Falcon Heavy Launch Vehicle to carry 53 Tons at $1,000 per pound

[jimmy olsen]

Excellent, now is the time for orbital weapons platforms. 

SpaceX video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzgkEwvkJkY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383157,00.asp

* April 6, 2011 10:17am EST
   

SpaceX Unveils Plans for Falcon Heavy, World's Largest Rocket

Commercial spaceflight company Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) this week unveiled plans for the Falcon Heavy, which SpaceX said will be the world's largest rocket.

The Falcon Heavy will be capable of carrying over 117,000 pounds to orbit, the equivalent of an entire commercial airplane full of passengers, crew, luggage, and fuel.
According to SpaceX, its new rocket will have twice the performance of the Delta IV Heavy, which launched from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base in January.

SpaceX said the Falcon Heavy will arrive at its Vandenberg launch complex by the end of 2012, with a planned launch from Cape Canaveral in late 2013 or 2014. At this point, the company is testing its upgraded Merlin engines at the SpaceX rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.
Falcon Heavy

Falcon Heavy will actually include three nine-engine cores, which will allow it to continue its mission even if multiple engines fail. Each engine is surrounded by a protective shell that will shield it in the event of a fire, chamber rupture, or other disaster.

Falcon Heavy will generate 3.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, which is similar to the thrust of 15 Boeing 747s taking off at the same time, SpaceX said.

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon test capsule launched successfully from Florida's Kennedy Space Center in December. It was the first successful launch for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and another step for the future of commercial space flight. NASA's COTS program will provide cargo flights to the International Space Station after the Space Shuttle fleet is retired in 2011. At that point, SpaceX said it will make at least 12 flights to carry cargo to and from the ISS.

In 2008, NASA awarded SpaceX a launch services contract that allowed it to compete for missions using the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch vehicles. SpaceX also has more than $2.5 billion in contracts to deliver satellites to orbit in the next few years, Space.com reports. In November, it obtained a license from the FAA to re-enter a spacecraft from orbit.

Falcon Heavy will cost between $80 million and $125 million per launch, though SpaceX argued this is a bargain since it "includes all non-recurring development costs and on-orbit delivery of an agreed upon mission." It carries twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy at one-third of the cost, or about $1,000 per pound, SpaceX said.

The 2012 budget for four Air Force launches is $1.74 billion, or about $435 million per launch.

An animation of the Falcon Heavy launch is available on the SpaceX YouTube channel.

[Ed Anger]

Waste of money.

[Zeus]

I just enjoy that it has a test capsule of the "Dragon" variety.

[jimmy olsen]

Waste of money.

They already have $2.5 billion in contracts for launching commercial satellite, seems like they're doing okay on the money front to me.

[Ed Anger]

Feed the homeless. Starve the nerds.

[Tonitrus]

I am sure ICBMs are still far less expensive, and sufficiently effective.

[jimmy olsen]

I am sure ICBMs are still far less expensive, and sufficiently effective.

Rods from God leave no fall out.

[Tonitrus]

I am sure ICBMs are still far less expensive, and sufficiently effective.

Rods from God leave no fall out.

If an international conflict got to the scale that we need to obliterate them with orbital weapons, that would likely be another nuclear power, and at that point, a little fallout will make little difference since they would us nukes on us (where the fallout really matters) anyway. 

There really isn't any reason to nuke a non-nuclear state.  Nor would there be any reason to drop God Rods on one (that would justify the expense).

[jimmy olsen]

I am sure ICBMs are still far less expensive, and sufficiently effective.

Rods from God leave no fall out.

If an international conflict got to the scale that we need to obliterate them with orbital weapons, that would likely be another nuclear power, and at that point, a little fallout will make little difference since they would us nukes on us (where the fallout really matters) anyway. 

There really isn't any reason to nuke a non-nuclear state.  Nor would there be any reason to drop God Rods on one (that would justify the expense).

Could have used it on Tora Bora when Osama was there. Or we could use it one day on an Iranian nuke plant (they're in mountains aren't they?), although that might leave some fallout.

[Siege]

What about the orbital elevator?

[Slargos]

What about the orbital elevator?

Dropping it out of the sky seems impractical.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

learn to use metric measurements.

otherwise: good news. The West needs orbital SD platforms

[Monoriu]

I'll believe it when I see it. 

[Brazen]

Manned space travel is an unsustainable luxury in the current economy and the fuel expenditure is disgusting.

[grumbler]

If an international conflict got to the scale that we need to obliterate them with orbital weapons, that would likely be another nuclear power, and at that point, a little fallout will make little difference since they would us nukes on us (where the fallout really matters) anyway. 

There really isn't any reason to nuke a non-nuclear state.  Nor would there be any reason to drop God Rods on one (that would justify the expense).

You realize that this is pure, 100% argument by assertion, right?

The assertion that there is no target which would be worthy of a visit by an exoatmospheric kinetic weapon is unwarranted.  I can see any number of targets whose destruction by an unfortunate meteor strike would cost me no tears.