Author Topic: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread  (Read 566135 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #40 on: 04/06/2011 03:42 pm »
What existing ultra-heavy payloads?  The only payloads I'm aware of that would require the Falcon Heavy's capabilities are Bigelow modules larger than the BA-330 -- which hasn't flown yet -- and NASA HSF payloads.  None of these really qualifies as "existing."  To quote from the press conference,

Anything that currently flies on a rocket more than $100m is a customer.
Atlas V 5xx, Proton, Ariane5 are all in the same price-class.

I wouldn't have thought that payloads which can be flown on existing vehicles qualify as "ultra-heavy," although only FinalFrontier can say definitively what he meant.  Falcon Heavy may attract payloads from existing vehicles and fly them without using its full capability or it might fly multiple payloads at once.  That's different from lofting  payloads heaver than those which existing vehicles can carry.

When a rocket has lots of capacity to spare people always find a way to use it.  They can just double or triple up on the number of standard sized satellites launched at once.  This is nothing new- look at Ariane 5 when it came out with more than twice the standard com sat capacity.

This argument is not new.  If you look at the trends you will see that com sat size behaves like a gas over long enough time scales.  They grow to fill the capacity available, or more exactly they grow to fill out a specific capacity per dollar range.  Evan Ariane 5 is having this problem, the only coms sats able to double up on it now are on the smaller end of the com sat size range these days.  This is why the Europeans have either recently upgraded or are working on capacity upgrades for the Ariane 5.

The FH performing as advertised, or even if the true cost numbers are significantly more (double to tripple) than advertised, is well within that sweet capacity per dollar range that encourages growth in com sat size.

Satellites might grow to make fuller use of FH's capability, but that doesn't address the question of what "existing" ultra-heavy payloads there are.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #41 on: 04/06/2011 03:50 pm »
When a 53 ton launcher is cheaper than a 20 ton launcher, people will buy the first one to launch their 20 ton payload.

There's no need for ultra-heavy payloads to justify Falcon Heavy.

I suspect this is exactly what will happen. All of the FH's payloads will not be classifiable as "heavy" payloads for some time to come. Most of them will be re-manifested from existing LV's. Like he said: 1/3 the price. So what if FH's capacity isn't fully utilized at first? He'll gain flight history by flying it as often as he can, even if it's only with a couple of 15 ton payloads at a time.

You just wait until somebody that had planned to fly on the Atlas or Delta pulls their MOU and manifests on the FH! THAT'S when the ULA execs *might* get their head out of their backsides and smell the coffee on the tray that is rapidly being wheeled away from them!

While the FH's capacity is being under-used and the HLV is gaining a track record, REAL heavy payloads will begin to show up. It will just take time for that to happen because nobody's got one yet, because there hasn't been a HLV to fly them on. Not so (soon) anymore.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #42 on: 04/06/2011 03:55 pm »
When a 53 ton launcher is cheaper than a 20 ton launcher, people will buy the first one to launch their 20 ton payload.

There's no need for ultra-heavy payloads to justify Falcon Heavy.

I suspect this is exactly what will happen. All of the FH's payloads will not be classifiable as "heavy" payloads for some time to come. Most of them will be re-manifested from existing LV's. Like he said: 1/3 the price. So what if FH's capacity isn't fully utilized at first? He'll gain flight history by flying it as often as he can, even if it's only with a couple of 15 ton payloads at a time.

You just wait until somebody that had planned to fly on the Atlas or Delta pulls their MOU and manifests on the FH! THAT'S when the ULA execs *might* get their head out of their backsides and smell the coffee on the tray that is rapidly being wheeled away from them!

While the FH's capacity is being under-used and the HLV is gaining a track record, REAL heavy payloads will begin to show up. It will just take time for that to happen because nobody's got one yet, because there hasn't been a HLV to fly them on. Not so (soon) anymore.

And we should remember that not every payload that specifically needs an FH has to be 50+ tons "heavy."  When a group of scientists got together and studied possible scientific uses of a large HLV, the result, which surprised a lot of people, was that volume was the limiting factor in a majority of the mission scenarios considered.  Time and again 100% of the payload fairing capacity was used, while the mass capacity was never fully consumed.  I'm referencing some report that came out a while ago, but I can't remember its name- anyone have it?

If the aerodynamics allow, I could see some scientists being very happy with a 10-15 ton payload fairing that is absolutely huge, holding a 35-40 ton payload.  These numbers are out of thin air- I've no idea how much payload fairings weigh, or how to factor in the fact that they are jettisoned well before orbit.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 03:59 pm by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #43 on: 04/06/2011 03:57 pm »
Satellites might grow to make fuller use of FH's capability, but that doesn't address the question of what "existing" ultra-heavy payloads there are.

Right now there aren't any. But that doesn't mean that the FH's capacity won't be utilized. See my post above. It's just cheaper to fly on the FH, so re-manifesting *will* happen.

There are some potential payloads that are not so far along in their designs that thay can't be altered to be heavier in order to loosen the constraints imposed on them by the existing capacities of either mass or PLF size. I speculate that we'll actually see a couple of those before we see one that was designed from the beginning for the new capability.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that FH won't fly because there are no heavy payloads yet. At $1,000 a pound to LEO who cares if there's still room left for more onboard when it launches? Seriously. At 1/3 the price - who cares?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 03:59 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #44 on: 04/06/2011 04:10 pm »
Can you get to GTO from Vandenberg without dropping stages on land?

Online MP99

Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #45 on: 04/06/2011 04:37 pm »
According to http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf (page 10) F9 block II uses Merlin 1C at 1,125,000 lbf (sea level), probably what MP99 is calling the Merlin 1C+. This seems to be the basis of the 10,450 kg from http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

F9 block II would have used M1C+ at 9x 125,000 = 1,125,000 lbf (SL).

Current F9 is block I at around 9x 95,000 = 850,000 lbf (SL). I believe Elon mentioned that 95,000 figure in his presentation yesterday.

See Ed Kyle's excellent F9 page at http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html.


Presumably at some time they had planned to upgrade to using Merlin 1D at 1,250,000 lbf

SpaceX's F9 page lists what you get when you enhance today's F9 with Merlin 1C+ (or M1C block II), resulting in F9 block II.

Now that M1C+ plans have been dropped, F9 will be enhanced with M1D instead, and that new config will become the new block II. We'd never seen plans for this config before yesterday.

Gang three together for FH.


now Merlin 1D has come in at 1,400,000 lbf.

No, 140,000 each x9 = 1,260,000 lbf (SL) stage total, which is a ~50% increase over F9 block I's 850 klbf.

NB the FH page lists thrust as 3.8m lbf, which is 3x 1.26m lbf as expected.

cheers, Martin

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #46 on: 04/06/2011 04:38 pm »
A set of questions for the experts like Jim:

The cross-feed would seem to require at least ten valves:
One RP-1 and LOX pair that opens the flow from the central core before staging
Two RP-1 and LOX pairs in the central core, one on the lines from each side booster that close before staging
Two RP-1 and LOX pairs, one in each side booster that close before staging so that fuel and oxidzer don't spill at separation.

Does this seem right?
What kind of valves would be appropriate and how available are they?
How much would these systems weigh?
How much of the increase in first stage length would be needed for them and the associated cross-feed plumbing?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #47 on: 04/06/2011 04:41 pm »
Well, if Falcon Heavy performes anywhere near what is advertised (53mT to LEO, or even 45mT to LEO), then that means that the proposed Falcon X is redundant. There is no longer any justification for it that I can see.

One can also ask if there is even any interest in developping the Merlin-2, since having a cluster of such high-performing Merlin-1Ds would guarantee engine-out capability.

The most logical further upgrade to FH would be the FHR with a Raptor upper-stage and maybe a larger fairing. Such a rocket would be in the 50-60mT to LEO range, depending on true Merlin 1D and cross-feed performance.

The next step after that could indeed be a FXX-type... Although that could concievably also be a first-stage F9 cluster with a new upper stage rather than a monolithic rocket (it would require a Merlin 2, though, because otherwise the number of 1st stage engines would be horrific).

Why would the Falcon X be redundant?  I would think there's a far better case for the FX than the FXX.  The FX would be a modular vehicle that gets you medium to heavy lift and super heavy lift.  The FXX would be a unique vehicle, super-heavy lift only.  No commonality other than the M2 engines.
But you could do a FX-Super Heavy 5-wide body core LV for when you need that super heavy lift capability.  Which you won't very often.  When you don't, you can fly single and 3-core FX's.  YOu can still do F9's for smaller payloads and Dragon to LEO missions. 

Either way, you'd have two LV cores you are making.  But with FX rather than FXX, you have more flexibility, and would likely do a lot more FX cores per year than you would FXX cores. 

(And as an interesting side note, I wonder if you could fly a 2-core FX for some "in between" capability?  Yea, it's an off center load, but so is the Shuttle and so was Engergia and they both flew.  As long as the engines could gimbal enough to compensate)

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #48 on: 04/06/2011 04:49 pm »
Why would the Falcon X be redundant?
Its payload range is covered by Falcon Heavy
Quote

Either way, you'd have two LV cores you are making.  But with FX rather than FXX, you have more flexibility, and would likely do a lot more FX cores per year than you would FXX cores. 
Might as wel make a Falcon XX, since you are not going to use Falcon X if you got Falcon Heavy. Developing a Falcon super heavy with 5 Falcon 9 cores might be the easiest.

Anyways, Falcon X and XX are in noway final.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #49 on: 04/06/2011 05:18 pm »
Why would the Falcon X be redundant?
Its payload range is covered by Falcon Heavy
Quote

Either way, you'd have two LV cores you are making.  But with FX rather than FXX, you have more flexibility, and would likely do a lot more FX cores per year than you would FXX cores. 
Might as wel make a Falcon XX, since you are not going to use Falcon X if you got Falcon Heavy. Developing a Falcon super heavy with 5 Falcon 9 cores might be the easiest.

Anyways, Falcon X and XX are in noway final.


I'd think the FX would make the F9H redundant.  And FX gives you growth options that F9 doesn't.  There's still a much larger potential for FX cores than FXX cores.
The problem with F9SH is volume. You get mass to LEO that might approach 70mt range, but you are putting a PLF on that narrow F9 core.  I think you'll run out of PLF size before you max out your mass.

But anyway, FX and FXX are really speculation, as you said.  Sorry to get OT with that and away from just F9H specfically.  I'll speculate on a different thread.   :-)

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #50 on: 04/06/2011 05:38 pm »
If they can ever get ti 10 FH launches a year you start losing the point of really big new HHLV. If they can get boosters to be reusable they can further drop prices.  If FH gets anywhere close to paper price and performance... its all we'll need for a long long time.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #51 on: 04/06/2011 05:39 pm »
Satellites might grow to make fuller use of FH's capability, but that doesn't address the question of what "existing" ultra-heavy payloads there are.

Right now there aren't any. But that doesn't mean that the FH's capacity won't be utilized. See my post above. It's just cheaper to fly on the FH, so re-manifesting *will* happen.

There are some potential payloads that are not so far along in their designs that thay can't be altered to be heavier in order to loosen the constraints imposed on them by the existing capacities of either mass or PLF size. I speculate that we'll actually see a couple of those before we see one that was designed from the beginning for the new capability.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that FH won't fly because there are no heavy payloads yet. At $1,000 a pound to LEO who cares if there's still room left for more onboard when it launches? Seriously. At 1/3 the price - who cares?

I don't disagree that Falcon Heavy may be attractive even for relatively light payloads.  All I was trying to get at was whether there are or are not any existing "ultra-heavy" payloads.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #52 on: 04/06/2011 06:05 pm »
The problem with F9SH is volume. You get mass to LEO that might approach 70mt range, but you are putting a PLF on that narrow F9 core.  I think you'll run out of PLF size before you max out your mass.

You could just make a longer PLF or pod. Think the pod could do re-entry with a small mass fraction of the payload.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #53 on: 04/06/2011 07:13 pm »
Can FH put a payload on GEO? Because even Ariane 5 only goes to GTO. A payload that expected to be put in GTO put in GEO has 5 to 7 years more fuel. So that's other way to use the extra capacity. What I'm not sure is if it actually can put them into GEO.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #54 on: 04/06/2011 07:15 pm »
Can FH put a payload on GEO? Because even Ariane 5 only goes to GTO. A payload that expected to be put in GTO put in GEO has 5 to 7 years more fuel. So that's other way to use the extra capacity. What I'm not sure is if it actually can put them into GEO.
It can, but the resulting payload is less than an Atlas V.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #55 on: 04/06/2011 08:06 pm »
Can FH put a payload on GEO? Because even Ariane 5 only goes to GTO. A payload that expected to be put in GTO put in GEO has 5 to 7 years more fuel. So that's other way to use the extra capacity. What I'm not sure is if it actually can put them into GEO.
It can, but the resulting payload is less than an Atlas V.
And there is where price is a factor. Great LEO but horrible high energy, should be unbeatable for LEO (may be too big), the question is at what energy does it becomes too expensive.

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #56 on: 04/06/2011 08:09 pm »
Can FH put a payload on GEO? Because even Ariane 5 only goes to GTO. A payload that expected to be put in GTO put in GEO has 5 to 7 years more fuel. So that's other way to use the extra capacity. What I'm not sure is if it actually can put them into GEO.
It can, but the resulting payload is less than an Atlas V.

Falcon Heavy can make a 30klb TMI. Atlas V 551 launches less than 20klb to GTO.

How is this less?
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #57 on: 04/06/2011 08:16 pm »
Can FH put a payload on GEO? Because even Ariane 5 only goes to GTO. A payload that expected to be put in GTO put in GEO has 5 to 7 years more fuel. So that's other way to use the extra capacity. What I'm not sure is if it actually can put them into GEO.
It can, but the resulting payload is less than an Atlas V.

Falcon Heavy can make a 30klb TMI. Atlas V 551 launches less than 20klb to GTO.

How is this less?
TMI is not GTO. Also, the 551 is not the highest end Atlas either, the 552* is.  And in addition, Atlas's higher isp engine with more restart capacity means that low-energy transfer maneuvers are now an option while the F9 with it's weaker isp and limited restart capacity just cannot match.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #58 on: 04/06/2011 08:23 pm »
TMI is not GTO. Also, the 551 is not the highest end Atlas either, the 552* is.  And in addition, Atlas's higher isp engine with more restart capacity means that low-energy transfer maneuvers are now an option while the F9 with it's weaker isp and limited restart capacity just cannot match.

TMI requires more DeltaV than GTO.
Its 2.5km/s for GTO versus 3.8km/s for TMI

If you can launch 15tons to TMI, you could launch more to GTO.
Atlas V Heavy cannot even launch 15 tons to GTO. Let alone more than that to TMI.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread
« Reply #59 on: 04/06/2011 08:26 pm »
TMI is not GTO. Also, the 551 is not the highest end Atlas either, the 552* is.  And in addition, Atlas's higher isp engine with more restart capacity means that low-energy transfer maneuvers are now an option while the F9 with it's weaker isp and limited restart capacity just cannot match.

TMI requires more DeltaV than GTO.
Its 2.5km/s for GTO versus 3.8km/s for TMI

If you can launch 15tons to TMI, you could launch more to GTO.
Atlas V Heavy cannot even launch 15 tons to GTO. Let alone more than that to TMI.
If you do a direct launch, of course.  But the DEC offers low-energy transfer capability, something the Merlin-Vac does not.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1