Author Topic: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy  (Read 14182 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2547
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #80 on: 06/15/2017 08:02 PM »
There are two current options for oversized GSO commsats up to 11 tonnes: Ariane 5 ECA and DIVH. But DIVH costs far more than a commsat that size, so operators only have A5 ECA as a viable choice right now. With FH there will be 2 viable launch options, and with NG 3 viable options for GTO sats up to 11t.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 838
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #81 on: 06/15/2017 08:19 PM »
Little is known about the cost of the extra heavy DOD/NROL satellites but the launch cost seems to be a rounding error in the total budget cost. (The several billion, perhaps even double digit, estimate -each- that get thrown around.)
If those numbers are anywhere close to the truth cheap launch can't be a concern for the high end of the market.


What could NG be used for?
With the large fairing space infrastructure seems to be the thing. Expandable modules are nice but some parts are simply unwieldy. Looking pictures of ISS and MIR it seems that you could launch most modules with the bolt on accessories already in place. Almost 1 meter more radius is a whole lot of room.

Over sized satellites is another option but I doubt it. The commercial companies really like to have at least two launch vehicles for their platforms.

Moon landers and crew capsules are always an option. Still far fetched though.

Actually large fairings makes building those NRO GEO sats easier. Part of their cost is maintaining an industrial infrastructure for large unfurlable reflectors, and then manufacturing those reflectors. With a longer and larger fairing, simpler, less expensive solution could be envisioned.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #82 on: 06/15/2017 11:14 PM »
I was after physically oversized, utilizing the 7m fairing.
With another affordable 10t GTO class launcher and F9 at 8t heavier satellites may become more of an option. Unless all electric finally drops weights as long expected. - As always there are lots of trades to decide on.


No idea how much specialized technology is required for the folding antennas, or how much of it is kept under wraps. Since they seem to unfurl to ~100m diameter there will still be some folding even with a 7m fairing. More space obviously helps, as would more payload. (Which NG does not have at this time.)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4187
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #83 on: 06/16/2017 05:05 AM »


Actually large fairings makes building those NRO GEO sats easier. Part of their cost is maintaining an industrial infrastructure for large unfurlable reflectors, and then manufacturing those reflectors. With a longer and larger fairing, simpler, less expensive solution could be envisioned.

I remember reading that was one of the things the Shuttle was to promise by allowing a communications satellites to be partly assembled in LEO.
If they were not as contained by packaging a lot of the design becomes a lot easier and allowing them to use more standardized COTS parts vs designing one off components to make the mass/volume budget.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2017 05:06 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • California
  • Liked: 2628
  • Likes Given: 1650
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #84 on: 06/16/2017 10:44 AM »


Actually large fairings makes building those NRO GEO sats easier. Part of their cost is maintaining an industrial infrastructure for large unfurlable reflectors, and then manufacturing those reflectors. With a longer and larger fairing, simpler, less expensive solution could be envisioned.

I remember reading that was one of the things the Shuttle was to promise by allowing a communications satellites to be partly assembled in LEO.
If they were not as contained by packaging a lot of the design becomes a lot easier and allowing them to use more standardized COTS parts vs designing one off components to make the mass/volume budget.

But that also has to be weighed against transport complexity. Payloads that large will be difficult to transport.

Also, please don't fall into the trap of believing that larger and heavier payloads will somehow magically be cheaper. It was/is one of the main arguments of the Ares/SLS crowds, and it is based more on wishful thinking rather than any connection to reality.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4187
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #85 on: 06/16/2017 04:04 PM »
A payload not being able to fit on a standard tractor trailer or train is not a deal breaker since a barge or aircraft like the super guppy or beluga can be used.
Even use of the latter would be an almost trivial cost compared to the cost of a typical comsat.
As for over ground transport solutions already exist.
If you can save just a few million on the construction it would more than offset the cost of bulky transport.
Plus simpler deployment mechanisms would mean less chance for failure so you might even have savings on insurance.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2017 04:12 PM by Patchouli »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #86 on: 06/16/2017 04:29 PM »
The comsat owners want LV redundancy. They will only build satellite for 7m fairing if there are two LVs with this size fairing.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #87 on: 06/16/2017 04:36 PM »


Actually large fairings makes building those NRO GEO sats easier. Part of their cost is maintaining an industrial infrastructure for large unfurlable reflectors, and then manufacturing those reflectors. With a longer and larger fairing, simpler, less expensive solution could be envisioned.

I remember reading that was one of the things the Shuttle was to promise by allowing a communications satellites to be partly assembled in LEO.
If they were not as contained by packaging a lot of the design becomes a lot easier and allowing them to use more standardized COTS parts vs designing one off components to make the mass/volume budget.

But that also has to be weighed against transport complexity. Payloads that large will be difficult to transport.

Also, please don't fall into the trap of believing that larger and heavier payloads will somehow magically be cheaper. It was/is one of the main arguments of the Ares/SLS crowds, and it is based more on wishful thinking rather than any connection to reality.
In case of JWST not sure where all cost overruns went but having to squeeze it into 5m fairing probably didn't help. Extra savings of 8.4 fairing might of covered launch costs SLS if it had existed.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #88 on: 06/16/2017 10:15 PM »
In case of JWST not sure where all cost overruns went but having to squeeze it into 5m fairing probably didn't help. Extra savings of 8.4 fairing might of covered launch costs SLS if it had existed.

I think this is a case of [citation needed]. The sunshield has a size of 21 m 14 m so some degree of folding is required in any case. Whether the difference between 8.4m and 5.4m fairing is enough to make up for the SLS launch cost would have to been proven.

The second issue is, depending on how high one assumes the SLS launch cost, is whether certifying a 8.4m fairing for Ariane wouldn't be cheaper than paying for SLS.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2017 10:15 PM by calapine »

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: New Glenn vs Falcon Heavy
« Reply #89 on: 10/02/2017 02:14 PM »
Do New Glenn's wings imply that it will have a flat enough trajectory that it will re-enter as a hypersonic glider?


If so, is this an advantage over Falcon Heavy because it means the booster is a larger fraction* of the system mass, and a smaller fraction needs to be expended?


*Larger, because the New Glenn booster ends up providing a greater share of the dV to orbit, having to fly much faster horizontally than the Falcon Heavy boosters
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 02:31 PM by gin455res »

Tags: