The payload capabilities of SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets have increased, and Falcon 9 will apparently be able to carry payloads to Mars:
A day after releasing the new video, SpaceX also announced upgraded capabilities for its rockets.
The Falcon 9 rocket, used on resupply missions to the space station, can now haul up to 22.8 tonnes into low-Earth orbit, up from 13.2. It will also be able to carry up to 8,300 kilograms into geosynchromous transfer orbit – a more distant orbit used for many communications satellites – and 4,020 kilograms to Mars.
And the new, bigger Falcon Heavy, set to debut later this year, will be able to launch 54.4 tonnes into low Earth orbit, 22.2 tonnes to geosynchronous transfer orbit, and 13.6 tonnes to Mars.
Also at The Register . SpaceX will deliver to Mars for under $100 million. SpaceX was recently awarded its first certified launch contract with the U.S. Air Force.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:51AM
Decided to take on Blue Origins parent company did they?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by novak on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:56AM
novak
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2016, @09:40PM
No. Blue Origin is a new aerospace manufacturer founded by Jeff Bezos, i.e. the guy who founded and runs Amazon. So you were replying to a joke based on the wording of the title and what Amazon does.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:48PM
Yeah but there's no SpaceX Prime so you have to pay extra for the two day delivery to Mars :(
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:11AM
And the new, bigger Falcon Heavy, set to debut later this year, will be able to launch 54.4 tonnes into low Earth orbit, 22.2 tonnes to geosynchronous transfer orbit, and 13.6 tonnes to Mars.
Will they offer one day shipping?
Seriously tho its exiting to see commercial outfits advancing in space, maybe one day we'll send people away from this rock permanently.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by novak on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:42AM
Will they offer one day shipping?
Well surely they'd give the mass on a Hohmann transfer. You could do it faster but only if you gave up mass. It is pretty cool to see some of the spaceflight technology that hasn't been developed since the 70s getting seriously developed. Maybe someday we'll be even getting the future we were promised decades ago with space stations and moon bases.
novak
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:26AM
i would like to volunteer the members of congress to be sent away from this rock permanently. no destination or life support systems required. ;)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:34AM
So they aren't loading more fuel, just throwing the pedal to the metal harder and they get that much additional performance. Kinda explains why they used to push the shuttle just a few percent over 100% rated power and make a big fuss. Also interesting they can't do that on the reusable ones, just in a fire and forget configuration. So that also gives a hint just how much less expensive launches are going to get once they put paying customers on used rockets.
And best I can find, nothing in the Falcons is radically new tech, just slightly evolved tech from the 60's. If this really gets a space price war going, imagine what is waiting in the future! Maybe we old farts finally get to see the glorious future we expected to see early enough we could have went ourselves to the moonbase, solar power stations, etc......
(Score: 2, Informative) by dabiged on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:27AM
My understanding was that the "few percent over 100% rated power" on the SSME's (Space Shuttle Main Engine) came from the fact that the initial tender for the engines called for a power rating upon which the rest of the shuttle was built. Over the course of the shuttle program the SSMEs were capable of more thrust than that initially designed. Rather than changing the scale they just said that these later SSMEs could run at 100+% of rated power (i.e. 107.5% of the initial power called for in the design).
From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Specifying power levels over 100% may seem nonsensical, but there was a logic behind it. The 100% level does not mean the maximum physical power level attainable, rather it was a specification decided on during engine development—the expected rated power level. When later studies indicated the engine could operate safely at levels above 100%, these higher levels became standard. Maintaining the original relationship of power level to physical thrust helps reduce confusion, as it created an unvarying fixed relationship so that test data (or operational data from past or future missions) can be easily compared. If the power level was increased, and that new value was said to be 100%, then all previous data and documentation would either require changing, or cross-checking against what physical thrust corresponded to 100% power level on that date. Engine power level affects engine reliability, with studies indicating the probability of an engine failure increasing rapidly with power levels over 104.5%, which was why power levels above 104.5% were retained for contingency use only.
I think that SpaceX are "using more fuel". I believe that they cool the propellant to well below the boiling point of the gases which increases the density. This allows them to pack more bang into the same rocket, which gives incremental improvements in performance.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:58AM
And best I can find, nothing in the Falcons is radically new tech, just slightly evolved tech from the 60's.
In the same sense that a 2015 aircraft carrier is nothing new compared to a 1940 aircraft carrier, sure.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:50PM
I hope their ships have the same equipment as the Domino's cars [dominosdxp.com]. I like my pizza hot.
Washington DC delenda est.