SLS vs. Falcon Heavy

[doik27]

What do you guys think about the SlS? Falcon Heavy?

[bigdad84]

I can't list all the facts at the moment for comparison, but everything about the Falcon Heavy (besides payload) screams better than SLS. Price to launch, reusuabilty, and reliability.

[Roastduck]

A poll like this seems as pointless to me as a poll about Mustang vs. Camaro (American muscle cars) or Lamborghini vs. Ferrari.

Each platform is being designed around mission parameters that aren't the same. I feel as if they should be judged according to how well they each live up to their given missions.

[sojourner]

Neither one has flown yet, so we don't know what their real capabilities/costs are. Only projected numbers. Based on those though. SLS is the winner for payload size while FH is the winner for cost per pound to orbit,

[CaptainKipard]

The SLS name is just as imaginative as the Space Shuttle. but my main reason for choosing FH is reusability.

[jwenting]

and as with every other "which is best" without any qualifications as to what would be "best", an utterly useless comparison.

Might be nice for a show on "history channel" or "discovery channel" where science and reality take a backseat to political correctness and entertainment value, but even there it's just terribly annoying to be bombarded with such things constantly.

[Virtualgenius]

Space X is already doing missions to the ISS with the falcon 9, falcon heavy will just be a derivative using proven hardware, it will be cheaper, turn around times will be quicker and its privately funded and not bogged down with Government Bureaucracy and estimate committees

[Nibb31]

Falcon Heavy vs SLS

Shuttle vs Soyuz

Star Destroyer vs USS Enterprise

Apples vs Oranges

These comparisons are meaningless unless you define the criteria for determining which is best.

Space X is already doing missions to the ISS with the falcon 9, falcon heavy will just be a derivative using proven hardware, it will be cheaper, turn around times will be quicker and its privately funded and not bogged down with Government Bureaucracy and estimate committees

Falcon Heavy is a proposal based on some proven technology, but with unproven constraints (higher loads, vastly different flight profiles, propellant crossfeed, etc...). It will only fly when a customer has a payload to launch on it. There are currently zero 50 ton commercial or government payloads waiting for a launcher.

Until then, nobody can say it will be cheaper or that turn around will be quicker. Current turn around times are approximately 6 months between flights. It's not clear whether they can improve on those times, or whether there is customer demand for faster turn around times or higher launch rates. The cost is also completely unknown.

And both Falcon and Dragon was funded in majority by Government Bureaucracy and controlled by NASA estimate committees.

[jwenting]

yup, saying Falcon Heavy is proven because Falcon 9 is flying is like saying the Boeing BWB airliner is proven because the 747 is flying.

[Lunniy Korabl]

Current turn around times are approximately 6 months between flights. It's not clear whether they can improve on those times, or whether there is customer demand for faster turn around times or higher launch rates.

Isn't the current launch rate for Falcon 9 v1.1 averaging at every 2 months, or is your 6 month figure based on the need for 3 first stage cores for Falcon Heavy?

Also, just for the sake of completeness I pick Soyuz, Enterprise, Apples.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Lunniy Korabl

[Comrade Jenkens]

From what I've seen everything about the Falcon Heavy apart from its payload capability seems better than the SLS. I still think that the SLS is important though as it will allow us to lift otherwise completely unfeasible things into orbit.

[Kryten]

From what I've seen everything about the Falcon Heavy apart from its payload capability seems better than the SLS.

You could say the same thing about Falcon 9, or Soyuz. Payload capability is the entire point.

[MBobrik]

Personally, I think that it is better to assemble any heavier hardware in-orbit and thus above a certain threshold, the capability to lift more weight in one go becomes irrelevant. An I think that with falcon 9 heavy, so that it is cheaper to launch 3 falcons heavy with 3 parts plus the equipment necessary to dock them together in-orbit than to launch one SLS. Thus pushing SLS to a very narrow niche of launching special stuff that can't reasonably be assembled in-orbit.

[doik27]

I was just wondering which one you guys prefer....

[MBobrik]

I was just wondering which one you guys prefer....

well, we prefer the better one... we just can't agree about the definition of "better":)

[maccollo]

I think the Falcon Heavy is going to hit a better sweet spot economically, mostly because it uses the same hardware as the falcon 9.

... But I like big rockets.

SLS is bigger, has a higher payload capacity, bigger fairing diameter and it (block 2) could possibly have the highest payload fraction ever, so I voted for the SLS.

Edited March 16, 2014 by maccollo

[jwenting]

I was just wondering which one you guys prefer....

the one that gets the job done, so it depends on the job...

[SargeRho]

For going to Mars? The SLS will probably do better, since you can just go "Screw it!" and lift half the damn ship to orbit. You'd need a few flights using the FH. But in general I'm going to say Falcon Heavy. You rarely need payloads as heavy as the SLS can lift, and the Falcon Heavy can lift 53 tons to LEO, which is enough for most missions.

[NASAFanboy]

In an ideal world, we would be going to Mars and establishing lunar bases with an mixed Falcon Heavy-SLS stragety. Use the SLS to do manned lunar expeditions and to launch the EML-2 outpost, use the FH to sed robots and probes/mid-sized cargo landers.

[LordOfTheOrbits]

In an ideal world, we would be going to Mars and establishing lunar bases with an mixed Falcon Heavy-SLS stragety. Use the SLS to do manned lunar expeditions and to launch the EML-2 outpost, use the FH to sed robots and probes/mid-sized cargo landers.

What would be the benefit of using SLS for manned missions? Once SpaceX finishes the DragonRider crew capsule it will provide both cheaper and safer access to space for manned missions.

[Comrade Jenkens]

What would be the benefit of using SLS for manned missions? Once SpaceX finishes the DragonRider crew capsule it will provide both cheaper and safer access to space for manned missions.

The SLS can lift a lot more infrastructure to the Moon or Mars in one go which could actually be cheaper than using lots of falcon heavy launches. The falcon heavy is a lot more efficient for lifting things to low earth orbit.

Even the Delta IV Heavy can get more to the Moon than the Falocn 9 heavy!

[Nibb31]

I was just wondering which one you guys prefer....

Which one we prefer for what purpose? Personally, to drive down to the grocery store, neither of them beat my car.

[SargeRho]

The SLS can lift a lot more infrastructure to the Moon or Mars in one go which could actually be cheaper than using lots of falcon heavy launches. The falcon heavy is a lot more efficient for lifting things to low earth orbit.

Even the Delta IV Heavy can get more to the Moon than the Falocn 9 heavy!

Not quite correct. You can launch 3-4 falcon heavies for the price of one SLS. 210ish tons vs 120 (SLS Block II), and if the Falcon Heavy was to recieve a Raptor engine for the upper stage, which probably won't happen, it'd get more to the moon than the D4H.

Using the Falcon Heavy it would actually be more economical to launch the hardware on one, and a reusable tug on another launch(es).

[Woopert]

They're not comparable! SLS Block I lifts 70 metric tons to orbit, Block II lifts 130 metric tons. It's also designed by NASA (albeit the engines and components are designed by various other companies, as was the case with the Apollo program rockets). SLS Block I (Block II will be more capable, obviously) can also send 20.2 metric tons to Mars and 2.9 metric tons to Europa.

Falcon Heavy lifts 53 metric tons... yes, that's quite a big difference. Sure, Falcon Heavy (and SpaceX's other products) is reusable, but reusability in the way SpaceX plans on doing so means that fuel is being used to land those rocket stages that could be used for lifting the payloads. Falcon Heavy doesn't have the power to lift the types of heavy payloads the SLS can. We're going to need to launch some pretty hefty stuff if we're going to Mars. SLS can also send more to Europa, there is a space probe under research (it's not official yet) called the Europa Clipper that is looking to do research on Europa (obviously).

So in the end, Falcon Heavy is neat and all, with its reusability, and its low costs are a game changer. A lot of people these days bash on NASA, but think of what they've done. Much of the technology for spaceflight comes from NASA and their heritage. It's been 41 years since Apollo 17 and no one has still beat us in sending astronauts to the Moon. NASA is still the world leader in space exploration (though until 2017 Russia or China will hold that title), and after 2017 they will further cement that position. A private company like SpaceX won't ever surpass NASA. SpaceX and the Falcon Heavy may seem appealing to people at first, but with further research SLS is much more capable.

I can't list all the facts at the moment for comparison, but everything about the Falcon Heavy (besides payload) screams better than SLS. Price to launch, reusuabilty, and reliability.

Reliability is not a valid claim as neither of the two have launched yet.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Woopert

[sojourner]

Is this the point in the conversation where I point out that SpaceX is working on a really Big Freaking Rocket for their Mars ambitions? Even SpaceX realizes that FH is not up to the job so the BFR is in development with methane engines and a possible 10 meter diameter.