
Capabilities and Services - miket
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
======
anemic
As a pricing page its missing the Most Popular! -badge.

~~~
scottcanoni
Where is the "BUY NOW" button?

~~~
69_years_and
Do you mean something like this
[http://www.rocketlabusa.com/](http://www.rocketlabusa.com/)

------
devit
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?

~~~
baq
>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).

~~~
kogepathic
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?)

~~~
votingprawn
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.

~~~
piquadrat
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).

------
LoSboccacc
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)

~~~
TomGullen
I can't think of anything more wasteful!

~~~
stdbrouw
Considering that life has no meaning anyway, I can't think of anything less
wasteful either.

~~~
TomGullen
That's a pretty bleak and limiting view.

~~~
stdbrouw
I find it liberating.

~~~
saiya-jin
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 :))

------
mholt
Rockets as a Service. We live in a cool era.

And these prices may go down dramatically after the first stages prove
themselves reusable (depending on SpaceX's strategy).

~~~
utuxia
haha.

------
phkahler
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.

~~~
baq
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.

~~~
phkahler
>> 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?

~~~
cosmie
>> 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.

------
dougmwne
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.

~~~
larrydag
I believe that is price vs capacity. Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to
take a vehicle to Mars.

~~~
adwn
> _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.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
Specifically the Mars Colonial Transporter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter)

------
mrfusion
It seems to list two different weights to GTO for the falcon heavy. Could
there be a typo?

~~~
vladd
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/Geostationary_transfer_orbit)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit)

~~~
mrfusion
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"

------
onion2k
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.

~~~
solaris00
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.

~~~
PhaseMage
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.

------
owenversteeg
If you found this interesting, I would recommend taking a look at
[https://www.astrobotic.com/configure-
mission](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.

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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.

~~~
owenversteeg
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.

------
vinceyuan
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition)

------
sbarre
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?

~~~
dr_zoidberg
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).

~~~
jccooper
And China:
[https://twitter.com/SinoDefence/status/637174369677123584](https://twitter.com/SinoDefence/status/637174369677123584)

------
than
No up-selling travel insurance? They're leaving money on the launchpad.

~~~
knodi123
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.

------
marktangotango
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.

~~~
Already__Taken
The center landings would have to be on the barges due to the extra range
involved.

~~~
ceejayoz
Depends on the payload. SpaceX's FH videos show all three cores landing on
land.

------
hit8run
I would pay money to not get shot into space :D

~~~
baldfat
You pay I'll ride. Live vicariously through me!

------
allsystemsgo
I'll wait for black Friday.

------
benihana
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](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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V)

Basically, this is a powerful and freaking cheap rocket.

~~~
rebootthesystem
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.

~~~
rplnt
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/](https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/)

~~~
baq
it'll teach you that 'more boosters' is really 'exponentially more boosters'
which gets unfeasible fast.

~~~
m_samuel_l
everything is feasible in ksp with enough struts.

------
idlewords
Surprised there's no freemium tier or bulk discount.

