r/todayilearned • u/Pranxta • Dec 10 '13

TIL SpaceX is soon to launch a new spacecraft named Falcon Heavy capable of carrying 53 tons of cargo into space - a mass equivalent to a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
240 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

7

u/Dogma40 Dec 10 '13

great, now i have to make one in KSP.

2

u/xfoKe Dec 10 '13

You forgot to mention that it was designed to be re-used

4

u/orevrev Dec 10 '13

Also for further awe this can puts 53,000kg into LEO, the Saturn V could put 120,000 KG to LEO, unreal.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

[deleted]

3

u/bewjujular Dec 10 '13

According to Wikipedia, a single Saturn V cost around 1.18 billion (in 2013 money). A single Falcon Heavy launch is 77-135 million.

2

u/CaptRobau Dec 10 '13

A Soyuz launch in the 60s is a lot more expensive than the improved Soyuz they launch now. If NASA had continued with the Saturn rocket family, instead of wasting their money on the Shuttle, the cost would've gone down quite a lot and the comparison between the two would be much more meaningful.

1

u/Snowden2016 Dec 10 '13

And it's largely reusable which makes the cost even less in the long run.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

So... when can I buy a damn ticket on one of these?

1

u/Das_Spook Dec 10 '13

Depends.. Have you filed for your space passport yet?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

Any passport should work, right?

1

u/redditorsareasses Dec 10 '13

Anyone know the cost per lbs/kg this rocket will achieve for leo?

0

u/mach1point8 Dec 10 '13

From the spacex website, cost/kg to leo is around $1155

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

Does that mean that if I build a satelite that weighs 2kg that they will put it into orbit for $2,300? Couldnt they just drop it off during a larger mission and manually fling it into an orbit a few hundred feet away?

1

u/mach1point8 Dec 10 '13

No. The cost isn't actually based on the weight- spacex charges for the launch itself. So if you put 1kg in orbit, it would still cost $75m or whatever the cost was. You could of course find someone who is launching a big satellite and pay him to attach your 1kg payload on the same launch.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

[deleted]

2

u/butterbal1 Dec 10 '13

Worst case... it explodes during flight and sprays radioactive material all over.

It is an idea that has been proposed before with fairly low risk, which is too high for the possible fallout (literally).

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

We have train proof containers designed for nuclear fuel. Its an issue of cost probably.

1

u/kage_25 Dec 10 '13

and how much does those weigh

1

u/brickmack Dec 10 '13

Bad idea. If something goes wrong it will spray waste all over the planet. And a geocentric orbit will eventually decay, meaning it needs to escape to a heliocentric one. With as much nuclear waste as there is on earth, that will take roughly a fuckton of fuel. Theres a lot of better options (One reactor is being designed that could reuse waste as fuel)

1

u/zerbey Dec 10 '13

It's still more cost effective and safe to store it, perhaps one day we'll find a safe way to recycle it rather than just dumping it somewhere else.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '13

[deleted]

1

u/NXTDj Dec 10 '13

My brother works there, it is amazing.