It is not an “aside”; SpaceX is using the concept of the depot to demonize the HLV-with-hydrogen-upper-stages -to-the-Moon-requirement. They are not specifying a storable propellant but rather intimating cryogenic propellants will be stored and used and thus appear to make the classic HLV with cryogenic propellants a waste of money.

Consider the number of Falcon “heavy” flights needed to fill up a depot with storable propellants for a flight to the Moon or beyond. Comparing this number with the number of tons soft-landed on the lunar pole after having flown direct from Earth on a HLV with hydrogen upper stages, it becomes obvious what a ludicrous scam private space is attempting.

That does not address the issues of launch date and customers.

It does answer where you got your launch numbers (though you might have included the $128 Million figure). The wise buyer always reads the fine print, however. Note the statement directly above the pricing:

“SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing for launch services based on SpaceX’s standard statement of work. Additional mission assurance activities or other non-standard services are available for an additional charge. “

It would be interesting to know how much those additional (and needed) services would cost.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

Interesting that the numbers have recently changed. For up to 6.4 tons to GTO it is $83m dollars and for greater than 6.4 tons it is $128M. Makes a lot of sense considering what Ariane Space or ILS charges for their vehicles.

I did respond, you just did not read it.

Here is the manifest.

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

It says a Falcon Heavy flight this year. While that is fairly specific, there has been a history of slips. I find it odd that it is so easy to discount something that SpaceX is already working on to fly and say that it will not happen.

Also, their bread and butter market is going to be GEO comsats. They have a better price than the Ariane V and if the vehicle proves out it will be a formidable competitor to the Europeans. SpaceX already has several contracts to fly GEO birds on the Falcon 9 1.1. ESA and Arianespace is specifically designing the Ariane V ME to compete with the Falcon Heavy. They think it is going to fly, what gives you such confidence that it will not?

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

I thought they had a GEO bird on a Falcon heavy but after talking to my source, they are going to wait until a successful flight to make the decision.

You have now stated twice that the Falcon Heavy has “customers and a flight date” and been asked once for specifics. However you have not responded.

Given that (according to Space X own website) the Falcon Heavy will depend on the Merlin D engines (not yet flown), presumably the octagonal arrangement new Falcon 9 v.1.1 engine alignment – a new and un-flown entire first stage – and then have to integrate that new first stage into a” three barrel” configuration complete with a cross feed system the “fact” that they have a firm launch date is “very interesting”. What is your source for this assertion?

If they have already signed launch contracts for there as yet non-existent vehicle that is also intriguing. What is your source for this assertion?

The $84 Million launch cost is also interesting. Space X has been advertising (in press releases) the launch cost as $120 Million. So apparently the launch cost of the Falcon Heavy has dropped some 30% (even more amazingly it is now 36% less than what Space X charges under the CRS contract for launches of the current iteration of the Falcon 9). What is your source for this assertion?

Here’s another possibility that I found here:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls2.html

An SDLV with no (large) solids, basically.
The only solid mentioned is the one used already by the Atlas V.

Doesn’t seem as flexible a concept, unless the single stage version of the droppable booster is used for LEO flights.
It may give motive for greater production of expendable RS-25s.

Perhaps one could compare an all liquid SDLV to that of the side-mount SDLV that Spudis often mentions. One may be faster to develope, while the other is lighter in weight and drops an entire contractor chain.

I am curious. Exactly what rebranded taxpayer funded technology are you talking about?