What SpaceX & Falcon 9 Can't Do Better Than Alternatives

SpaceX and Falcon 9 have made huge changes to the launch market, they've become the best vendor for many commercial payloads through a combination of price and performance. However, it's important to understand the limits of the hardware so I wanted to discuss where the Falcon 9 comes up short compared to their competition at the ULA.
(not hating on SpaceX or ULA, just trying to put the numbers out there and stop people saying dumb things)

[@VulpeculaJoy]

Everyone trying to mitigate these arguments kind of missed the point: The Falcon rocket family was designed for revolutionarily cheap LEO delivery with the Falcon Heavy further increasing Mass/Altitude capabilities but not much beyond escape velocity. A violin isn't less of a beautiful instrument because a cello can play lower notes. A chair isn't less useful because a bench can fit more people. A... you get the point. As long as something excels at what it was designed to excel, by definition it holds its excellence.

[@Longshot239]

Those are actually very good points. Plus, we still have the BFR to look forward to.

[@HavardStreAndresen]

Wise words, BaronZ:-)

[@newsgetsold]

I thought it was designed for getting Red Dragon to Mars?

[@Longshot239]

The Red Dragon no longer exists. SpaceX chose to focus on the BFR and scrapped the Red Dragon program. The BFR will be performing everything that Red Dragon was going to do.

[@newsgetsold]

@@Longshot239 Yes but wasn't Falcon Heavy designed to get Red Dragon to Mars? This comment by BaronZ is about what it was designed for.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Solution: tape a Delta IV upper stage to a FalconHeavy, and use a bunch of strutts

[@KingdaToro]

A Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9 could get really close to that.

[@lmaoroflcopter]

Get rid of the upper and lower stages. Make everything out of struts. Glitch your way to orbit.

[@RedPuma90]

You mean tape a Delta IV upper stage to a Falcon 9 upper stage and tape that to a Falcon Heavy?

[@nikkal5642]

+ add 2 more falcon 9 boosters to the heavy and 4 SRBs. Fly safe

[@confuded]

Don't forget to have Jeb fly it or it might end up exploding.

[@xeoxeon2615]

"100! Which is very big!" - Scott Manley, 2018

[@scottmanley]

Don't hold your breath for me discussing this on a future Numberphile episode.

[@VulpeculaJoy]

But... it's less than 9000! 😱😱😱

[@cmdraftbrn]

so is 42. and thats the answer to life, universe and everything.

[@24kGoldenRocket]

Well one hundred is pretty large when you consider the fact that it contains a finite number of integers and an infinite number of fractions between zero and one hundred. (Note that the number one contains an infinite number of fractions between zero and one ) What is infinity plus one? What is infinity plus 100? What is infinity plus the product of 100 and infinity? Is infinity large? The properties of both large and small must be made in comparison in order to have any meaning. See? It is just a matter of perspective and perception.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Nice

[@whereswa11y]

Who knew doing rocket science required so much rocket science

[@InfraredSpace]

Hello @WhereWa11y I Know about that :)

[@benadians1769]

Everyone

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Well rocket science isn't brain surgery. And brain surgery isn't rocket science.

[@kingjames4886]

what about rocket brain surgery?

[@ballom29]

dunno , i just build my rocket on KSP and hope they didn't blew up

[@sebione3576]

If Kerbal Space Program taught me anything it's that you don't need math to launch things into orbit. Just keep strapping rockets together and everything will work out fine.

[@jackvernian7779]

Engineering ccan be like that. if you want to throw the money away you can just eyeball it. If you want to save money you use maths.

[@advorak8529]

@Sebi One --- Try playing in career mode with minimal rewards (especially monetary). Or --- get yourself a KSP 1.0.4 and download the (unfortunately last) BTSM (which needs 1.0.4), and you will have some missions to bootstrap you if you go broke[0]. You can do one almost from the beginning[1], but if you get better technology, you can do so a bit cheaper. Since the difference between total payment and cost is small, a small saving can easily be 30% or 50% more income per launch ... [0] These missions only pop up if you are really low on money, and the advance is just a bit more than you need to build a rocket. They can be very basic, like " take pressure and temperature in high atmosphere". [1] you start with just one solid rocket (cannot be attached) and solid rocket boosters (can side-attach), toy size, no decoupler, no way to steer: no fins, no RCS and absolutely no gyros, ... and a very heavy Stayputnik which will die the millisecond power is out. Batteries ... come later, and they are potato-batteries. And solar panels or RTGs ... well, do your manned moon landing first!

[@idkhowtoright479]

Aaaah I just got to duna with 27 boosters

[@aeroscience9834]

Sebi One if only the real world worked that way

[@dave7038]

@@jackvernian7779 I've heard this phrased as "Anyone can build a bridge that stays up, it takes an engineer to build a bridge that just barely stays up."

[@mx2000]

Somehow I now imagine the NRO spy satellite with a huge "⬆️ This side up" sign on the side.

[@LilScrewmatic]

They should ask FedEx to deliver it to orbit

[@prusak26]

@@LilScrewmatic they would have left it behind the bins.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

@@LilScrewmatic They will damage or lost the payload before even reach the launch site😂

[@jannikheidemann3805]

They probably have some kind of fluid system, probably for cooling, on thier satelite that could fail if it was turned on it's side.

[@nkronert]

Great idea. That would also prevent the engineers from inadvertently mounting the thing upside down.

[@mikenorman4001]

One limitation that drives the requirement for vertical integration is fuel void management. Basically, you can nearly guarantee that your engine doesn't aspirate vapor in zero gee by placing a fine screen just above the inlet in the fuel tank. However, it needs to stay wet, as its mechanism of action is via surface tension. Also, sloshing can overpower the surface tension, admitting vapor into the fuel lines. If your satellite uses this system, and the screen is at the "bottom" of the tank when on Earth, you can't just go rumbling over the tarmac in the horizontal position to get to the pad, because you could get enough sloshing to defeat the screen. Boring, but true.

[@navinsingh1730]

Thanks for the information, it maybe very useful to me! :)

[@Skukkix23]

I think it's just great we have that diversity and that this field is growing more and more. SpaceX's push and publicity just helps the space development which is exactly what I want.

[@willierants5880]

Competition is the key to innovation and cost reductions.

[@Skukkix23]

are you joking? sorry I am really bad at detecting irony

[@teaser6089]

Yea mars pls

[@AndrewMellor-darkphoton]

spaceX acts like a cult

[@drkastenbrot]

Tesla does the same. It forces competitors to step away from their established means of getting profit. If it wasnt for tesla suddenly appearing, automakers would have stretched and delayed electric cars until the very last moment.

[@LightRealms]

I tried searching for the Atlas 404, but nothing came up...

[@kevinfidler6287]

Error 404, Atlas 404 not found.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@LightRealms >>> It is HIGHLY classified...😝

[@Skiesaremine]

That would be way to expensive

[@DehimVerveen]

Well the ACES upper stage in development for Vulcan has a configuration with 4 engines. So Atlas 404 would be an Atlas with a 4m fairing, No SRBs and a 4 engine ACES upper stage.

[@cooperallen282]

not a thing

[@finngerber8230]

See, i like that Scott is not just a blind idiot praising spacex. Realistic, and unbiased. I love spacex by the way dont get me wrong.

[@world-traveler880]

SpaceX is the Honda Accord of rockets

[@SuperSMT]

SpaceX is the Tesla Model 3 of rockets

[@ihavenoidea4727]

the fact that there are barely any dislikes on this video tells that not many space x fans are blind idiots, like many old farts assume.

[@drkastenbrot]

Yeah, getting too emotional about companies is terrible. I "love" tesla and spacex but irrationally hyping/hating on things doesnt help anyone. *especially in politics, cue youtube discussion*

[@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489]

That's not news to me, but i also share the sentiments you gave. It's so annoying trying to have an honest discussion about anything that "THA GOD MUSKET!1!" has done when people either love him so much they can't even, or hate him so much they turn into a brick wall. SpaceX is fantastic, just like all the others. it's not a god.

[@xXJeReMiAhXx99]

"it's not clear the raptor will ever turn into a working product" aug 2018. haha how times change ehh?

[@garyfarmaner6440]

Yeah, videos don't age well with SpaceX.

[@remliqa]

He should have said "it's not clear *when* the raptor will ever turn into a working product" because it would still be correct today.

[@gubx42]

The raptor engine didn't put anything into space yet. Still not a working product. It did fly though so we are probably not very far, but it needs a rocket now, and Starship is still in the exploding phase of development.

[@nahuelalcaide2027]

@@gubx42 that's the best phase of development am I right

[@spookus5430]

@@gubx42 welcome to the future!

[@belladonnaRoot]

Yup....that's the world of engineering, whether it be launch vehicles or washers. One size does not fit all. I can't tell you how many manufacturers I've had to not buy from for any number of seemingly inane reasons.

[@zackfreeman8025]

Yup.. devil is in the details... Management never understands without besting the dead horse.

[@cloverdove]

One size does not fit all What about Starship

[@matthewspencer2094]

You'd imagine 'expendable mode' would use boosters near their end of life and should be cost effective if its not overbooked. Assuming NASA would trust billion dollar satellites to mostly worn out boosters...

[@calvingreene90]

You mean a rocket with one launch left in it just like single launch rockets.

[@kindlin]

@@calvingreene90 But those single launch rockets are engineered out the ass, while SpaceX just throws extra shit at problems until it doesn't explode. (No hate for SpaceX, it's just a different design philosophy)

[@johnnussberger8505]

@@kindlin Nasa took on average 2 years to fix issues SpaceX figures it out in about 2 months

[@danielkorladis7869]

Obviously SpaceX should just use procedural fairings. Don't they have that mod?

[@sumreensultana1860]

They tried but Someone stole it

[@MrKiwi91123]

That was the most intense "i'am scott manley, fly safe" of all time there, no doubt about it.

[@thethirdman225]

His on on the Chernobyl reactor was pretty full on.

[@rocketsometimeslaunches8902]

Huh, wonder if that”Raptor “ engine concept will ever pan out

[@alexwang982]

Lol.

[@kenhoekstra7453]

Would love to see an update since a year has gone by. Have things changed with capabilities? Your insight is appreciated.

[@pkmniakozen8648]

At last a talk regarding the power of different fuels to send paylods even further. And a great use of the graphs to show it.

[@glenniebrother]

Hey, Niako, it's me, Oppy!

[@builderbast9727]

builderbast here, matches are still the best fuel ever!

[@cloverdove]

Good idea. Oh hi

[@tomiplaz]

Thank you for making all of these informative and enthusiastic videos. It's a great alternative to not having a friend who tell you all these details.

[@Snipermac99]

Great video. A lot of info and lots to think about. Quite an eye opener!

[@basedbartholomew3968]

“Power Slide Of The Launch-Pad Like a Pro”… Now That’s Rocket Sience!

[@daniellewis1789]

It's the Astra way!

[@davidanderson4091]

It might be a good time to revisit this issue.. a lot has happened in the space game in the last two and a half years

[@aidangannon435]

even more so in 4.75 years

[@Andy81ish]

I watched this when it first came out and thought it would be nice to go back and watch it again 2 years latter. It is interesting to think about what has changed and what has NOT changed. Still a good video.

[@moosemaimer]

The BFR concept video showed the fuel tanker being placed vertically onto the booster by a crane, so somebody must have at least thought about it at some point.

[@harbingerdawn]

That concept was driven by processing efficiency for reuse rather than a specific desire for vertical integration.

[@MrGreghome]

coming from Doom, I can only assume that the acronym means Big Fucking Rocket.

[@philb5593]

For SpaceX's goals with the BFR, I believe the booster will almost always remain on the pad unless it needs maintenance. So the ships in my mind will land and be transported vertically at the launch site

[@MsSomeonenew]

There is absolutely no doubt they are working out all their options. Right now this is just the one they have developed.

[@myrobotfish]

Even if it wasn't intended for vertical integration, it still hits two birds with one stone. That would be a huge win.

[@TheSteveSteele]

SpaceX has brought a lot of young Americans back to engineering. I have some students that decided to pursue aerospace engineering, which is great.

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

except there must be 10 unemployed aerospace engineers for every aerospace job.

[@wschmrdr]

Engineering's not a liberal arts field.

[@gallopinggoose6891]

Ksp beat spacex in inspiring me.

[@hydrochloricacid2146]

I have a feeling KSP might have something to do with that

[@brynclarke1746]

While obviously I'm unlikely do ever know, I can't help but wonder what the NRO are flying that it makes more sense to pay SpaceX to redesign their whole launch integration system rather than design satellites that can be held sideways

[@klosskopfder1.762]

Physics

[@tehllama42]

Stuff with a practically limitless budget, but that needs to fly as soon as possible in a lot of cases. Cheaper and faster for them to have the launch services provider do that development.

[@ptonpc]

There are a lot space craft that do not do well lying on their side. Even the European VEGA, which is built lying down, has the option to be raised to vertical and the payload loaded vertically. It often comes down to the strength of the payload's structure.

[@Marc83Aus]

Spy satellites, stuff thats easily damaged I guess? Things you dont want anybody looking at.

[@harbingerdawn]

Some NRO sats have cost billions of dollars. It makes more sense to ask SpaceX to adapt than it does to ask NRO to redesign sats that can cost more than every Falcon 9 ever built combined.

[@33DavePaton33]

Amazing video! I am a HUGE SpaceX fan! So don't get me wrong. But it is SO refreshing to see a comparison link this! It's so great to be able to get a better understanding of why companies choose other rockets over a Falcon. Scott, you're the best! Keep it up!

[@indylovelace]

Thank you. A very enjoyable narrative on the pros and cons of each launch platform.

[@pskale]

Scott, how about an updated version of this video with the latest information ?

[@stickmann7363]

“Raptor might never exist” Are you sure about that

[@KD10Conqueror]

Very

[@theenjeneer2792]

@@KD10Conqueror raptor does exist right now

[@keithschlee273]

Great video! One reason vertical payload integration is sometimes preferable is that it can greatly simplify designs of surface tension Propellant Management Devices (PMD) in the spacecraft propellant tanks. It can get very tricky dealing with horizontal transport requirements.

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

Given the time that has passed since this video, do you think that SpaceX will use a modified second stage...perhaps with a Raptor...to reach the Lunar Gateway? Just curious, since the FH seems to be a bit underused and has many possibilities before Starship becomes a reality.

[@Slicerz717]

Unless someone is willing to pay for the design and qualification of a second stage raptor engine, upgrade and change the GSE for multiple rocket bads to deal with two fuel types and any other little bits here and there, i doubt it. Its full steam ahead for Starship and they aint looking for half fixes. Falcon 9 and Heavy are very capable rockets and reach 98% of our current and near future needs. They are bringing the bacon home for Spacex.

[@jaycarle1757]

Love your videos. Suggest you do an episode explaining Specific Impulse as a unit of measurement, or just Impulse for that matter. May do some illustrative demonstrations in KSP?

[@krissp8712]

For some reason I only just realised that impulse being force x time (newton seconds), when it's divided by mass becomes acceleration x time, and that's just a change in velocity. The units of the whole delta V thing just kinda clicked I guess.

[@hellovikramjeet]

"it's not clear that the raptor will ever actually turn into a working product" SN9 is gonna fly soon, Scott :D :P

[@linuxsbc]

SN10 just landed successfully and SN11 is coming up soon. SpaceX develops rockets so quickly. Edit: Now SN15 landed perfectly and may fly again soon.

[@Leoappeared]

Still blowing up... That thing will never reliably work

[@linuxsbc]

@@Leoappeared This is only the fourth test flight. It's not even the final design (SN15 and SN20 will have substantial changes). You can't extrapolate anything from so little information about the final product.

[@Leoappeared]

@@linuxsbc well but from physics

[@linuxsbc]

@@Leoappeared What physics equation means this is impossible? Yes, it's difficult, but so is everything rocket companies do, especially SpaceX (with their Raptor engines and the booster recovery). They've already managed to land it successfully once, so why not more?

[@TheMaede999]

I learn so much from your videos.. Thank you Scott, really appreciate that.

[@81husker]

Love your channel you are so informative I love it. Thanks for all the work you do.

[@varunmehta1821]

Even the Ariane V is a pretty awesome rocket!!!

[@scottmanley]

Yep, despite its early software induced problem it's become successful. Probably the best GTO launch vehicle.

[@varunmehta1821]

What about ISRO's pslv and gslv ?

[@paulhorn2665]

Yes it made a impressive fireworks back then. Waste of tax money, ESA is cr**p

[@thomaswijgerse723]

paul is ignorant

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Paul....why are you even talking? Stop it. Embarrassing to behold.

[@SentientSkeletorClipLoop]

Scott thank you for speaking like an experienced production engineer. I'm just starting out in my own career in this, and it's very enlightening. What's interesting when you hear people talk about SpaceX's advantages, (even yourself, reusability or production standards) they're all "features" that are good for SpaceX, not necessarily benefits which are good for the customer. Yes, a cheaper launch is good, but when your launch requirements are what they are and SpaceX cannot meet them, it's sort of irrelevant how easily you build your missiles. Thank you for a great video!

[@charleschristos1807]

You should look at other videos before kissing butt like this. His points are invalid and compare apples and oranges in this case. He just believes that SpaceX is being given unfair treatment. SpaceX has and will continue to drive the cost to space down. That is the truth here and others don't want to see why others are falling behind but to bash SpaceX for their success. SpaceX has meet and continues to meet its launch requirements. So the suggest otherwise is lying.

[@HalNordmann]

The thing is, SpaceX aren't the first ones to try reusing rockets, not in the slightest. They were just lucky enough to pull it through.

[@jonasoffermartins9480]

I keep getting impressed by your knowledge about space stuff. Great video!

[@raheemabdul1066]

Awesome work as always! If i had millions and wanted to launch something to orbit now I have all the info to understand what to use.

[@Wundercc]

I'd like to see an updated version of this now that Heavy has been used a few times.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

I dont think any of those launch even reach close to the theoretical limits of the falcon heavy....There is too much limitations for falcon heavy, you can barely find any payload above 30tons that can fit inside that rocket for LEO. For other missions, the inefficient upper stage become a bottleneck. The only few advantage it has is to launch something that slighy too heavy for falcon9, or require a disposable falcon9, in this case, falcon heavy can do it, while still recover the boosters.

[@Liberty4Ever]

It's interesting to watch this video again, two years later, when SpaceX is launching Falcon 9 rockets weekly, recovering first stage boosters for reuse with such reliability that it's almost boring, and Starship is making hops in the desert and at the rate that SpaceX is accelerating the state of the art Starship will be launching huge planetary payloads soon. Nothing succeeds like success. Meanwhile Boeing considers a success to be 2 out of 3 parachutes, or a random orbital insertion that doesn't deliver Christmas presents to the ISS.

[@nomoreescape4084]

I just love watching your videos, eversince I bought KSP and strolled youtube for tutorials. It realy feels like there once was Nat geo, then there was Morgan freeman and now there is your channel for those craving knowledge, just for the sake of knowledge.

[@draymer72]

I would love to see you update this now that there are multiple Block 5 FH launches, we are about to see a center core expended FH launch, SpaceX has shown plans for vertical integration on 39A, & the expanded faring they previewed along with the vertical integration.

[@nathanseybold6679]

11:23 *right-click* *edit fairing*

[@TrogdorBurnin8or]

The Falcon series has _two_ weaknesses, not one. The Isp is low relative to hydrogen, yes, but more importantly, the upper stage is huge. High C3 missions and low payload masses are going to perform poorly on the Falcon upper stage, because the Falcon upper stage has so much mass that it will end up weighing substantially more than the payload - that's dead weight that needs to be dragged to a similar orbit. Bolt a lightweight, low-thrust stage onto the tip of a Falcon, power it even with something low performance like hydrazine, and you gain an enormous amount of capability for BLEO. Falcon 9's got a large number of attributes which are associated with the economics of reaching LEO, and only two stages, with very early MECO, is part of that. A low thrust upper stage would be overengineering for that goal. But as soon as a substantial amount of business is done BLEO, expect an improvement on that count - it's cheap enough to achieve.

[@kayl456jenna]

Methinks you have missed the point of a _standardized_ launch system. It doesn't need to be optimal for every use, it just has to be _good enough_ to get its job done. This means standard units in mass production, not lots of expensive customization. The next generation will be fueled with methane, not hydrogen. Less performance, sure, but also much less of a b**tch to deal with.

[@TrogdorBurnin8or]

Is it missing the point if that was the point I was trying to convey? The job is LEO. That is what pays the bills. Anything more was unnecessary/expensive, and financial survival was never assured. So they sacrificed BLEO performance for LEO economics.

[@theglitch312]

Trogdor Burninator, genuine question, isn't it bery difficult for a Falcon 9 to launch with an efficient second stage? A very early MECO coupled with an underpowered second stage sounds like a recipe for man made meteorites haha. Or is the vacuum Merlin so overpowered (TTW) that SpaceX may get away with it? I think I have heard that the Merlin's TTW is unrivaled in liquid fueled engines. So can it be replaced by something with puny thrust, but with a much longer burn time?

[@MarvinCZ]

@Rick I'm pretty sure Trogdor meant adding a small low-thrust stage as a third stage, on top of the vacuum Merlin, not in place of it. The Falcon should easily be powerful enough to launch it and a light third stage should improve the achievable C3.

[@thebateman7949]

@@theglitch312 *berry

[@jshepard152]

How much trouble would it be to stack two upper stages on the Falcon 9 and make a three stage vehicle? Or would that even be worth doing?

[@arkatub]

How many missions launch with a C3 (km2/sec2) of greater than 100?

[@5Andysalive]

found it funny how people talked about putting the expensive parker solar probe on a rocket that had one test flight...

[@SuperSMT]

I find it funny how NASA actually plans to launch *human beings* on a rocket that will have had one test flight...

[@jakexd5524]

SuperSMT On proven tech with proven engines. Not some strangely designed tin tin rocket with a extremely large 2nd stage when compared to the first.

[@5Andysalive]

The Saturn V had 2 test flights. The first one has higly disputed within Nasa (for going straight to a full stack test) but went well eventually. The second of which was a near disaster. And would have hurt or killed any astronauts with massive vibrations. Yet the 3rd did not only have people on it, it went straight (or eliptical) to the moon. And Borman is on record praising it for the mostly smooth ride. Still, there were (political)r easons for the rush with a just about accectable risk. Because sls is well known tech, and space flight is generally more eveolved now, the risk of that (shorter) trip would be nowhere near as insane as Apollo 8. While risking a hugely expensive and unique probe to save a bit of launch costs (if the FH were available at all) is completely unnecessary. Reliability is a trait that has to be earned.

[@SuperSMT]

Falcon Heavy is based on proven tech just as much as SLS...

[@joakimlindblom5200]

Keep in mind the record holder on this point: the first flight of the Shuttle launch system was crewed. The only escape system available was ejections seats, which were a bit iffy since they could only be used during certain phases of the flight. So SLS, with key components already already flight tested, is positively conservative by comparison ;-)

[@PhilThurston64]

10:35 "It's not clear if this will ever turn into a working product". I think this shows just how far and fast SpaceX have come in the last two years!

[@Leoappeared]

Still unclear

[@TaliwhakerRotmg]

@@Leoappeared Oh shut up the raptors' never failed on ascent it's looking very strong regardless what you think of starship.

[@Leoappeared]

@@TaliwhakerRotmg good thing then that they only have to be working for ascent and only once 😉

[@TaliwhakerRotmg]

@@Leoappeared You say that like a gotcha statement, but you do realize the raptors are a working product even if they don't stick the landing, right? They can be used in a disposable configuration and still be great.

[@Leoappeared]

What the point of them then except for being fragile and expensive? and they also have to cancel many times and swap engines because of problems

[@heaslyben]

Thanks for this! I was totally curious about these trade-offs.

[@CaptainCoffee37]

Just noticed for the first time you have Ninkasi swag on your wall, nice!

[@Bargeral]

As a SpaceX fanboi this was a great video for me. I helped me temper my enthusiasm with some informed perspectives.

[@jshepard152]

Look at what ULA charges for their rockets and you'll get your enthusiasm back.

[@ManuelBTC21]

12:30 What the hell could the NRO be doing that would make it cheaper to finance vertical integration research as opposed to adapting the payload so that it can survive horizontal integration?

[@gallopinggoose6891]

Satellites are more expensive, more complicated, and the purpose of the mission. In KSP I always design the payload before the booster. This is no different. In order to make your sattelites less complicated, lighter and slightly cheaper you make the frame less sturdy making it so that it can't be mounted horizontally -- and a popular theory is that to bring down production costs, you build in bulk. So NRO has a large stockpile of satellites that can be launched quickly and they don't feel like scraping and building new ones. My big point is, when you contract somebody, they will follow your standards - no questions asked - or you fire them. You don't contract someone and then use their standards. What's the point

[@MsSomeonenew]

It probably requires a complete satellite redesign, which could easily be 100x more then just loading a rocket vertically.

[@ManuelBTC21]

@@thoughtpolease7183 yes, he does.

[@danielpalmer8324]

Question: would it destroy a rocket if you design it for one fuel but have to use a different fuel later on. Like is that possible or no? Like if you go to mars and when you get there you can't make the fuel you want but can make a different rocket fuel. Would it destroy the engine?

[@zbeekerm]

Would a different falcon upper stage with higher ISP (i.e. Hydrogen based) be feasible? I.e. how feasible would it be to slap a different upper stage with a different, higher ISP, LH2 engine on a Falcon 9 block 5 or falcon heavy?

[@zbeekerm]

Ah, 10:10 i.e., Raptor

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

3:59 - Which still makes it a stellar engine by KSP standards.

[@stevenwhoward87]

That fairing graphic can be quite misleading. I work on a lot of these graphics for clients when they are choosing what type of rocket to use for their satellite or spacecraft and often it comes down to 1. mass (obviously) and 2. clearance. That whale graphic is not as clear as when you place in the fairly common box structure of most spacecraft. The width of the Falcon envelope/fairing is a bit wider than the Ariane, Delta, and especially the Atlas. Proton seems to be too outdated for any of today's high-power and large sized satellites and spacecraft for GEO and beyond. Protrusions into the envelope/fairing and SpaceX's large sized fairing are one of the valid reasons why SpaceX keeps getting chosen over their competitors

[@elektrotehnik94]

never heard of that, thanks for the inside info :D

[@DinoAlberini]

that’s the most basic point

[@oresteiaanetik]

As far as I know, Ariane 5 has the widest payload diameter. That's her biggest strength, that's why people choose Ariane over other rockets, if they have bulky load. Ariane 5 payload dimensions are 5.4m while F9 5.2m.

[@stevenwhoward87]

@@oresteiaanetik it depends upon the variant as there are a few types of Ariane payload fairings, but yes

[@oresteiaanetik]

The variants of Ariane 5 payload fairings only change height, not width. They're all 5.4m. Widest fairing available afaik.

[@pyroslavx7922]

What kind of payload could not stand up to 1G in wrong direction, but will survive liftoff and all that vibration and acceleration oriented righ way?

[@77gravity]

"Fly Safe" - with that maniacal grin - is almost a threat :)

[@EMBer3000]

Is the complexity of adding a third stage so much worse that you "have to" use the second stage for the escape burn? Wouldn't Falcon Heavy get better results if you delivered a space optimised "escape stage" into LEO and let that engine carry the rest of the delta-V requirements? Falcon Heavy is after all really good at carrying heavy loads to LEO.

[@bobjoe109]

Could be a problem with size since the fairing isn't that large

[@laprepper]

Fewer stages is more mass for rocket fuel and overall more simple design.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

F9 is already a very long rocket, adding another stage could be too long and hard to balance with the TVC from first stage.

[@quadrplax]

ULA has another advantage over SpaceX: The ability to launch rockets in November! /s

[@heysiri4935]

Boy do i have some news for you...

[@biplabkumarghosh6300]

Sorry, I didn't get it. Doesn't SpaceX also launch in November?

[@CAPFlyer]

Good video - Note on the Vertical Integration - I could see them putting in a new RSS on 39A to fit the requirement as it'd still allow them to do all processing on the F9 horizontally and then roll to the pad and go vertical with the placement of the payload/fairing combination via the RSS once on the pad. The NRO used the RSS loading capability at least a couple of times during the STS program, so it's not like it would be a totally new idea for the pad

[@chrictonj9503]

At what point in the flight does the C3 requirement need to be meet? For long range targets (Jupiter was mentioned) what about a third stage with an ION drive? Similar to what we've seen for the asteroid and comet missions.

[@AKAtheA]

Whenever comparing anything to a Delta IV, cost should be analyzed as well, since using hydrolox engines even for the lower stage causes everything to...cost more. A lot more.

[@biplabkumarghosh6300]

Well for a reusable rocket, you just need to build engines once. Be it hydrolox engines or keralox engines

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Any particular reason why that graph omits both the Falcon 9 fully-expendable configuration and the Falcon Heavy? Also, why does the Atlas V's payload capability jump _up_ suddenly at about 500 km and then slope down again less than half as quickly as below 500 km?

[@watcherzero5256]

When it jettisons the spent stage, its no longer carrying dead weight so its performance increases.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

@WatcherZero: Explains the decrease in slope, but _not_ the sudden jump up.

[@9x29Dillon]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 The fairing is jettisoned before main engine cutoff which results in an instantaneous reduction in mass, hence the jump. The decreased slope is the result of the engine's improved efficiency as a result of this change in mass.

[@mikequinn8780]

What about a Falcon carying a Star 37 or 48 kick motor with a spacecraft on top of that? Is there anything complex about integrating that or does it just bolt to the payload adapter at the top of stage 2? What about the economics of a Falcon reusable with Star kick-stage vs Atlas/Delta without kick-stage?

[@millitron3666]

Could someone explain to me why on the NASA launch vehicle chart, the Falcon 9 RTLS's curve flattened out at ~1500km? How come it can deliver 8300kg to 2000km but not more mass to 1600km? Another question, what is with the weird vertical line at 500km on the Atlas 5 curves?

[@scottmanley]

I have that question too

[@horacefairview5349]

Someone tried to make Scott a Hindu and he wasn't having it apparently

[@David-zy1lr]

I love this

[@sidharthcs2110]

WTF?

[@alialiali0y0y0y]

red zit on his forehead...

[@juggy666]

Its not a zit, its where ULA injected his shill implant...

[@tarnvedra9952]

juggy666: They prefer the term "Tall Tales Tory Module".

[@milk3275]

SpaceX fans now gonna ask Elon for a fully reusable Atlas V, including the SRB.

[@operator8014]

That's what we've been waiting for.

[@thethirdman225]

Twitter is on fire.

[@InventorZahran]

Better yet, completely eschew the solid fuel and make them LRBs (Liquid Rocket Boosters)!

[@MasterFX2000]

Maybe I've overheard it, but what about the costs for a fixed payload and fixed orbit height (just looking at earth orbits)?

[@sudeeptaghosh]

Is it possible to calculate numbers for a falcon heavy full recovery mode(recovery far out on a drone ship) with RAPTOR engines....

[@nikolatasev4948]

I think they will be worse, because methane is less dense than kerosene, and you can fit a lot less (mass) in the given volume. So you get more thrust per ton of fuel, but less fuel overall. They can't make the tanks wider, as they won't be road transportable, they can't make the first stage tanks longer, as they will bend easier require thicker walls. SpaceX could probably stretch the second stage tank and put a Raptor on it, but only a SpaceX guy could calculate the results accurately. I have no idea how much the stretched tank would weigh, or how much the insulation or changed plumbing would weigh. In any case, it will be a whole new rocket with new plumbing, and take about as long to develop as Starship. Since Starship is supposed to be fully reusable it should cost a lot less per flight, you don't have to build a new upper stage every time.

[@mytube001]

One thing to consider, though, is that SpaceX currently don't recover the upper stages. That means that they could develop a LH/LOX upper stage for FH to gain the upper hand throughout, while still recovering all three boosters, or perhaps even using F9. Not that they will, since they're likely pouring all their R&D into the BFR/BFS.

[@morosis82]

The still get economies of scale by using many of the same parts on the upper stage as the lower. Having a totally different engine and all the associated hardware would make it a lot more expensive, more due to manufacturing efficiency than anything else.

[@johnfrancisdoe1563]

mytube001 How about using an early BFR upper stage on a Falcon 9 / FH first stage to grab that capability and gain some cross product modularity.

[@mattcolver1]

I always pondered if ULA would ever be willing to sell upper stages to SpaceX.

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Why would they do that?

[@zockertwins]

that would only make the problem of the tiny fairings even worse

[@CarlosAM1]

If spacex adds raptor engines to their falcon rockets, then ula has a problem.

[@mattcolver1]

Then they just buy fairings from RUAG for the Atlas uppersatge or from ULA for the Delta Upperstage.

[@newsgetsold]

Thanks for the video. I also wonder how Chinese and ISRO offerings compare?

[@jefffradsham2297]

ok, Scott, how do you get more out of thr falcon heavy?

[@g.zoltan]

One more thing that the falcon 9 is weaker at. Spacex isn'T as good as the others when it comes to their artillery only build orders.

[@AbbreviatedReviews]

"I'd tell what I'd do man... two drone ship landings at the same time man."

[@kuhndj67]

"Watch out for your landing struts bud..."

[@UpcycleElectronics]

Is a fairing design the kind of thing that is set in stone? How hard is it to do a redesign and allow expanded options?

[@MsSomeonenew]

It would take some time to redesign, but since they have BFR on the way it probably isn't seen as necessary.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

The idea is to have only a single production line making a standard fairing. This simplifies, reduces costs and increases reliability. I think that's the reason for the one fairing fits all thing.

[@alexkantor8238]

So if SpaceX does get the vertical integration thing worked out, then will they have vertically integrated vertical integration?

[@TheArklyte]

Finally a video that explains _(hopefully. I haven't yet gotten rid of my bad habit of sometimes commenting on topic before watching)_ why it isn't panacea and why we need different types of launch vehicles and approaches.

[@krumuvecis]

how could you possibly know if it actually explains it or not, if you haven't watched it?

[@TheArklyte]

+Oskars Arajs an educated guess based on name of the video, description you can read right there and some other factors?

[@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489]

How could you be sure, that it adequately explains it, AFTER watching it, if you don't already know what the deal is?

[@TheArklyte]

+NiceWhenEarned RudeMostlyElse eh, have we watched the same video? Scott literally invests several minutes in explaining that while Falcon covers certain tasks for other tasks you might need something else. So while the video was not as expansive as I expected and was mostly about this specific case, the point is mentioned still nonetheless.

[@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489]

i whole heartedly agree, and should rightfully apologize, as i was relying on semantics and fact-checking as the basis of my statement. I was trying to express that your knowledge on the issue doesnt necessarily depend on whether you watch the video or not. it's kinda an error with both the original and Oskar's post. basically, only a person that knew what the deal is, would know whether the video explains it or not. to anyone else, it would just be an eye-opener. i really do agree with the general ideas expressed so far. sometimes i get ahead of my thoughts and don't consider social rules, hence the name.

[@msnmasc24]

But how many commercial missions actually require escaping Earth's gravity completely? I believe the answer is none, and that is why they( SpaceX) have taken over the market. Every ULA advantage mentioned in this video only represents a small fraction of what is the current rocket launch market (interplanetary science missions and special payloads). A stellar launch record can only take you so far when you charge 2-3 times more than the competition.

[@fwskungen208]

Also a stellar record that's going to get WIPED counts for nothing

[@jakexd5524]

And those NASA launches for deep space is what keeps ULA going. The falcon 9 could do the same if it had a better 2nd stage.

[@5Andysalive]

You need quite a few (successful) flights to "wipe that out". Statistically speaking.

[@amirabudubai2279]

The launch price is often only a fraction of the total cost. For example, the Hubble took about 3 billion(accounting for inflation); a very basic relay satellite cost 300 million. From a risk management point of view, SpaceX is not ready for high cost missions. They get a lot of launches because the most common satellites are "cheap" communication or GPS. The whole point of this video is that SpaceX is good and useful, but *they do not outclass other options* like so many seem to think.

[@lordgarion514]

@@jakexd5524 No it's not. ULA launches plenty of things for the military, the NRO (American space spy agency) and non-governmental agencies, in addition to NASA. In fact, from 2006 to 2016 ULA had a literal monopoly in launching military payloads.

[@Nszewczak]

How would a metholox uper stage compare to SpaceX current rp1 upperstage? EDIT. Should of just watched to the end. Was curious because bfr is metholox

[@user-ei7um9sz9v]

very good and informative video, many thanks to your effort!

[@FourthRoot]

SpaceX really should consider designing an LH2 upper stage. Or at least a LCH4.

[@thomaswijgerse723]

that would make the cost of the falcon 9 increase by multiple factors

[@jedimastersterling1]

I'd hardly say "multiple factors", but yeah you need to consider added cost.

[@FourthRoot]

Thomas Wijgerse Yes, but it would still be a highly competitive launch system simply on the merits of the first stage being reusable.

[@pulsifide]

Falcon 9, Raptor Upper Stage

[@piranha031091]

Yeah, they are, with a Raptor engine. He mentions it in the video.

[@alexcostache267]

On 30 november 2018 SpaceX will launch a satellite from U.S Air Force on a medium Earth orbit (MEO) with a Falcon Heavy Block 5 .

[@ryanrhoden1842]

25* satellites

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Call it June of 2019, after it get's pushed back over and over and over as half of SpaceX launches tend to do.

[@dumbledoor9293]

RealityIsTheNow June, you wish, try Nov2019 😂

[@biplabkumarghosh6300]

@@dumbledoor9293 It was launched in June 2019

[@arielmannes2544]

That was a great video ! I really enjoy your content thanks

[@burk3]

Started watching Scott for KSP videos. Keep coming back for A+ aerospace discussions.

[@alexlandherr]

Clarification; *way* beyond Mars.

[@scottmanley]

The original SpaceX orbit was wrong.

[@KSpaceAcademy]

@@scottmanley The truth is still putting on its pants...

[@Papershields001]

Centaur is basically the best

[@joseq3168]

Interestingly, the Centaur's high efficiency comes with the price of relatively low thrust. The Starliner is going to have to use a dual-engine version that has never flown on an Atlas V.

[@cinquine1]

​@@joseq3168 The main reason it's dual engine is for safety in the form of redundancy, the extra power is nice but not needed.

[@thethirdman225]

Best is as best does. Scott showed plenty of plots - and they were by no means complete - which show quite clearly that there are absolute answers her. There is just the best one with the fewest trade-offs and that will vary from mission to mission.

[@sparkequinox]

Excellent video and thorough research, great stuff!

[@AfaqSaleemChannel]

Hypothetically, can NRO/NASA or private company invest in SpaceX to design and integrate hydrogen /lox upper stage(or use atlas V upper stage) on falcon heavy for say some special launch(es)?

[@alexpappalardo4112]

Three years later, and Blue Origin is still talking about New Glenn lol

[@jamesalbrett589]

I'm surprised you didn't mention vibrations... I can imagine them being less of a problem on the Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy than they would be on a smaller rocket such as the Atlas V. I think the vertical integration requirements are total BS... The G forces during launch far exceed 1g and go in all directions, whatever testing that is required to make sure it can survive being horizontal should be done for every launch anyway. My guess as to why they aren't making the payload bigger is that it would further hurt their high C3 performance and almost all the payloads that market calls for are small. Also, we shouldn't bash them on a failures per year basis, but a failures per launch basis... they've had 2 failures in the last 3 years, but more then double the launches of their competitors in the same timeframe. It's also hard to compare, as the budget for the launches before SpaceX allowed far more eyes on the rocket then is possible with the smaller budgets the industry is currently working with... ~$150m vs ~$400m they used to have. One way to account for that would be to use Dollars lost per Dollar billed. Even with all that accounted for, the Atlas V is fabulously reliable... the Delta IV Heavy has a very small N, I can see the Falcon Heavy catching up objectively within 2 years if it can manage ~7 successful launches.

[@rubn1903]

A static g is not the same as a temporary g, for example (i study civil engineering) in the past,chilean engineers design buildings for earthquakes assuming an static horizontal g of 0.2, when the 2010 earthquake came (M 8.8) , it did more than 0.4 peak g, and none of these buildings failed (the only building that failed was designed with another method)

[@tehllama42]

The hero we need, with the figure of merit we should probably care about most.

[@ch4.hayabusa]

@ruben according to the use guide for the F9 the payload should expect to experience 30g@100hz from the payload adapter... That's pretty violent. Even the 2.8g during separation is enough to really question whether a 1g(static) would really blow the margins of safety... Specially for the NRO, which are usually high tech satellites or spacescraft... Not biological. It wouldn't be the first time the ULA has used lame excuses to exclude competition... Let's not forget SpaceX had to sue to get Military payloads

[@timlaver5940]

+Francis, this is abit hard to explain in words, a vector diagram would show you much better, perhaps you could draw it to understand what I'm trying to say. Axial acceleration is basically up/down force on the PAF/Payload and lateral is the force from side to side. With the F9 there is an maximum axial acceleration of -4 to 8.5g for loads under 4000lbs and -2 to 6g for above. There is a maximum lateral acceleration of -3 to 3g for loads under 4000lbs and -2 to 2g for above. Whenever the rocket is accelerating directly up all g-Forces are facing to the base of the PAF (axial). As the rocket starts to turn more and more lateral g's will start as the rocket body will be accelerating vertically and horizontally (draw some diagrams). When the rocket is at 45deg pitch the axial and lateral force will be equal and at this point in time the rocket is usually still full of fuel and not accelerating very quickly anyway (well 2-3g max). As the rocket continues to turn lateral will get less and less and axial will get more. Once the rocket is at full 90degs the lateral is 0g (basically in freefall). And obviously as the fuel gets less and less, the acceleration becomes faster (up to max of 8.5g on F9). So once past the 45deg pitch the rocket has to continue to turn fast enough with the fuel burn in order for lateral to stay under the 2-3g. But remember these figures are all MAXIMUMS. If a payload can't handle 1g of lateral force the launch arc and thrust settings would have be reduced in order to keep that lateral force at the payloads maximum. Being static on the ground horizontally that is obviously a lateral force of 1g.

[@jackvernian7779]

+Ray Foss the fact that it's at 100 hz and not 1 hz changes things dramatically.

[@inigobirden2155]

Absolutely love how much development work is being put into space launch capability, interest dipped after the cold war but now it's back and stronger than before considering you have many different entities all working on rockets. Corporate consolidation is one of the worst things for further development because it kills competition but I really really hope these companies collaborate on the biggest challenges of rocketry and share their work because with all the internal data and knowledge of these groups combined the sky is the limit.

[@fred_derf]

What would it take for Space X to modify an upper stage to use an RL10 engine?

[@Fabi33677]

i still think it is extremly impressive that the delta 4 heavy manages huge payloades by only using hydrogen engines. Thats how you do eco friendly Elon :P

[@kg4boj]

And coal is burned to make that hydrogen... The spacex chooches on diesel which are basicly eco friendly dinosaur squeezings.

[@miraflynn8935]

Okay how about this: take 4 falcon 9s, attach them radially to an Ariane V.

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

No you obviously replace the solid booster with a Falcon 9 on one side and an Atlas V on the other.

[@webchimp]

"Borrow" a shuttle, with a wingspan of 78' you could strap 6 Falcon 9's to that.

[@danielenbuske4233]

Hmm.. what happens if raptor vac mounts on second stage?

[@Banditomojado]

Another awesome video! Have you ever considered doing a video about high powered rocketry? It seems to be a bit outside of what you generally talk about, but it seems to be a cool growing sport. I just discovered it myself a while back and I now have my Level 2 certification. It’s rocketry for the common man.

[@scottmanley]

I know very little about amateur rockets, I'd have to learn.