| General > General Technical Chat |
| Starship 12.5km launch |
| << < (7/13) > >> |
| cgroen:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 10:31:22 am ---. . . However, you can't hear me... Everyone can plant steps, but for some obviously good reason, they don't. It is possible that the reason is actually not so weighty and will continue to develop in this direction. My opinion: the Shuttle was a much-much bigger breakthrough. It would be more reasonable to make a new rocket based on its principle. This is my opinion, I'm not a rocket science professional. --- End quote --- No shit Sherlock, I almost got the impression that you actually were a "rocket science professional", thanks for clearing that up :palm: PS: You got a LOT of reading and studying to do....... |
| wraper:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 10:31:22 am ---You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling. --- End quote --- You'll be surprised, but launch on Falcon 9 even in fully expendable variant is cheaper than on Proton, nor it is small. And that's even after launch price on Proton was reduced multiple times by more than 30% in total already, and another 30% drop is expected, to be at least somewhat competitive. Since Falcon 9 appeared, commercial launches on Proton essentially ceased to exist. Not to say that Falcon 9 can launch larger and heavier payloads than Proton and is way more reliable. Also due to poor reliability, insurance cost for Proton launches is very high. |
| wraper:
Falcon 9: Payload to LEO Expendable: 22,800 kg (50,300 lb) Reusable: 15,600 kg (34,400 lb) Payload to GTO Expendable: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb) Reusable: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb) Proton-M Payload to LEO 23,000 kg (51,000 lb) Payload to GTO 6,300 kg (13,900 lb) Falcon 9 payload volume is about 2 times larger. There is Falcon heavy which is also reusable, so there is basically no need to launch F9 in expendable variant unless customer requires so. Falcon Heavy: Payload to LEO 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) Payload to GTO 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) |
| S. Petrukhin:
--- Quote from: wraper on December 12, 2020, 12:55:53 pm ---Falcon 9: Payload to LEO Expendable: 22,800 kg (50,300 lb) Reusable: 15,600 kg (34,400 lb) Payload to GTO Expendable: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb) Reusable: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb) Proton-M Payload to LEO 23,000 kg (51,000 lb) Payload to GTO 6,300 kg (13,900 lb) Falcon 9 payload volume is about 2 times larger. There is Falcon heavy which is also reusable, so there is basically no need to launch F9 in expendable variant unless customer requires so. Falcon Heavy: Payload to LEO 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) Payload to GTO 26,700 kg (58,900 lb) --- End quote --- I don't really understand why 22800 is 2 times more than 23000... :) I do not know what LEO is, GTO is the height of the orbit, probably? Proton is a very old rocket that has existed since the very beginning of space exploration. I do not know the exact reliability statistics and will not argue. I'm not even interested in it. I am interested in cosmonautics out of curiosity. But the launch of the Angara carrier is scheduled for december 14. It seems that this rocket is much more powerful than the Proton. I don't know if the Energia is still alive. I think Falson can retire old man Proton. The modern leadership of Russian space seems to be successfully destroying everything... |
| S. Petrukhin:
If the Falcon is better than the Proton, why NASA still buying the Proton launch? Why still buy RD-180 from the middle of the last century? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |