Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch
$begingroup$
Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?
Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms
Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms
Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?
Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms
Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms
Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?
Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms
Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms
Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?
Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms
Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms
Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
Jay Laughlin
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
asked 7 hours ago
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
913
913
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.
So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.
Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.
Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.
It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.
Source
1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35290%2fwhy-does-arabsat-6a-need-a-falcon-heavy-to-launch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.
So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.
Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.
Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.
So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.
Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.
Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.
So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.
Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.
Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
$endgroup$
6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.
So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.
Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.
Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
answered 7 hours ago
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
56k10162310
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.
It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.
Source
1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.
It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.
Source
1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.
It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.
Source
1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.
It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.
Source
1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
answered 2 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1412
1412
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35290%2fwhy-does-arabsat-6a-need-a-falcon-heavy-to-launch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
2 hours ago