Quote from: docmordrid on 01/30/2018 06:32 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 06:15 pm> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 06:15 pm> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 07:31 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 01/30/2018 06:32 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 06:15 pm> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?It clearly says the price for 5.5 and 8.0 mT to GTO. Throwing the rocket away will cost you more. Not a single human on the planet with the intention and resources to order a mission would be confused by this.
Quote from: Jim on 01/30/2018 06:56 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/26/2018 06:23 amFurther to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.no, there are other choices than those two.But at the cost of duration getting there, which can have a knock on costs if it means things like gravitational assist(s) around Venus which in turn mean additions to Clipper.
Quote from: Star One on 01/26/2018 06:23 amFurther to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.no, there are other choices than those two.
Further to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.
I don't know how this became an issue of price. I was complaining that the rocket shown has legs which implies recovery, but the Performance (payload) of 63,900kg to LEO (as example) is for the expendable version. They do not explain that on the primary Falcon Heavy page but if you click on prices, there is where the explanation is. Not obvious that you should follow the prices link to find that the payload is for expendable launch.
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 01/31/2018 02:38 amThe 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
Interestingly, based on the idea that you can get roughly 22% more payload to TLI than TMI
Incredible payload number, that's the fully expendable number I believe.I'd love to see what that payload would actually look like, if it would fit inside the fairing and what they would have to do to the second stage to handle that load.
There's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?
Quote from: Paul451 on 02/01/2018 09:33 pmThere's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?If everything goes according to the plan, we may have seen them already quite many times without understanding it
Quote from: hkultala on 02/01/2018 09:43 pmQuote from: Paul451 on 02/01/2018 09:33 pmThere's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?If everything goes according to the plan, we may have seen them already quite many times without understanding it I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?
Quote from: Lar on 02/01/2018 09:46 pmI thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?Is that known or an assumption that has spread? If its similar to a F9 Block 3, then why not use it a second time? They've spent a ton on the FH, I can see wanting to milk a second flight out of the existing hardware.
I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 02/01/2018 09:49 pmQuote from: Lar on 02/01/2018 09:46 pmI thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?Is that known or an assumption that has spread? If its similar to a F9 Block 3, then why not use it a second time? They've spent a ton on the FH, I can see wanting to milk a second flight out of the existing hardware.Consensus speculation, was my take, not actually known.