8 ms·
64 tons is if Falcon Heavy is fully expended (nothing recovered) configuration. Even with smaller payload, the center core is generally a lost cause. Falcony He
by exomonk 10mo ago
64 tons is if Falcon Heavy is fully expended (nothing recovered) configuration. Even with smaller payload, the center core is generally a lost cause. Falcony Heavy is extremely difficult to launch as I learned when I worked at SpaceX. It turned out that slapping a bunch of Falcons together was not structurally reasonable design choice.
- Cucco 10mo agoAlso falcon heavy use the same fairing as falcon 9 which limits payload size for heavy
- panick21_ 10mo agoAs part of DoD contract an extend size fairing for Falcon 9 has been developed. So yes there is a larger fairing, that Falcon Heavy can use.
- mrtnmcc 10mo agoAnd don't forget New Glenn uses Methane which solves the coking problem for reusability. Coke buildup plagues Falcon more than people realize.
- cubefox 10mo agoI think some Falcon 9 lower stages have already been reused 30 times, which suggests coking is not a major problem.
- mrtnmcc 10mo agoThe individual Falcon turn-around is slow (months of refurb), and the record half-month ones swapped some engines. B1067's 30-reuse is a ship of Theseus rebuilt over 4+ years.
- egberts1 10mo agoFeh, swapping engine is not an option for the first few initial Mars trips, unless its payload also contains engines (can't imagine the scissor-lift payload either that needs to go with).
- golden-dome 10mo agoDon't take the Mars story at face value, SpaceX has always been for the military industrial complex. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ga3fjq/comment/ltau83t/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ga3fjq/comment/...
- wat10000 10mo agoThat post really does not make that case. Of course SpaceX will enthusiastically cooperate with a deep-pocketed customer, but that's all it shows.
- gremlin101 10mo ago[dead]
- loafofbuns 10mo agoDid you miss the 2001 part?
- wat10000 10mo agoNo, I just understand that traveling with the former head of SDI does not mean the company’s stated mission is a cover story.
- loafofbuns 10mo agoThe head of SDI formed the Mars Society with Zubrin. He was originally going to run SpaceX as Chief Engineer (cite: Liftoff) but he instead got appointed NASA admin and directed the first few $billion to a zero-experience SpaceX. This same SDI head then formed something called SDA in 2017 under Trump which is the platform for Golden Dome, or "the SDI 2.0". This is a multi-trillion dollar program which only Musk has been awarded contracts (as of Nov 2025) and involves the total weaponization of space. That should concern everyone.
- computerdork 10mo agoSuper interesting. Didn't know this. One question for you since your worked at SpaceX. Starship v4 is supposed to be able to bring 200 metric tons to LEO vs 35 metric tons for v2. Do you have any guesses on the finally amount that New Glenn will be able to bring up when it reaches its version/block 4?
- newZWhoDis 10mo ago>200 tons to LEO *In fully reusable first AND second stage configuration. An expendable starship would double the tonnage.
- computerdork 10mo agoThanks:)
- philipwhiuk 10mo agoThe numbers for payload beyond v3 are aspirational at best.
- computerdork 10mo agoInteresting, and sounds like Elon:)
- ChuckMcM 10mo agoI'll defer to your experience on this, however Falcon Heavy is the comparable platform so what you're saying is that New Glenn might be able to out compete Falcon Heavy given it was designed from the start for this space? (Not trying to put words in your mouth, just keeping my launch services portfolio up to date :-)).
- antonvs 10mo ago> It turned out that slapping a bunch of Falcons together was not structurally reasonable design choice. The design process at SpaceX sounds hilarious.
- potato3732842 10mo agoIDK why you're getting downvoted. There's something very endearing about using the Kerbal Space Program workflow in real life and making it work. Physics: exists Engineer: "hehehehe, lets add struts" <object actually goes to space as designed>
- bell-cot 10mo ago> slapping a bunch of Falcons together was not structurally reasonable design choice. True. But given the far-lower demand for the Heavy's payload capabilities (vs. Falcon 9), and the costs of the alternatives launch providers for such payloads - slapping a bunch of Falcons together looks like an excellent corporate engineering strategy choice.