SpaceX Announces Falcon Heavy: The Most Powerful Rocket Since Saturn V!

SpaceX Announces Launch Date for the World's Most Powerful Rocket

Today, Elon Musk, CEO and chief rocket designer of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) unveiled the dramatic final specifications and launch date for the Falcon Heavy, the world's largest rocket. "Falcon Heavy will carry more payload to orbit or escape velocity than any vehicle in history, apart from the Saturn V moon rocket, which was decommissioned after the Apollo program. This opens a new world of capability for both government and commercial space missions," Musk told a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Musk added that with the ability to carry satellites or interplanetary spacecraft weighing over 53 metric tons or 117,000 pounds to orbit, Falcon Heavy will have more than twice the performance of the Space Shuttle or Delta IV Heavy, the next most powerful vehicle, which is operated by United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture.

A few more interesting facts about the rocket:

Above all, Falcon Heavy has been designed for extreme reliability. Unique safety features of the Falcon 9 are preserved, such as the ability to complete its mission even if multiple engines fail.

Anticipating potential astronaut transport needs, Falcon Heavy is also designed to meet NASA human rating standards, unlike other satellite launch vehicles.

Falcon Heavy will be the first rocket in history to do propellant cross-feed from the side boosters to the center core, thus leaving the center core with most of its propellant after the side boosters separate.

Falcon Heavy, with more than twice the payload, but less than one third the cost of a Delta IV Heavy, will provide much needed relief to government and commercial budgets. In fact, Falcon Heavy at approximately $1,000 per pound to orbit, sets a new world record in affordable spaceflight.

SpaceX is an American private rocket company famous for the flight of their new Dragon capsule on top of their Falcon 9 rocket last year, all for less than a billion, while NASA struggled to develop similar Ares I rocket for 8 billion. The company won NASA contract to resupply the ISS, starting this year.
With Falcon Heavy cost per kilogram to LEO of about 2000 dollars (one fifth of the Shuttle cost, and half the russian Proton cost), it is the most economical launch vehicle on the market, and could potentially revolutionize manned space flight. According to SpaceX, costs lower than 1000 dollars per kilogram are achievable in the future.

reply to post by Maslo


Thank God somebody is finally doing something.

Hopefully a shipyard on the moon won't be too far away now that private investment can see the light.

Cosmic...

reply to post by Maslo


It's good to hear we won't be giving up most of our launch capabilties with the Space Shuttles being
decommisioned after these next two launches. We probably should have went private a long time ago.
Imagine what we'd have now if space was privatized decades ago ?

This is what I have been hoping for,private industry in space.All things considered,having space exploration(exploitation?)in the hands of our government has crippled the whole damn thing.We all know if there are profits to be made,this will TAKE-OFF(pun intended).Seriously this should make civilian space flight even closer.Bert Rutan is the real hero for now,but if they can make space travel profitable,well all bets are off,and all those great science fiction stories I have enjoyed since childhood will become reality.Lets just hope a joint space venture between TEPCO and BP never happens....is it possible to make the whole solar system uninhabitable...by man I mean......peace Ya'll.

reply to post by Noromyxo


Yeah, shuttle was a magnificient machine, but economical it was not. Private companies such as SpaceX, but also ULA, Bigelow aerospace or Spacedev are the future, IMHO. And the future of manned spaceflight now seems to be bright..

Cool Stuff!

$1 000 per pound?

Guess I'll be able to launch myself into space for about $150 000

Originally posted by gary714
This is what I have been hoping for,private industry in space.All things considered,having space exploration(exploitation?)in the hands of our government has crippled the whole damn thing.We all know if there are profits to be made,this will TAKE-OFF(pun intended).Seriously this should make civilian space flight even closer.Bert Rutan is the real hero for now,but if they can make space travel profitable,well all bets are off,and all those great science fiction stories I have enjoyed since childhood will become reality.Lets just hope a joint space venture between TEPCO and BP never happens....is it possible to make the whole solar system uninhabitable...by man I mean......peace Ya'll.

Our Solar system offers a plentiful supply of Rare Earth metals for a start, if we want that i-pad 7 in the future then we have to go where the ore is.

The laws of economics seem to be finally swinging our way.

Cosmic...

World's most powerful rocket is a misleading title. I know it's the article's title but what they have is a more efficient payload vehicle, not nearly the most powerful. If you count the Space Shuttle as payload, it's empty weight is 172,000 pounds, it's launch system has nearly twice the power at launch, 6,780,000 lbf. to the SpaceX's 3,800,000 lbf. Just saying.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life

Originally posted by gary714
This is what I have been hoping for,private industry in space.All things considered,having space exploration(exploitation?)in the hands of our government has crippled the whole damn thing.We all know if there are profits to be made,this will TAKE-OFF(pun intended).Seriously this should make civilian space flight even closer.Bert Rutan is the real hero for now,but if they can make space travel profitable,well all bets are off,and all those great science fiction stories I have enjoyed since childhood will become reality.Lets just hope a joint space venture between TEPCO and BP never happens....is it possible to make the whole solar system uninhabitable...by man I mean......peace Ya'll.

Our Solar system offers a plentiful supply of Rare Earth metals for a start, if we want that i-pad 7 in the future then we have to go where the ore is.

The laws of economics seem to be finally swinging our way.

Cosmic...

if things keep up it might be the only hope for our racial survival....

I hear this thing can do Warp 5 !

Seriously though - Very nice. My problem with it is it's still conventional chemical rocket technology. That won't get us anywhere we really need to go - and I have to get off this planet ASAP!

I wanna see a private commercial or other non government company make something promising that's based on other technology other than this old hack stuff. Perhaps ION Engines or something.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I wanna see a private commercial or other non government company make something promising that's based on other technology other than this old hack stuff. Perhaps ION Engines or something.

As you wish:

Ad Astra

VASIMR rocket

VASIMR magnetoplasma rocket is supposed to be tested on the ISS in a few years.

Video of VASIMR test firing:



Universe Today article about the VASIMR:
Trips to Mars in 39 Days

I am still amazed no one has named a giant phallus shaped rocket after former pres Clinton.

All jokes aside, this is good news, the stuff I like to see.

Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.

www.parabolicarc.com...

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Yes and don't forget they are building a spaceport in New Mexico,sounds like great thing in store for spaceflight...can I book a seat to another galaxy please..one way smoking preferred.

reply to post by RSF77


Yes, that would be even enough to carry Bigelow Aerospace BA-2100 space station module. But even Falcon Heavy would be able to carry two BA-330 (or one equivalent custom designed BA module). Thats 660 m3 of habitable volume in one 100 million cost launch (current ISS has 900 m3, but it took many far more expensive launches and more than a decade) And SpaceX claims they would be able to launch 11 Falcon Heavy rockets a year. Real space stations, here we come!

reply to post by Maslo


Yea its pretty ingenious actually, they made a balloon that expands and hardens upon contact with a heavy dose of UV light? I read about something like this used on satellites to conceal them from being visible to earth, by inflating a balloon of radar deflecting material in front of it.

reply to post by gary714


Yea, I have seen the artist rendition of it. I imagine it would be quite a feeling standing there in the first commercial spaceport, 100 years ago we were just learning to fly.

reply to post by RSF77


No doubt,I wish I could be a bigger part of it,I've been working on it it's where I was injured and quite honestly if it becomes a going concern I will be proud to have been a part of it.Would have been cool to see orville and wilbur,talk about watching human progress...

It says it's planned for launch in two years, and with 27 rocket engines I'm not sure they're going to meet their projected cost. If that illustration is accurate.

Originally posted by Illustronic
It says it's planned for launch in two years, and with 27 rocket engines I'm not sure they're going to meet their projected cost. If that illustration is accurate.

Economies of scale. They are planning a production line for up to 400 Merlin engines a year.

27 engines also ensures that the rocket will complete its launch even if multiple engines fail, and small engines are easier to manipulate.

reply to post by Maslo


It would seem to me that with 27 rocket engines, there's a greater probability that just one could develop a leak and blow the whole platform up. That mindset of variables might be OK with fighter or bomber jet mentality of surviving to land with one of two of three or more engines failing, but 27? I think NASA had a good thing going with reusable solid fuel boosters over a whole bunch of individual plumbing for that many rockets. I'm just thinking of the variables they're setting, wouldn't necessarily be my plan to take to the board. I know the Russians favor more over greater, and have success but this looks excessive, and what proof do they have of such a lifting platform to date this scaled up?

reply to post by Illustronic

It would seem to me that with 27 rocket engines, there's a greater probability that just one could develop a leak and blow the whole platform up.

Thats why the engines are isolated from each other and from the rocket. Even if one explodes (unlikely), nothing bad should happen.

and what proof do they have of such a lifting platform to date this scaled up?

Falcon 9 has two succesful flights already. This is basicaly three falcons 9 strapped together.

As for reusability, Elon Musk (CEO of SpaceX) has stated that reusability indeed is his ultimate goal.

Also, keep in mind that common engine for Falcon 9 and for Falcon Heavy will keep the costs down, while still preserving engine-out capability for Falcon 9, too.