top | item 10219766

Capabilities and Services

159 points| miket | 10 years ago |spacex.com

92 comments

order
[+] anemic|10 years ago|reply
As a pricing page its missing the Most Popular! -badge.
[+] mholt|10 years ago|reply
^ You know, we laugh about this but in the next decade we may very well be able to deploy payloads into space just by clicking a few buttons like any other online shopping. They may even pick up the shipment right from our facilities with their drones.
[+] scottcanoni|10 years ago|reply
Where is the "BUY NOW" button?
[+] ceejayoz|10 years ago|reply
I'm just hoping for the "free forever!" tier.
[+] lalwanivikas|10 years ago|reply
No way to enter discount coupon code? This is outrageous!
[+] something123|10 years ago|reply
Where is my shopping cart anyways?

Either way - I'd wait it out. They'll drop the price for black friday

[+] vermontdevil|10 years ago|reply
They should offer quick buy it now sales through mobile via Stripe Relay.
[+] utuxia|10 years ago|reply
what? no free tier? nobody will ever use this.
[+] robodale|10 years ago|reply
What, no 30-day money back guarantee?!
[+] wener|10 years ago|reply
Any free trial ?
[+] devit|10 years ago|reply
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?

[+] adwn|10 years ago|reply
Arianespace does that with their Ariane V, but it comes with organizational headaches, because you need two payloads of appropriate mass, that are ready at the same time, and that go into the same orbital plane. If one payload is delayed (happens often enough), you can't shuffle the other one around on short notice.
[+] baq|10 years ago|reply
>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).

[+] LoSboccacc|10 years ago|reply
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)

[+] ukoki|10 years ago|reply
Sounds like http://elysiumspace.com/

I think they only send up a small sample of the ashes rather than the whole urn though. They charge $2k so there's probably some good margins if you can do the same with SpaceX.

[+] TomGullen|10 years ago|reply
I can't think of anything more wasteful!
[+] Arnt|10 years ago|reply
There are many small and light relics of Jesus, both Marys etc around. How about a kickstarter campaign to send one into low earth orbit to watch over us all?
[+] mholt|10 years ago|reply
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).

[+] phkahler|10 years ago|reply
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.

[+] Gravityloss|10 years ago|reply
4.85 milliteslas. Too bad the unit usage in the business is a bit wonky.
[+] baq|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] dougmwne|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] mrfusion|10 years ago|reply
Right, that's what I was asking, but someone thought I was confused about LEO vs GTO :-(
[+] larrydag|10 years ago|reply
I believe that is price vs capacity. Falcon Heavy is ultimately intended to take a vehicle to Mars.
[+] mrfusion|10 years ago|reply
It seems to list two different weights to GTO for the falcon heavy. Could there be a typo?
[+] adwn|10 years ago|reply
The different payload masses are most likely for different grades of reusability: all cores expendable, center core expendable + boosters reusable, fully reusable.

Hard to tell for sure, because SpaceX has, to the best of my knowledge, never provided details regarding which Falcon Heavy configuration delivers the 6.4 mT to GTO.*

* probably a 1800 m/s to GSO, 26° inclination orbit

[+] onion2k|10 years ago|reply
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.

[+] owenversteeg|10 years ago|reply
If you found this interesting, I would recommend taking a look at 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.

[+] sbarre|10 years ago|reply
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?

[+] jarek|10 years ago|reply
It is completely standard to seek to launch over the ocean. The spaceports in Florida and Guiana are where they are because of that and because it is easier to launch towards the east. Where launches aren't over the ocean they are usually over very sparsely populated territory (as is the case for Baikonur).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport#Placement_considerat...

[+] than|10 years ago|reply
No up-selling travel insurance? They're leaving money on the launchpad.
[+] knodi123|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] pluma|10 years ago|reply
Flying is the safest method of transport.

Unless you're flying into space.

[+] marktangotango|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
The center landings would have to be on the barges due to the extra range involved.
[+] hit8run|10 years ago|reply
I would pay money to not get shot into space :D
[+] baldfat|10 years ago|reply
You pay I'll ride. Live vicariously through me!
[+] dmd|10 years ago|reply
I will gladly take you up on that.
[+] benihana|10 years ago|reply
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

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

Basically, this is a powerful and freaking cheap rocket.

[+] rebootthesystem|10 years ago|reply
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.

[+] idlewords|10 years ago|reply
Surprised there's no freemium tier or bulk discount.