Recommended Posts

Not entirely

1) Merlin.1D upgrade has much more thrust thsn expected: 140 klb vs 95 klb for 1C; it'll be cheaper with production rates of up to 700+ engines/year, exceeding the rest of the worlds rocket engine production before even reaching those levels. It also means F9's lift could go from 10.4 metric tons to 14+ metric tons.

2) cross/feed of fuel from the strap-ons to the core stage, a first, creating what amounts to a 3 stage rocket witb 2 stages. That wowed a lot of engineers.

3) F9 will get a core stretch (longer tanks) to make up for the 1D's increased fuel consumption. FH is 3 F9 cores, so this os a "family" upgrade.

4) no customers yet for FH's test flight (one may yet appear along with numerous small ssts) but that there are "plenty" of customers for subsequent flights - US Govt (NASA ' NRO), commercial sats & international. Bigelow just has to be in this mix.

5) a SpaceX IPO could happen as soon as the end of 2012

6) FH's unexpectedly high performance makes Falcon X/X Heavy redundant, so the next upgrade is likely Falcon XX, and Musk said as much when he referred to a 150-200 metric ton Super-Heavy booster. That would make the 118 metric ton Saturn V look puny.

7) more info lwill be presented at Space Access 2011, which starts today.

All of this has shaken up the space business bigtime. NASA types who were poo-poohing SpaceX have pretty much been shut down while they digest the implications.

very good news, even though the success of platforms like this delays the arrival of my beloved Valkyrie shuttle...oh well, with food comes the appetite, so once these rockets are up and running it'll be time to look at ultra-heavy single stage again.

More interesting info from a SpaceNews tweet: "SpaceX says its exploring a 150MT to orbit Falcon "super heavy" under a small NASA contract."

2 ways to do this -

1) quick: a 5-core first stage - a central core with 4 strap-on boosters instead of FH's 2. That would ba a sight :p

2) Falcon XX, which would require the Merlin 2 engine & more lead time.

New comparidon pix showing in order L to R - where things are going

(MT = metric ton = 2,200 lbs)

(low orbit = 300 km/200 mi @28.5? inclination)

Falcon 9 (Block I) w/cargo fairing: 10.4 MT to low orbit (current F9)

Falcon 9 (Block II - aka Stretch) w/cargo fairing: 15 MT to low orbit (to maintain stage commonality with FH & >mass of co-launched sats w/Dragon)

Falcon Heavy w/cargo fairing: 53 MT to low orbit (could go higher)

F9 Blk II/FH height: 69.2 m/227 ft

Standard cargo fairing: 5.2 x 13.9 m (custom by order)

F9 Block I used the 95k lb-ft Merlin 1C engine

F9 Block II & Falcon Heavy will use the 140k lb-ft Merlin 1D engine

Merlin 1D uses far fewer parts, a new SpaceX designed turbopump that can digest small metal debris and continue running, and it's designed to be built using mass-production techniques, many from the auto industry. LiPo batteries built by Tesla.

Merlin 1D is undergoing qualification tests in Texas now. When it goes into production more Merlin 1D's will be produced than the rest of the worlds collective rocket engine output. Max production will be nearly double that.

Image: Ed Kyle

falconsstretch.jpg

Turns out the F9 stretch will have a 16 mT lift capability, more than enough to lift CST-100, Dream Chaser or most any other manned ship save for the bloated Orion.

Also; looks like the US military & intelligency agencies, who needs new satellites but can't stomach the ULA Delta IV Heavy's $300+ million cost, is heading SpaceX's way and it could hurt ULA's viability -

Space News....

U.S. Air Force, NASA and NRO Ink Agreement on Launching with SpaceX

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. ? The three biggest U.S. government satellite-buying agencies have concluded a memorandum of agreement to establish rules permitting startup launch-services provider Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) to launch U.S. Air Force and other national security satellites, a U.S. Air Force official said April 14.

Air Force Under Secretary Erin C. Conaton, in a speech delivered to the National Space Symposium here, said the memorandum, signed by the heads of the Air Force, NASA and the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), should be released this summer.

The agreement ?is designed to ensure a consistent position on opportunities, certification and requirements for potential new entrants to space launch,? Conaton said in her speech, which in her absence was read by Richard W. McKinney, Air Force deputy under secretary for space programs.

?We expect to release new-entrant criteria by late this summer, and we expect to allow new entrants to compete for near-term launch missions.?

>

One U.S. government official agreed that if SpaceX is now allowed to break ULA?s monopoly on U.S. government satellite launches as indicated by the memorandum of agreement, it could force ULA?s already high prices even higher as it eats into ULA?s current market.

?In the longer term we may be faced with questions about whether one of them [uLA or SpaceX] can remain viable without direct subsidies ? the same questions we faced with ULA,? this official said. ?Then what do we do? We have a policy of assured access to space, which means at least two vehicles. The demand for launches has not increased since ULA was formed, so we could be heading toward a nearly identical situation in a few years. But we are spending taxpayers? money and if we can find reliable launches that are less expensive, we are not going to ignore that.?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!