Author Topic: Falcon Super Heavy  (Read 181938 times)

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #340 on: 09/18/2010 03:20 am »

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.


There is a biased opinion

A.  The FTS was all Spacex's fault.  They made a bad assumption and tried flying without an FTS.  Hence their work on an FTS got a late start.

B.  The cost increases go way back.

I think that SpaceX was somewhat justified in their assumption not to use FTS, despite the fact that it should have been discussed fully with  the range prior to making that decision.
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.
If SpaceX used Falcon 9 tech as a basis of a rocketplane designed to carry people - would they still be required to fly an FTS?

I think SpaceX were thinking they could usher in this world but didn't consider the fact that their rocket in it's present form is actually no different than all of the others launching from the range!



If that was their reasoning, then they are a lot more hubristic than I thought (and just to be clear, I don't think that *was* their reasoning). Just because a future reusable derivative of their design might be reliable enough to fly without FTS is no reason to believe that the initial tests of the expendable version would be. And especially no reason to believe that range safety could be talked into that.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2010 03:23 am by Jorge »
JRF

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #341 on: 09/18/2010 03:54 am »
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

How do yo get a regular airliner safe enough so they don't require every passenger to have a parachute? Lots of testing and flight experience.

Offline MP99

Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #342 on: 09/18/2010 07:16 am »
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

How do yo get a regular airliner safe enough so they don't require every passenger to have a parachute? Lots of testing and flight experience.

I'd guess there have been billions of air passengers over the history of commercial flight.

When there have been a similar number of passengers launched to space, I'd expect the safety record to be similarly good. Which just goes to mean, the two situations are completely incomparable in their maturity.



Apparently, the first commercial (but government subsidised) air passenger service started in 1914, made 172 flights, had several crashes (and a passenger lost seven teeth), but no fatalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg-Tampa_Airboat_Line
http://www.historynet.com/st-petersburgtampa-airboat-line-worlds-first-scheduled-airline-using-winged-aircraft.htm


So, we're somewhere ahead of that in terms of maturity.

But I believe the quoted LOV figures for EELV are still worse than 1:100, so still quite a way to go, too.

cheers, Martin

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #343 on: 09/18/2010 07:40 pm »
I'm confused.  Why are we discussing FTS and passengers on this thread? 

My understanding is that a Super Heavy lift vehicle would be much more effective if it were unmanned, and then have a smaller manned launcher (e.g. F9/Dragon) rendezvous with the Super Heavy payload in LEO. 

This way, you only pay for man-rating margins on the smaller launcher.  In other words, my understanding is that an unmanned SHLV would carry significantly more mass to orbit.

Wasn't Ares V supposed to be unmanned for this reason?

Am I missing something?
« Last Edit: 09/18/2010 07:41 pm by Dave G »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #344 on: 09/21/2010 01:11 pm »
I'm confused.  Why are we discussing FTS and passengers on this thread? 

My understanding is that a Super Heavy lift vehicle would be much more effective if it were unmanned, and then have a smaller manned launcher (e.g. F9/Dragon) rendezvous with the Super Heavy payload in LEO. 

This way, you only pay for man-rating margins on the smaller launcher.  In other words, my understanding is that an unmanned SHLV would carry significantly more mass to orbit.

Wasn't Ares V supposed to be unmanned for this reason?

Am I missing something?

I suspect that these upcoming larger rockets will also be man-rated.  For 3 reasons. 
1)  Increased reliability by definition. 
2)  Better margins = better odds of reusability.
3)  Now you can launch lot's of people at once if you want to (cheaper per seat to orbit).  Regardless of # of people, at least it provides the human option. 

SoaceX has talked time and again about reliability, safety, and the goals of  reusability and human expansion into space.  I think man-rating their bigger rockets would support these goals/criteria. 
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 04:06 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #345 on: 03/25/2013 06:40 pm »
9 cores each with one engine ( Merlin 2 ), except the center core with more than one Merlin 1D. No US.

For BLEO an EDS would be part of the payload.

The four corners separate first.
Then two others.
And finally the last two booster separate.
The core with one to three Merlin 1D's to orbit.

Could this even launch safely. There are concepts out there to combine multiple common cores together for a launch vehicle and shed the cores off to orbit.

Vertical assemble on pad with mobile assembly building.

Most likely a bad idea and would most likely be better to just go with a two stage like modern Sat INT-21 but all RP-1/LOX that could use the shuttle VAB and launch pad.

Something like the FXX concept.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27275.0

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #346 on: 03/25/2013 08:16 pm »
The nine-core idea has been tackled previously; IIRC, Jim replied quickly with

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31135319.jpg

after which it died. Things may have changed in the mean time of course.

Offline Hotblack Desiato

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Austria
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #347 on: 01/10/2016 10:48 am »
So, 5 years later (in this thread), in the light of working RTLS (at least it worked once) and spaceX telling that 30 flights are doable with a merlin 1D, I see some sort of optimization problem for spaceX: every launch would mean using and losing one second stage + 1 merlin 1D vac (in perfectly new condition).

30 flights à 13t LEO = 39 engines, 507mt, on average, that's 13mt per engine.


They can optimize with a FHR, which is suspected to have a LEO-capacity in the range of 25-35mt. But they still lose 1 second stage and one engine for every 27 engines in the first stage. At 30 possible flights for those 27 engines, that means 57 produced engines (and some spare parts) for 30 FHR flights.

30 flights à 25t LEO = 57 engines, 750mt, on average, that's 13.1mt per engine. (not much of a difference)
30 flights à 35t LEO = 57 engines, 1050mt, on average, that's 18.4mt per engine. (5mt more per engine)

So what happens if the engines get an overhaul after every 5, 10 or 15 flights, and are suddenly capable of performing 40, 60 or even 100 flights in a row? They'd need to optimize by using more booster stages. Even if 2 extra cores just add 10 mt LEO capacity (I suspect it is more, but the faster booster stages need to decelerate more too). 75 engines for 30 flights, 85 engines for 40 flights, 105 for 60 flights and 145 for 100 flights. (I'm calculating with the FHR best case of 35mt LEO and add 10mt. If it is more, the calculation would become even better).

30 flights à 45t LEO = 75 engines, 1350mt, on average, that's 18mt per engine.
40 flights à 45t LEO = 85 engines, 1800mt, on average, that's 21.2mt per engine.
60 flights à 45t LEO = 105 engines, 2700mt, on average, that's 25.7mt per engine.
100 flights à 45t LEO = 145 engines, 4500mt, on average, that's 31.0mt per engine. (corrected a calculation).

And that with a single payload with 45mt weight.

As a comparison, a FH in expendable mode is expected to launch up to 53mt, with 28 engines.

1 flights à 53t LEO = 28 engines, 53mt, on average, that's 1.28mt per engine.


So, I'm not calculating the extra effort of maintaining those engines, just their production.

And maybe it's possible to make that rocket (in a 5 core version, haven't calculated higher versions, as I don't know what a potential 7 or 9 core FSHR could possibly lift) more efficient by stretching the second stage, even on the expense of the first stage central core (shortening it or even leaving it away, and just using the strap on boosters as first stage).

Any ideas about it? I think that there is some point where they have to look at this topic, when reusable flight is routine.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2016 02:07 pm by Hotblack Desiato »

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #348 on: 01/10/2016 11:40 am »
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement). Adding two additional cores to the equation would not help a lot I think. There is simply not a market for such a vehicle. At least...yet.

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. This is not an Angara 5 equivalent which was designed from scratch to that configuration as part of the common core architecture it has.

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery. This could be feasible for the Falcon Heavy (which has the extra performance to off-set the very big payload penalties), but SpaceX decided to not go for it.

They will try full re-usability for their Mars architecture, if it materializes.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2016 11:45 am by Dante80 »

Offline Hotblack Desiato

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Austria
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #349 on: 01/10/2016 02:22 pm »
Yes, I know, as soon as they have any sort of second stage recovery, they can get below 1 engine per flight, raising the capacity to LEO to several 100 mt per engine. But as long as they don't have any second stage recovery, there is that optimization-problem.

And yes, I know that a 5-booster version of the FHR would require a new launch pad, and a new erector and ultimately provides new challenges. In this thread it was also discussed to use a 9 booster system, imagine 9 boosters flying back to launchsite or different barges on the sea. It would get crowded in the sky over cape canaveral.

SpaceX would furthermore need a nice amount of launch pads, because if they can squeeze 100 launches out of a bunch of boosters, they need a fairly tight timeframe to do the launches (one week between two launches with one rocket is the maximum). So if they maintain their current production of 1 first stage and raise the production rate of the second stage to something that matches 100 launches (5 first stage booster require 100 second stages, is 15 weeks, is 105 days, they need approx. one second stage per day, thus enough pads to maintain one launch per day).

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #350 on: 01/10/2016 06:43 pm »
My version of a FH supper heavy is start with a FHFT add crossfeed and then a Raptor 5m diameter US of same length (ISP 385) of about same weight as the M1DVAC-FT US, which yields if the 1st stage are driven to depletion and US close to depletion:

LEO - ~83mt
TLI - ~30.4mt
TMI- ~23mt

No need to get fancy for a significant amount of extra performance for those really big missions that might occur in next 10 years.

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #351 on: 01/10/2016 10:18 pm »
Yes, I know, as soon as they have any sort of second stage recovery, they can get below 1 engine per flight, raising the capacity to LEO to several 100 mt per engine. But as long as they don't have any second stage recovery, there is that optimization-problem.

I'm not so sure.  They would have a problem of optimizing total mass to orbit if they were just trying to fill orbital fuel depots or something, which allowed them to divide that mass up as they saw fit.  But the payloads they actually have come in discrete sizes, and don't like to travel together (the double payloads of Ariane 5 are more of a bug than a feature, commercially).  So a Falcon Superheavy would only really help them optimize profit per launch if there were payloads sized for it, of which there are few.  (Possibly some of the more extravagantly sized Bigelow modules?)

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #352 on: 01/10/2016 11:20 pm »
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement)....

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. .....

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery.....

Good points against a Super Heavy.

Yes, the evolution of the F9 into it's current class is making the business case for the FH more and more difficult I think.   The speculated capability to deliver near 6 tons to GTO is creeping into the sweet spot for revenue generation.  SpaceX should probably be trying to figure out how to be more competitive in the remaining payloads coming up for bid in this class, ( 5-7 ton) while still optimizing re-use options.    SpaceX does not seem to be in too big a rush or concerned about the schedule lag, as they don't really have ay payloads to launch.

While the re-usability is important long term, the current configuration still delivers less than stellar results when all 3 cores are RTLS or barge landed.   The penalties are pretty big.  The really impressive LEO or beyond numbers are achieved only when the center core gets expended, or when all cores are expended.  Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.   That is an awful lot of complex rocket sitting on the pad for the slight improvement over a single stick F9 expendable.

I think an interesting option would be to consider smaller boosters than that would enhance the margin of the center core, pushing it solidly into +6ton to GTO capacity, while giving the core more margin for barge landing.  Smaller boosters vs. the current FH configuration would also give S2 more weight margin, which might make the difference for reusability happening sooner, vs. waiting for a more advanced S2 engine to enable re-use.

The idea of a Super Heavy doesn't make any sense for anything that is going to be launched anytime in the next decade or more, and it pretty much a non starter to think of adding more engines and width to an already complex beast.  Anything "Super Heavy" from SpaceX will be based on the Raptor engine/BFR plans.

It's possibly into off topic territory , but here's my concept for smaller boosters for a "F9 Medium Heavy" that would push well past 6 tons to GTO and give more margin for barge return.  I'll argue that what make a rocket a "Super Heavy" is what is actually possible to build and fly.  This design might be more "Super" than some of the concepts that started this thread in 2010 with +50 engines in the configuration!

2 boosters, powered by 4 Merlin 1D FT engines, reducing engine count vs. current FH by 10.   Mass of each booster is around 85,000 kg, and burns out in 95 seconds.   The vehicle is past MaxQ when they jettison.   These smaller booster should also be able to be re-used.  I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters.   Empty booster weight should be able to be kept under 9000 kg to make this possible.  No drone ships or hoverslam for the boosters, but depending on payload, the core still do as it currently does, just more margin.

Here's a quick and dirty photo edit of the concept.  I basically shrunk the existing side cores by 54% for a representative look at the size.   Side booster are now around 30 meters tall, 2 meter core.

The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
« Last Edit: 01/11/2016 02:42 am by Stan-1967 »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #353 on: 01/11/2016 12:13 am »
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #354 on: 01/11/2016 01:47 am »
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?

Which people?   Maybe we can ask some of them.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #355 on: 01/11/2016 01:59 am »
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement)....

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. .....

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery.....

Good points against a Super Heavy.

Yes, the evolution of the F9 into it's current class is making the business case for the FH more and more difficult I think.   The speculated capability to deliver near 6 tons to GTO is creeping into the sweet spot for revenue generation.  SpaceX should probably be trying to figure out how to be more competitive in the remaining payloads coming up for bid in this class, ( 5-7 ton) while still optimizing re-use options.    SpaceX does not seem to be in too big a rush or concerned about the schedule lag, as they don't really have ay payloads to launch.

While the re-usability is important long term, the current configuration still delivers less than stellar results when all 3 cores are RTLS or barge landed.   The penalties are pretty big.  The really impressive LEO or beyond numbers are achieved only when the center core gets expended, or when all cores are expended.  Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.   That is an awful lot of complex rocket sitting on the pad for the slight improvement over a single stick F9 expendable.

I think an interesting option would be to consider smaller boosters than that would enhance the margin of the center core, pushing it solidly into +6ton to GTO capacity, while giving the core more margin for barge landing.  Smaller boosters vs. the current FH configuration would also give S2 more weight margin, which might make the difference for reusability happening sooner, vs. waiting for a more advanced S2 engine to enable re-use.

The idea of a Super Heavy doesn't make any sense for anything that is going to be launched anytime in the next decade or more, and it pretty much a non starter to think of adding more engines and width to an already complex beast.  Anything "Super Heavy" from SpaceX will be based on the Raptor engine/BFR plans.

It's possibly into off topic territory , but here's my concept for smaller boosters for a "F9 Medium Heavy" that would push well past 6 tons to GTO and give more margin for barge return.  I'll argue that what make a rocket a "Super Heavy" is what is actually possible to build and fly.  This design might be more "Super" than some of the concepts that started this thread in 2010 with +50 engines in the configuration!

2 boosters, powered by 4 Merlin 1D FT engines, reducing engine count vs. current FH by 10.   Mass of each booster is around 85,000 kg, and burns out in 95 seconds.   The vehicle is past MaxQ when they jettison.   These smaller booster should also be able to be re-used.  I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters.   Empty booster weight should be able to be kept under 9000 kg to make this possible.  No drone ships or hoverslam for the boosters, but depending on payload, the core still do as it currently does, just more margin.

Here's a quick and dirty photo edit of the concept.  I basically shrunk the existing side cores by 54% for a representative look at the size.   Side booster are now around 30 meters tall, 2 meter core.

The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
The use of smaller boosters does not make economic sense when reuse is considered. The small cost savings in manufacture is not reflected in much of any savings in refurbishment such that a full size set of boosters is almost the same cost as that of the smaller booster ones. Further decreasing the economies of scale on each of the booster sizes may also in total increase the costs such that no savings whatsoever would be had.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #356 on: 01/11/2016 02:08 am »
My version of a FH supper heavy is start with a FHFT add crossfeed and then a Raptor 5m diameter US of same length (ISP 385) of about same weight as the M1DVAC-FT US, which yields if the 1st stage are driven to depletion and US close to depletion:

LEO - ~83mt
TLI - ~30.4mt
TMI- ~23mt

No need to get fancy for a significant amount of extra performance for those really big missions that might occur in next 10 years.

This is the way to go... truly optimizes the existing cores and fixes the weakness of under-powered, low ISP second stage.  This is exactly what I expect to see when propellant shipments begin -- the second stage will be a reusable Methlox tanker in its first incarnation.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #357 on: 01/11/2016 02:50 am »
The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
How does this save large amounts of money per launch? Most of the costs of a launch of this are in the engines and the manufacture of the first stage cores. Making them different to manufacture from the center core doesn't save any money. The goal of anything new should be to significantly reduce the cost of getting things into space.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #358 on: 01/11/2016 02:57 am »
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #359 on: 01/11/2016 03:24 am »
The use of smaller boosters does not make economic sense when reuse is considered. The small cost savings in manufacture is not reflected in much of any savings in refurbishment such that a full size set of boosters is almost the same cost as that of the smaller booster ones. Further decreasing the economies of scale on each of the booster sizes may also in total increase the costs such that no savings whatsoever would be had.

I agree with some of that criticism.  Specifically the economics of starting a new production line for a smaller core size.  SpaceX ( Gwen S.) has been particular on this consideration of how she wants to run operations. (i.e 2 configurations only )   I think it would take the Air Force continuously selecting ULA's rockets over FH for heavy payloads to GEO to reconsider the FH at this point.   

Beyond the AF payloads, what else is out there to get onto the FH manifest?   That is where I disagree with your criticism that a small core does not make economic sense.  In the FH configuration, the center core is the same configuration as the single stick F9 yes?   The side boosters are an unique configuration ( left/right ) to match up to a core.   So with the evolved capability of the F9 FT, their does not appear to be much need for the FH & big boosters.  So where is the economics in that going? 

I think the economic benefits of the smaller & re-usable booster are multiple:
1.  All of the performance of the smaller boosters goes into the pushing the center core.   An additional point of the edited photo is to think about how much of the performance of the 9 engine F9 cores goes into accelerating it's own mass, and mass of fuel needed for the RTLS. A much smaller booster can deliver the same benefit if it's not paying the RTLS penalties.

2.  Re-use is not abandoned, it is simplified.  Separating around 95s into flight, they will be within 10-20km of the launch site, and will probably not leave the atmosphere at apogee. It's a more benign return to the ground vs. RTLS.  This favors low cost by enabling re-use.

3.  Reliability has it's own economy.  FH may prove otherwise, but 27 engines is a lot of potential for things to be delayed or go wrong.  Delayed launches will cost SpaceX lost payloads to competition.  There is nothing economic about maintaining a core production line without a market paying for it.

4.  The small booster are candidates to be used on launches that would otherwise be launched on a single stick F9-E or F9R to expand the payload to greater than 6 tons to GTO with more margin for returning the core.  Their are more of these launches on the current manifest, or potential new payload wins, than their are payloads for FH.  Basically they have backwards utility into the F9 single stick configurations.   If they can be proven re-usable, they will be much less expensive than full F9 side cores.

I think I may see the "gap" for the F9 family is in the "Medium Heavy + re-use" paradigm,  because the FH seems to offer not much benefit unless it is operated in partial or wholly expendable mode. 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0