GameBooster1. 5The Space. X Falcon Heavy Booster Why Is It Important The announcement of the Falcon Heavy in early April, 2. The Falcon Heavy is slated to launch twice the payload of the Shuttle at about one fifteenth the cost of a Shuttle launch an approximate 9. ShuttleHow can Musk do thatMany months after the Falcon Heavy announcement there is still confusion about its significance, and in some quarters outright disbelief remains regarding the launch prices actually posted on the Space. Iobit Driver Booster 4 free download for windows xpvista78. Get offline installer setup download Driver booster 4 32bit 64bit PC. Download Free Map &Amp. Should I remove Driver Booster by IObit Outdated drivers may heavily affect your PC performance and lead to system crashes. ASAP Kickoff Classic. Sat September 9, 2017 6PM. Game Booster 1.51 Download' title='Game Booster 1.51 Download' />X website for the Falcon Heavy. No other company has posted fixed launch prices on the Internet only Space. X.  The actual taxpayer cost of US government launches can only be guessed by calculating from the cost plus contract costs, which are usually for multiple launches from the same customer. If Space. X does multiple launches, the posted price would be reduced depending on the number of launches. Almost any commoditys price decreases if production rates increase. Rockets are no different. What amazes people is that Space. X has broken the long sought 1,0. How can he Space. X CEO Elon Musk possibly do this they ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The Heavy will even this score and then some. At last count, Space. X had a launch manifest of over 4. These are divided between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy is similar in conformation to the Delta 4 Heavy, which is the only rocket currently in service that is fair to compare to the Falcon Heavy. The Heavy will consist of three Falcon 9 stages strapped together two side stages and a core stage which has a small upper stage and payload with fairing. The Falcon stages are stretched and the nine Merlin engines on each will be upgraded to have more thrust than the current engines. With a total liftoff mass of 1. Earth orbit at 2. The 2. 00 km orbit is a standard orbit to start from, for example, for injection into a geosynchronous transfer orbit payloads are not left in this 2. Each of the Heavys three stages are about 1. Ares I, the payload fairing could be up to 1. The currently proposed shroud diameter is 1. The total thrust at liftoff will be 3. Saturn Vs thrust. This will make it the worlds largest and most powerful operational rocket once it has flown. The first flight is anticipated in 2. Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. A 1. 0 fold reduction in cost per pound to orbit. To fairly compare the two rocket performances, you really have to look at the numbers. Although the Falcon Heavy looks similar to a Delta 4 Heavy, its performance is much higher and, simultaneously, its cost per launch is much lower. It can put 5. Delta 4 Heavys 2. At the same time, it only costs about 1. Delta 4 Heavy launches cost 4. Air Force contract of 1. Comparing the payload costs to orbit is useful here. The Delta 4 Heavy can put up 2. If it could put up 5. Since the Falcon Heavys posted price per launch centers on 1. Falcon Heavy launch per unit weight is almost exactly one tenth of the current Delta 4 Heavy price. A different calculation method yields the same result. If we use the same average posted price value of 1. Falcon Heavy actually can be launched for about one fourth the cost of a Delta IV Heavy 4. This means the current cost per pound to LEO for the Delta IV Heavy is 4. How Space. X does it. When people see this cost comparison, they ask all over again How can he Musk do that  How can the Falcon outperform the Delta by such a wide margin The three main reasons seem to be 1 low manufacturing cost 2 low operational cost time efficient operations design and low man hours needed per launch and 3 high efficiency performance in flight. The first two have already been demonstrated by the Falcon 9, and they continue to be improved, such as a recently announced two thirds reduction of fuel loading time. The Space. X paradigm is one of continuous improvement. The first reason low manufacturing cost is exercised again in the Heavy by using three nearly identical rocket stages instead of two solids and a core stage, which means more production of the same units, thus reducing their unit cost. The Space. X plant in Hawthorne, California, is building towards the capability of producing a Falcon 9 first stage or Falcon Heavy side booster every week and an upper stage every two weeks. Within five years, Space. X expects to be producing more large rocket engines per year several hundred than all other rocket companies on the planet combined. Engine production costs will thus decline still more. Dragon production, depending on demand, is planned for a rate of one every six to eight weeks. The third reason high efficiency in flight is partly achieved by the standard methods of making the engines fuel efficient, with high thrust and low mass, and making the overall structural mass of each stage as low as possible. Musk has apparently done this better than anyone else. For example, the two side boosters have a fully fueled to empty mass ratio of 3. Additional flight efficiency is achieved by propellant cross feeding see below. The Falcon rockets also use a short upper stage which consists of a single Merlin engine to place the payload into orbit. Musk has been talking about creating a hydrogen oxygen upper stage, which could boost the total Falcon Heavy payload close to the minimum for a true heavy lift vehicle, or about 7. This engine could enter service before 2. Propellant cross feeding. Part of the Falcon Heavy flight efficiency is achieved by a method that has been known for decades, but no one else has been willing to attempt to implement it. This method is called propellant cross feeding. All three Falcon boosters use full thrust at takeoff to lift the massive rocket. During flight, the outer two stages pump part of their propellant into the center stage. They thus run out of propellant faster than you would expect, but the result is that the center core stage has almost a full load of propellant at separation where it is already at altitude and at speed. Unfortunately, very little information has been released on the cross feeding system to be used by the Falcon Heavy. It would only be used for payloads exceeding 5. The cross feeding scheme used by Space X apparently does not pump fuel into the tanks of the core stage. Instead, the three core stage engines next to each side booster are fed directly from the side boosters tanks. This is very similar to how the shuttles external tank feeds the shuttle main engines SMEs. In the case of the Falcon Heavy, of course, the two side boosters tanks are feeding propellant to 1. At some point after liftoff, of course, you do not need the full thrust of all 2. The core stage engines will then apparently be throttled down while the side stages continue to burn at full thrust. Presumably, only the center three engines in the core stage are using propellant from the core stages tanks. Thus, when the side stages separate, most of the core stages propellant is still there, and then all the core stage engines can burn at full thrust. Assuming that the core stage is going several thousand miles an hour at separation and is perhaps 3. Falcon 9 rocket starts its liftoff at separation.