers for mass and capabilities, its hard to say for sure.

      Add in that uncertainties in practical engineering for the launch vehicles certainly exist and its a very reasonable statement.

    3. Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, we're talking about reality. In reality, unlike in theory, it takes a lot more to get a rocket to Mars than engineering and sufficient power and fuel. It takes massive funding, political will, and the sustained support of both for several years. There's no engineering equation you can use to calculate if you'll make it to Mars -- the equation will only tell you whether you can do the easy part...

      Actually, SpaceX's first demo launch of the Falcon Heavy in 2013 doesn't have a customer and they're self-funding it, so if they want to they can send it to pretty much anywhere in the inner solar system that they want. Heck, Elon Musk could even get part of his team to assemble his old Mars Oasis greenhouse project and try to land it on Mars if he wanted. Since it's self-funded, it's purely an engineering problem (perhaps with some PR thrown in for good measure).

    4. Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? by killkillkill · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be fair, that error actually got NASA closer to Mars.

  2. But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Call me when we have something that can out lift the Saturn V. Yes I know they say this will cheaper but still I expected us to be much farther along than we are.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      $1000/lb not $1000/ton.

      But yes this is MUCH cheaper than the Saturn V, Shuttle, or anything else really.

  3. Re:Leave it Fox.. by usul294 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't see how it's Fox's fault, all TFA said was that Elon Musk said the craft could be used to complete the Mars mission. Summary was way off from reality, but the article seemed to be done without hyperbole or bias.

  4. His designs are in NASA archives at Marshall SFC by alispguru · · Score: 4, Informative

    Urban legends aside, NASA did not throw the plans for the Saturn V away.

    Falcon Heavy is cool, but it's still a factor of two away from the LEO capacity of a Saturn V.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  5. Details from press conference by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Fox article is a little sparse on info, so for the curious, there was some pretty good liveblogging (live-foruming?) of the press conference here. You can see official details (and a neat video) on SpaceX's site here.

    Looking through the forum and the website, here's a summary of all the most interesting stuff:

    • Falcon 9 (F9) able to lift much more than estimated with engine upgrades, Falcon Heavy (FH) estimates upgraded
    • FH: 3 nine-engine cores attached to each other
      paying development costs internally, strong commercial + gov customer interest
    • FH will arrive at Vandenberg pad in 2012, launch in early 2013
    • testing upgraded engines now at McGregor facility
    • estimating 117K lbs (53mt) to orbit for FH, possibly >120K lbs
    • double payload of Shuttle and Delta IV Heavy
    • launching from Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral
    • once in full operation expecting ~10 F9 flights a year, ~10 FH flights a year
    • increasing rate of engine production to 400 each year (currently 50/year)
    • FH price sets new world record at $1000/lb
    • first rocket in history to feature propellant crossfeed, allowing for earlier separation of emptied side boosters (== much more efficiency)
    • multi-engine-out capability for more reliability
    • meets published NASA human rating standards, not sure yet about "unpublished" standards
    • lower cost than current EELVs could save DOD alone $1.7B-$2.2B each year
    • could do Mars sample return mission in a single flight
    • payload to Mars 1/4 LEO payload, so 30K lbs to Mars
    • could go to Moon or NEO with only 2 launches
    • could do lunar flyby with a single launch of Dragon capsule
    • in response to Q&A, mentioned follow-up design capable of >150mt (Saturn V was 119mt)

    As an aside, it'll be quite fascinating to see what impact this has on the heavy-lift debate currently going on in Congress. For those unfamiliar with it, Congress is currently trying to pressure NASA to spend several billion dollars of its funding over several years into building a 70mt rocket from shuttle-legacy components/infrastructure. It's now looking like SpaceX will build a rocket with nearly the same capability using its own funding, which will be ready to launch several years before the Congress-mandated rocket. Hmm.

    1. Re:Details from press conference by harperska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by companies that contribute to politicians on the committee to decide the standards.

      Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by ATK.

      Congress doesn't really care about 'shuttle derived technologies' and costs are a straw man. But ATK in particular, who makes the shuttle SRBs, holds some pretty strong sway over certain congress-critters. That's why the Ares 1 first stage was just a scaled up shuttle SRB even though SRBs are a pretty dumb idea for a human-carrying rocket and completely idiotic as the sole first stage, as they can't be effectively throttled or shut off after being lit.

  6. Re:Leave it Fox.. by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Informative

    He stated that the rocket will be ready i.e. ready to launch by the end of 2012.

    But the actual launch would probably be in 2013 depending on final regulatory hurdles plus any final technical issues encountered with the pad integration.

  7. Re:Vaguely remember... by IICV · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...but NASA also needed $12 billion and a decade to make a pen that worked in 0 gravity... and the Russians just used a pencil, classic.

    There's pretty much nothing true in that statement besides the claim that "the Russians just used pencils" - NASA did too, until after Fisher developed the space pen (without government funding) and asked NASA to try it. In fact, after NASA adopted the space pen, so did the Russians.

    And there's problems with using pencils in space - wood pencils are flammable, and the graphite in mechanical pencils can snap off more easily and damage vulnerable equipment (it's conducive, after all) or the astronauts themselves, if they accidentally inhale it.

  8. Re:His designs are in NASA archives at Marshall SF by Burdell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep. My father worked on every Saturn (guidance and control, especially the LVDC on the IU) except SA-1 (and then Shuttle, X-33, and now Ares). He retired from civil service a few years ago and now works part-time for a contractor, but if Congress/Obama can't get a budget passed and Dad goes home for a while due to a shutdown, he might not go back. There aren't many others left around from that era.

    Even if you had the knowledge and the people, you wouldn't build another Saturn V anyway. You couldn't rebuild the same computers, so you'd update the computers and programs, at which point you might as well upgrade the engines, which leads to changes in the structure (since you have to build new dies and jigs anyway), etc. The test a few weeks ago at Marshall showed that the consensus for structural strength (that even SpaceX and such have used) was off by about a factor of 2 (the rocket structure was about twice as strong, and thus as heavy, as it needed to be).

    Even the second run of Saturn V vehicles (if they had been built) would have been different, with upgraded engines (the J-2X was developed during the Apollo program, and then pulled out for Ares I), similar to the changes the Space Shuttle underwent during its 30 year run.