Author Topic: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability  (Read 12563 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10294
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 727
SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« on: 11/18/2021 06:07 am »
Strangely enough, the User Guide omits payload capacity. Some payload masses are published, but some are not.

Max capability of 22 tons to LEO has been cited, but F9 maxes out at half that for ISS missions, so the 22 tons must be for expendable flights to 28 degrees, very low.

Is there a decent source that can make sense of the available payload mass numbers, and that provides what is missing from the Users Guide?

Online M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Liked: 2930
  • Likes Given: 510
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #1 on: 11/18/2021 06:43 am »
Strangely enough, the User Guide omits payload capacity. Some payload masses are published, but some are not.

Max capability of 22 tons to LEO has been cited, but F9 maxes out at half that for ISS missions, so the 22 tons must be for expendable flights to 28 degrees, very low.

Is there a decent source that can make sense of the available payload mass numbers, and that provides what is missing from the Users Guide?

I believe the heaviest demonstrated payload mass has been around 15-16 tons for Starlink launches, which includes booster landing. So by default this proves that maximum expendable payload mass will be quite a bit higher than that.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2021 06:43 am by M.E.T. »

Offline vaporcobra

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #2 on: 11/18/2021 07:10 am »
Definitely annoying but it's been the reality of SpaceX for years. NASA LSP's ELVPerf tool (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx) has a lot of good info for Falcon 9 and some for Falcon Heavy to high-energy destinations. To GTO, we also have a slide from a SpaceX presentation at IAC 2018.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • uk
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #3 on: 11/18/2021 07:27 am »
The Dragon is about 13 tonnes to 51.6°.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48882
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82695
  • Likes Given: 37217
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #4 on: 08/28/2022 05:34 am »
From today’s Starlink launch:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1563760585363185664

Quote
Squeezing extra performance out of Falcon 9 – almost at 17 metric tons to an actual useful orbit with booster & fairing reusable!

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #5 on: 08/28/2022 05:36 pm »
What's the price for a 'no frills' F9 launch these days?
With the new max demonstrated payload, how does the $/kg for F9 compare to those old 90s RLV and SSTO proposals?

Given inflation since the 90s I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable or better.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25278
  • Likes Given: 12124
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #6 on: 08/28/2022 09:30 pm »
What's the price for a 'no frills' F9 launch these days?
With the new max demonstrated payload, how does the $/kg for F9 compare to those old 90s RLV and SSTO proposals?

Given inflation since the 90s I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable or better.
last I heard, $50 million is roughly what the going price was for cheapest launch. At 16.7mt, that’s $3000/kg to LEO.

In 1997, Goldin said Venturestar would enable $1000/lb. So $2200/kg. Or $3000/kg in today’s money.

So F9 equals the SSTO RLV projections for offered price (which you might need to bargain hard, for, including maybe having a lot of launches). SpaceX says the internal full cost is less than $30m, so SpaceX is internally beating it, and getting a significant profit.
« Last Edit: 08/28/2022 09:36 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3160
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #7 on: 08/31/2022 03:37 pm »
What's the price for a 'no frills' F9 launch these days?
With the new max demonstrated payload, how does the $/kg for F9 compare to those old 90s RLV and SSTO proposals?

Given inflation since the 90s I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable or better.
last I heard, $50 million is roughly what the going price was for cheapest launch. At 16.7mt, that’s $3000/kg to LEO.

In 1997, Goldin said Venturestar would enable $1000/lb. So $2200/kg. Or $3000/kg in today’s money.

So F9 equals the SSTO RLV projections for offered price (which you might need to bargain hard, for, including maybe having a lot of launches). SpaceX says the internal full cost is less than $30m, so SpaceX is internally beating it, and getting a significant profit.

The latest F9 performance of 16.7 MT makes me question where they are squeezing out this performance?

How did they get more out of the MVac?  Did they cool the propellants more?  Turn up the throttle?

It's jaw dropping what they are doing with the F9.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25278
  • Likes Given: 12124
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #8 on: 08/31/2022 03:39 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2022 03:43 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #9 on: 08/31/2022 04:05 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.
Throttling through max-Q?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:24 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 800
  • Likes Given: 2623
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #10 on: 08/31/2022 04:26 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.

I had noticed recently that fairing separation is nearly simultaneous with second stage engine ignition.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3160
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #11 on: 08/31/2022 04:28 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.

Thanks.

I've wondered if they are holding higher G loads on both stages before throttling the engines down as well.  A few tenths of a G over a few minutes would add up.

They are doing fairing separation so much sooner than they do in commercial payloads.

Benefits of a high flight rate for internal payloads, squeeze out a few seconds here or there add up when pulling 5 G's at the end of the flight.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #12 on: 09/01/2022 03:01 pm »
Scott Manley's video on the new payload record also suggests that F9US / Merlin Vacuum may have 7% higher thrust than previously, from analysis of the telemetry numbers from SpaceX's video.

If so, presumably testing on Starlink launches.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:24 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48882
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82695
  • Likes Given: 37217
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #13 on: 09/05/2022 06:06 am »
Discussion by NSF’s Alex on later LOX loading:

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566601586012524546

Quote
Keeping an eye today for any potential changes to the Falcon 9 launch countdown sequence. Last launch had LOX load wrapped up later than usual. This is in order to keep LOX being loaded as late as possible and helps keep it as cold as possible much closer to launch.

twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566602157436149762

Quote
Which in turn means an improvement in performance. More mass of propellant in the tanks for no added dry mass means more delta-v available. Denser propellant also means more flow rate into the engine which largely means more thrust.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566602376051580928

Quote
The colder temperatures bring its own issues though, not just because of the COPVs inside the LOX tanks as we saw back in 2016 with Amos 6 but also with how you manage a propellant that is denser and, most likely, more viscous.

twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566602616938848256

Quote
Viscosity at colder temperatures is of special importance with kerosene for example, it may actually make the engines underperform as it is harder to push through the pumps if it's more viscous.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566602846358872064

Quote
All in all, this is a careful and gradual process that SpaceX is now doing on their Starlink missions and will for sure mean they'll gather even more data into how to manage cold propellants at temperatures not previously handled by more traditional US launch companies.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1566609098170310656

Quote
Yep this is the late LOX load sequence

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #14 on: 09/05/2022 11:53 am »
Scott Manley's video on the new payload record also suggests that F9US / Merlin Vacuum may have 7% higher thrust than previously, from analysis of the telemetry numbers from SpaceX's video.

If so, presumably testing on Starlink launches.
Updating this, another of his videos seems to suggest that they are merely delaying throttle down at the end of the burn, rather than an increase in headline thrust levels.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:25 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #15 on: 09/05/2022 02:22 pm »
What's the price for a 'no frills' F9 launch these days?
With the new max demonstrated payload, how does the $/kg for F9 compare to those old 90s RLV and SSTO proposals?

Given inflation since the 90s I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable or better.
last I heard, $50 million is roughly what the going price was for cheapest launch.
Has anyone heard $50M recently? I think IPXE (contracted pre-covid, launched late 2021) was the last flight to fly at that price. Special/unusual circumstances included competitively bidding against Pegasus XL.

More generally, Shotwell claimed SpaceX was only offering a 10% used discount back in late 2016, a discount that may no longer be offered now that flight-proven booster use is so well proven that SpaceX is willing to use a new booster on a Starlink mission. There might be a small discount for RTLS flights, otherwise the posted $67M seems to be the going rate for a no-frills ASDS flight profile.

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 968
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #16 on: 09/05/2022 03:51 pm »
Has anyone heard $50M recently? I think IPXE (contracted pre-covid, launched late 2021) was the last flight to fly at that price. Special/unusual circumstances included competitively bidding against Pegasus XL.

SpaceX raised their prices by about 10% earlier this year, so by now those launches should be more like $55M.

I'll also note that the launch contract for IXPE was cheaper than that, at $42M, including five mission-unique services.  The $50.3M cost often quoted, was NASA's cost for launching, which included various NASA-internal costs.  See this message in the IXPE launch thread.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3160
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #17 on: 09/05/2022 04:12 pm »
Has anyone heard $50M recently? I think IPXE (contracted pre-covid, launched late 2021) was the last flight to fly at that price. Special/unusual circumstances included competitively bidding against Pegasus XL.

SpaceX raised their prices by about 10% earlier this year, so by now those launches should be more like $55M.

I'll also note that the launch contract for IXPE was cheaper than that, at $42M, including five mission-unique services.  The $50.3M cost often quoted, was NASA's cost for launching, which included various NASA-internal costs.  See this message in the IXPE launch thread.

Falcon 9 seems to be winning a lot of the launches that come up.  So it’s still cheaper and/or a better service (schedule) so there is no reason to leave money on the table if you’re SpaceX.

They spent a lot of time and money making the F9/FH into the vehicles they are so may as well recover that investment.

About payload capacity, since this is the purpose for the thread.  I find it amazing that one vehicle can win such a wide range of payloads.  As we have seen the F9 can be a beast to LEO and yet still has flights for payloads under a few thousand kilos.

All that time companies were providing different sized launches, all they needed was the ability to reuse them.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline mandrewa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 8436
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #18 on: 09/05/2022 04:32 pm »
What's the price for a 'no frills' F9 launch these days?
With the new max demonstrated payload, how does the $/kg for F9 compare to those old 90s RLV and SSTO proposals?

Given inflation since the 90s I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable or better.
last I heard, $50 million is roughly what the going price was for cheapest launch. At 16.7mt, that’s $3000/kg to LEO.

In 1997, Goldin said Venturestar would enable $1000/lb. So $2200/kg. Or $3000/kg in today’s money.

So F9 equals the SSTO RLV projections for offered price (which you might need to bargain hard, for, including maybe having a lot of launches). SpaceX says the internal full cost is less than $30m, so SpaceX is internally beating it, and getting a significant profit.

That's a great comparison but you're understating the inflation.  $2200/kg in 1997 dollars is equal to $4061/kg in 2022 dollars.  That's from the inflation statistics from the United States government.  But I seem to recall that NASA has it's own inflation numbers that it uses for comparing rockets across time because there are issues with the nominal inflation rate which may not be a particularly good description of what's happening in the aerospace industry.

But if we take the nominal official inflation rate, the Falcon 9 is 23% cheaper than Daniel Goldin's estimate for what the Venturestar might, optimistically, deliver.  (And I used $55 million for the price of a Falcon 9 launch in this calculation.)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6480
  • Liked: 4592
  • Likes Given: 5221
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #19 on: 09/05/2022 06:13 pm »
Quote
Keeping an eye today for any potential changes to the Falcon 9 launch countdown sequence. Last launch had LOX load wrapped up later than usual. This is in order to keep LOX being loaded as late as possible and helps keep it as cold as possible much closer to launch.

Which in turn means an improvement in performance. More mass of propellant in the tanks for no added dry mass means more delta-v available. Denser propellant also means more flow rate into the engine which largely means more thrust.

Here is a comparison of the webcast telemetry from Starlink 4-27 and 4-20.

Although 4-20 may have utilized a late load of propellant, there was no evidence of the increased acceleration evident in 4-27 or 4-23. The 4-20 booster landed some 40km less distance downrange, velocity at MECO was some 43m/s less, and peak S2 acceleration was 3.8g vs 4g for 4-27.

Overall, it was a much more relaxed affair.
While it is logical to associate the change in procedure (late fueling) with these goals (colder LOX and increased performance) this does not seem to have been the case.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #20 on: 09/05/2022 08:10 pm »

About payload capacity, since this is the purpose for the thread.  I find it amazing that one vehicle can win such a wide range of payloads.  As we have seen the F9 can be a beast to LEO and yet still has flights for payloads under a few thousand kilos.

I wonder how much of the cost of those low-mass launches is the Merlin that's expended on the upper stage. The MVac is much harder to make than the SL version.

I wonder if eventually they might fit an older SL Merlin on F9US with very low mass payloads instead?

The new SL engine added to the rotation would be cheaper to make, and could serve multiple launches.

Cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:15 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 1623
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #21 on: 09/05/2022 08:32 pm »
MP99, good posting.  You could improve it by losing the Tapatalk spam. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8900
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10259
  • Likes Given: 11981
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #22 on: 09/05/2022 08:46 pm »
About payload capacity, since this is the purpose for the thread.  I find it amazing that one vehicle can win such a wide range of payloads.  As we have seen the F9 can be a beast to LEO and yet still has flights for payloads under a few thousand kilos.
I wonder how much of the cost of those low-mass launches is the Merlin that's expended on the upper stage. The MVac is much harder to make than the SL version.

Why do you think the Merlin Vacuum is "much harder to make"? Do you mean it costs more? Or that it takes more labor? Or what?

Quote
I wonder if eventually they might fit an older SL Merlin on F9US with very low mass payloads instead?

Vacuum rocket engines work differently than sea level ones, so even if the expansion ratio of the nozzle wasn't an issue (it is), then a sea level Merlin engine likely would fail while trying to operate in space.

Plus, if this were at all a possibility, then SpaceX likely would have tried it already...  ;)

Quote
The new SL engine added to the rotation would be cheaper to make, and could serve multiple launches.

You seem to assume that a Merlin Vacuum costs significantly more than a sea level Merlin 1D. Where is this assumption coming from, because in some aspects the Merlin Vacuum is a more simple engine.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline rpapo

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2022 11:47 am »
Why do you think the Merlin Vacuum is "much harder to make"? Do you mean it costs more? Or that it takes more labor? Or what?
Not that I agree with the notion that the MVac must be much more expensive than the standard Merlin, but IIRC, from the early teething issues (Cassiope, etc), it would seem to me that though there are vacuum-specific issues, there are or were also issues related to radiative heat dissipation to space.  That is, some things were freezing.

So, even if the motor is only used once, it still requires more special treatment than simply giving it a bigger nozzle.  Whether that requires a lot more money is another question entirely.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25278
  • Likes Given: 12124
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2022 01:50 pm »
I actually agree MVac probably is significantly more expensive than the sea level version. It’s an underrated part of Falcon 9’s success.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3160
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #25 on: 09/06/2022 02:34 pm »
I actually agree MVac probably is significantly more expensive than the sea level version. It’s an underrated part of Falcon 9’s success.

I love that the MVac is such a beast for thrust compared to other US. 

Also very impressive that they can control it so precisely.  I always love seeing the 1-2 second burns of the US and then nail it. 

Seems the MVac thrust is like filling a coffee cup with a firehose and nailing it!
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8900
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10259
  • Likes Given: 11981
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #26 on: 09/06/2022 02:40 pm »
I actually agree MVac probably is significantly more expensive than the sea level version. It’s an underrated part of Falcon 9’s success.

The Merlin Vacuum is built to do the job that SpaceX requires, which was really the point I making in response to the other poster. There is no evidence that SpaceX is unhappy with the Merlin Vacuum, and it has a stellar record.

There is no reason to make any changes at this point, especially considering that Starship is supposed to replace Falcon 9/H not too far in the future, so SpaceX would gain nothing by making changes to a reliable engine.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1185
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #27 on: 09/06/2022 06:11 pm »

I wonder how much of the cost of those low-mass launches is the Merlin that's expended on the upper stage. The MVac is much harder to make than the SL version.

I wonder if eventually they might fit an older SL Merlin on F9US with very low mass payloads instead?

The new SL engine added to the rotation would be cheaper to make, and could serve multiple launches.

Cheers, Martin

I don't think the showstopper issues with this idea are that Merlin 1-D can't operate effectively in a vacuum, it already does that when it does boostback & entry burns.  Long loiter times between restarts is a different issue, but much of the thermal management work has been done for the existing Falcon 9 S2.

I think the showstopper is that there is no market for this.  This configuration would not enable serving new launches.  I think your primary error is in that speculative assumption.

 You are basically pushing the performance of F9 back towards V1.0 days with Merlin 1-C, so what are the implications of this?  What do you lose with an F9 when you cut performance of the upper stage to something of similar thrust, but around 10% lower ISP ( 311s)

1.  Launch +45 Starlink satellites with a down range landing  ( this is the bulk of F9's manifest)  At best you may get half of that mass to LEO, & maybe have to expend the booster
2.  Launch rideshares with accompanying Starlinks.  Might have to choose between expending the booster, or removing Starlinks from Transporter missions.
3.  CRS missions won't benefit from it.  Re-use may also be non-viable
4.  Not viable for crewed missions.  Period.  Never going to re-qualify this mod for crewed flight.
5 What is left?  GTO, other high energy missions?  Out of the question for this lower performance configuration.

Looking back at the capability development of F9, it is all intertwined between upgraded Merlin 1-D's & MVac working together.  The combined performance closed the gap for creating the margins for booster re-use on most all mission up to 5 tons to GTO.  Without that efficient MVac carrying payloads to obit, the booster wouldn't have the margins to be re-used because it would have to make up the shortfall in DV that the upper stage lacks with a boilerplate Merlin 1D. 

All the above is what made a subscale Raptor powered S2 such fun to speculate about a few years ago.  That would at least move the needle forward on re-use & performance. 

« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:15 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Exastro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • USA
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #28 on: 09/08/2022 03:23 am »
I wonder how much of the cost of those low-mass launches is the Merlin that's expended on the upper stage. The MVac is much harder to make than the SL version.

I wonder if eventually they might fit an older SL Merlin on F9US with very low mass payloads instead?

The new SL engine added to the rotation would be cheaper to make, and could serve multiple launches.

Cheers, Martin


I think your idea has merit, at least in principle.  We think we know that an M1D costs SpaceX well under $1M to build, IIRC.  It stands to reason that the vacuum version would be more expensive than the sea-level version for several reasons:

* It's a lower-volume product (though likely built with a lot of the same parts)

* It's single-point loss-of-mission critical, whereas F9 has demonstrated that it can suffer a sea-level engine failure and still complete its mission

* It needs to be able to restart after spending hours in orbit, including several day-night cycles

* It's potentially competing against well-used sea-level engines, so (as you point out) the real cost difference is likely larger than the difference in manufacturing cost.

As you say, using a sea-level engine on the upper stage could allow F9 to compete for less demanding launches.  I don't think anybody who knows for sure why it isn't implemented would be allowed to say.  At a guess, the size of the small-payload-to-low-orbit market is just too small to justify the NRE cost and the added cost of keeping another version of the upper stage in production.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2022 03:26 am by Exastro »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #29 on: 09/08/2022 11:10 am »
With reuse, is it still a lower volume product?  I would argue with the current flight rate,  between the two volume is currently on par. They will need,  what 60ish vac engines this year?  That's 6 or 7 new first stages worth of engines.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5189
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #30 on: 09/08/2022 12:01 pm »
From what I understand the Merlin Vac uses all the same parts as a Merlin 1D, except the extended nozzle to make it a vacuum engine.  Probably has some tweeking here or there.  However, it shouldn't be much more expensive than the regular Merlin since it is made on the same assembly line.  If Merlin is $1 million each, maybe Merlin Vac is $1.2 million each.  Not a showstopper. 

Also, if they are launching 50-60 rockets this year and about 100 next year.  They will be manufacturing a lot of engines, even if most launches are on used rockets.  They will still have to make a couple of new boosters next year plus all the second stages.  Some of those launches will probably be Starships.  How many we don't yet know. 

I think SpaceX has tweeked F9 about as much as they can short of making the upper stage reusable, but that cuts the payload probably in half.  A million+ to expend a second stage engine vs loosing 10 tons of payload to make it reusable.  With a paying customer this doesn't make sense yet. 

Offline r8ix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #31 on: 09/08/2022 04:20 pm »
Well, as average booster life hits 9 flights, MVac will have a higher production rate than M1D. It's already around 1/3 of total engines, I think, but might be 1/2 or possibly more of current production...

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #32 on: 09/11/2022 08:48 pm »
As you say, using a sea-level engine on the upper stage could allow F9 to compete for less demanding launches.  I don't think anybody who knows for sure why it isn't implemented would be allowed to say.  At a guess, the size of the small-payload-to-low-orbit market is just too small to justify the NRE cost and the added cost of keeping another version of the upper stage in production.

TBH, I thought there were a small number of flights which were relatively light and to easy orbits, EG SSO. Not sure about the MEO ones, like GPS.

OTOH, looking at the list of RTLS launches in the last couple of years, those seem to actually be hen's teeth.

On the subject of Mvac production, I thought I had read that the SL were produced one per day, and the vac once per week. But I've not been able to back that up.

One final thought - would mini Starlink v2 be volume limited if they have to fall back to F9 launches? Still probably cheaper to convert those to RTLS instead of a weird US config.

Cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 08:50 pm by MP99 »

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #33 on: 09/11/2022 08:53 pm »
MP99, good posting.  You could improve it by losing the Tapatalk spam.
Would love to.

I have always configed this away in the past, but I think they may have removed the setting for that at some point.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:16 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 1623
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #34 on: 09/11/2022 09:14 pm »
MP99, good posting.  You could improve it by losing the Tapatalk spam.
Would love to.

I have always configed this away in the past, but I think they may have removed the setting for that at some point.
User Control Panel or Settings
Edit Signature
Make it blank
« Last Edit: 10/06/2022 07:16 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #35 on: 09/12/2022 07:26 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.

SpaceX also has used Starlink missions to experiment with the timing between first-stage separation and second-stage engine ignition. Separating the first stage and immediately lighting the second is better from a second-stage performance perspective, but the plume then hits the first-stage interstage components, increasing wear. “We’re looking at how you light the engine the earliest, but not damage components in the first stage,” Jensen says.
So far, SpaceX has worked down to a 1,000-in. separation by decreasing the time between first-stage separation and second-stage ignition in increments of 0.25 sec.
Similarly, Starlink missions provide SpaceX a testbed for fairing separation timing. Customers typically have strict requirements on when the fairing is deployed to prevent rarified atmospheric particles in the fringe of space from heating the payload.
“On Starlink missions, we incrementally started deploying the fairing earlier and allowing higher and higher heating,” Edwards says. “Now we’re at the point where it’s more than 10 times the heating that is typically allowed on an external customer mission.”

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #36 on: 09/12/2022 08:27 pm »
Staging the fairing significantly earlier, taking less time after stage sep to ignite the second stage. Better understanding of propellant residuals, more aggressive hoverslam.

SpaceX also has used Starlink missions to experiment with the timing between first-stage separation and second-stage engine ignition. Separating the first stage and immediately lighting the second is better from a second-stage performance perspective, but the plume then hits the first-stage interstage components, increasing wear. “We’re looking at how you light the engine the earliest, but not damage components in the first stage,” Jensen says.
So far, SpaceX has worked down to a 1,000-in. separation by decreasing the time between first-stage separation and second-stage ignition in increments of 0.25 sec.
Similarly, Starlink missions provide SpaceX a testbed for fairing separation timing. Customers typically have strict requirements on when the fairing is deployed to prevent rarified atmospheric particles in the fringe of space from heating the payload.
“On Starlink missions, we incrementally started deploying the fairing earlier and allowing higher and higher heating,” Edwards says. “Now we’re at the point where it’s more than 10 times the heating that is typically allowed on an external customer mission.”

Wow. That's very close.

1,000 inches is 83 ft. 4 in, or 25.4 meters

That's roughly 2/3 the length of the first stage.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline MP99

Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #37 on: 09/21/2022 10:00 am »


MP99, good posting.  You could improve it by losing the Tapatalk spam.
Would love to.

I have always configed this away in the past, but I think they may have removed the setting for that at some point.

Sent from my 21091116UG using Tapatalk


User Control Panel or Settings
Edit Signature
Make it blank

That's a relief. Thanks!

Cheers, Martin


Online Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1434
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #38 on: 09/21/2022 10:32 am »
Has anyone ever looked at a lengthened second stage or adding a third stage? Greater hardware cost, but perhaps a saving on expended boosters.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3160
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #39 on: 09/21/2022 02:21 pm »
Has anyone ever looked at a lengthened second stage or adding a third stage? Greater hardware cost, but perhaps a saving on expended boosters.

Years ago, I recall Elon saying that best path to performance increase with F9 would be a minor stretch of the US.

I think that was in reference to the booster design being fixed, so probably around the time of the Block 5 introduction.

I don't know that they have done anything to extend the US since he said that.  One would think even a few inches could have a significant impact with a few more seconds of burn time for that MVac beast pushing max G's.

Regarding the tinkering with the timing of US engine start and fairing separation, that's a benefit of a high flight rate with reusable hardware.

Does anyone know if they have done anything to increase the separation speed to reduce the time to get to that 1000 inch spacing?
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 1623
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX F9 Block 5 payload capability
« Reply #40 on: 09/21/2022 03:51 pm »


MP99, good posting.  You could improve it by losing the Tapatalk spam.
Would love to.

I have always configed this away in the past, but I think they may have removed the setting for that at some point.

Sent from my 21091116UG using Tapatalk


User Control Panel or Settings
Edit Signature
Make it blank

That's a relief. Thanks!

Cheers, Martin


Pass it on when you next see it here!

Tags:
 

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