Author Topic: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)  (Read 21116 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I found a payload user's guide for Spaceflight Services, which books secondary payloads for Falcon 9, Dragon(lab), Antares, and foreign launchers (Russian ones, at least).

On page 26 of this: http://spaceflightservices.com/DocFiles/SF-2100-PUG-00001-SpaceflightSPUGRevB.pdf

I thought it was very interesting, especially when taking into account their pricing: http://www.spaceflightservices.com/Pricing.php

If they get all 5 of the secondary slots booked with the largest secondaries possible to GTO, this could basically pay almost for a full Falcon 9 launch. The primary payload (up to 2500-3000kg) would be pure gravy. Even some secondaries on the DragonLab flight (or possibly ISS Dragon flights, if secondaries are allowed) would rake in a non-negligible amount of revenue (up to $10 million, perhaps even $15 million, if fully loaded). Of course, Spaceflight services gets a significant cut of that (perhaps half?). And you're not going to be fully loaded every flight (not even close).

But if there's a real demand for large secondaries, this could be a real money-maker. May allow SpaceX to pay for their DragonLab launch.

Does anyone know what customers are signed up as secondaries for SpaceX's flights? Also, are there other secondary providers other than Spaceflight Services that you're aware of?
« Last Edit: 04/30/2012 11:01 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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #1 on: 04/30/2012 11:07 pm »
For the 1U and 3U payload sizes the deployment mechanisms are well understood and have flown successfully. Is spaceflightservices providing the deployment hardware? Then for the larger sizes, is there any similarly standard deployment mechanism? Have any every been flown?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #2 on: 04/30/2012 11:12 pm »
For the 1U and 3U payload sizes the deployment mechanisms are well understood and have flown successfully. Is spaceflightservices providing the deployment hardware? Then for the larger sizes, is there any similarly standard deployment mechanism? Have any every been flown?
They are sub-contracting for the smaller cubesat deployment hardware, I believe.

BTW, read this:
http://www.spaceflightservices.com/DocFiles/SpaceflightServicesOverviewSpring2012.pdf

It looks like they are developing a sort of kick stage (and basic host spacecraft) for secondaries which they call SHERPA. It's capable of up to 2200m/s delta-v (2200m/s for 300kg payload, 1100m/s for 1500kg payload), so is useful for putting secondaries in GSO (and possibly could be used as a kick stage for primary payloads?). The kick stage is already set for three Falcon 9 launches, 2 demonstration flights in 2014 and the first commercial flight in 2015. (Oh, and the payload adapter itself will debut on a Falcon 9 launch in 2013... And I think they're doing an Antares launch this year.) The kick stage is also supposed to be capable of deep space missions such as to LLO and beyond (hello, X-Prize contestants and Arkyd). Very interesting.


SHERPA/Falcon9 seems perfect for lunar X-prize contestants.... Notably, there's a LLO window for even the largest secondaries in Q3 2014... (Presumably on a Falcon 9 GTO flight.)

(And since it'd be a demo flight of Sherpa, you can probably strike a bargain, since $10-20 million is pretty steep for most of those teams.)
« Last Edit: 04/30/2012 11:39 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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #3 on: 04/30/2012 11:45 pm »
It looks like a LOT of options start to open up when Falcon 9 starts flying regularly... It tremendously helps X-Prize contestants, all 3 Arkyd-series of Planetary Resources' scouting craft, and all the commercial providers on their manifest including Iridium and Orbcomm. Not to mention ISS logistics and manned spaceflight...

There's a LOT riding on Falcon 9... The future constellations of Iridium and Orbcomm. ISS and the commercial spaceflight market in general (since Congressional support of commercial crew seems to rise and fall with SpaceX's progress). Planetary science missions as well (who could definitely take advantage of, say, $50 million extra per mission to spend on something other than the launch.) Perhaps even Arkyd and the lunar mining companies (at least early on for their initial missions). Even Orbital stands to gain if Falcon 9 is wildly successful in becoming operational.

We'll all be a lot better off when they are fully operational.
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #4 on: 05/01/2012 12:46 am »
Not really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #5 on: 05/01/2012 12:52 am »
Not really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.
Even so, it does explain the difference in cost we saw in the older Falcon 9 prices between full and partial payloads.

If Falcon 9 is going to be serving primarily Delta II-class payloads, then there will be quite a bit of room for secondaries. Especially when the version of Falcon 9 which takes full advantage of Merlin 1D comes on line.

And for ISS missions which are mostly limited by pressurized volume (though inclination is pretty limited in that case, plus the extra paperwork).
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 12:53 am 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 corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #6 on: 05/01/2012 01:03 am »
I think this PDF is appropriate for this thread:


PS- I found the link, too:

http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2011/37_Bjelde_Keynote.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 01:04 am by corrodedNut »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #7 on: 05/01/2012 01:09 am »
Not really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.
Even so, it does explain the difference in cost we saw in the older Falcon 9 prices between full and partial payloads.

If Falcon 9 is going to be serving primarily Delta II-class payloads, then there will be quite a bit of room for secondaries. Especially when the version of Falcon 9 which takes full advantage of Merlin 1D comes on line.

And for ISS missions which are mostly limited by pressurized volume (though inclination is pretty limited in that case, plus the extra paperwork).

They won't be "Delta II" class, they will Falcon 9 class in terms of performance and use all available

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #8 on: 05/01/2012 01:14 am »
I think this PDF is appropriate for this thread:


PS- I found the link, too:

http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2011/37_Bjelde_Keynote.pdf


Ha, love the alligator labeling in slide 7, very important information  ;)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #9 on: 05/01/2012 01:15 am »
Not really, most launches will have little performance for secondaries except for cubesats.
Even so, it does explain the difference in cost we saw in the older Falcon 9 prices between full and partial payloads.

If Falcon 9 is going to be serving primarily Delta II-class payloads, then there will be quite a bit of room for secondaries. Especially when the version of Falcon 9 which takes full advantage of Merlin 1D comes on line.

And for ISS missions which are mostly limited by pressurized volume (though inclination is pretty limited in that case, plus the extra paperwork).

They won't be "Delta II" class, they will Falcon 9 class in terms of performance and use all available
Well, if there's enough demand for larger secondaries (I'm not saying there is), a dedicated flight for just a bunch of secondaries isn't unthinkable, either. That said, they will probably remain "missions of opportunity" for the time being.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #10 on: 05/01/2012 01:31 am »
Okay, say I'm a very small GSO satellite operator. I have a very small satellite that could be launched to GTO by a Delta II with plenty of propellant on board to get to GSO with a long life. Sure, it'd be nice to get a very low "to-GSO" delta-v, but if SpaceX can give me a $10-20 million discount, you don't think I'd consider it? Remember, the whole reason I'm going with SpaceX is because I'm very sensitive to launch costs.

And I may use electric propulsion for orbital insertion, which means being responsible for a little more delta-v isn't THAT big of a deal.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 01:34 am 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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #11 on: 05/01/2012 01:35 am »
There are no DeltaII class GSO operators anymore

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #12 on: 05/01/2012 01:42 am »
There are no DeltaII class GSO operators anymore
These (just announced) are less than 2000kg, thus are Delta II Heavy class:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.html

And they use solar-electric insertion, thus are a little less sensitive to slightly increased insertion delta-v.

If you're only going to launch one of them, then you have plenty of room for large secondaries (even enough for the most profitable GSO (or deep space) secondaries with the SHERPA payload adapter/kick-stage).
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 01:50 am 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 Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #13 on: 05/01/2012 01:48 am »
Well, if there's enough demand for larger secondaries (I'm not saying there is), a dedicated flight for just a bunch of secondaries isn't unthinkable, either. That said, they will probably remain "missions of opportunity" for the time being.

Remember that SpaceX said the same thing for Falcon 1 (ie dedicated small sat launch) but with the exception of the test flights which were essentially free never happened ( and Falcon 1 grounded, at least for now)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #14 on: 05/01/2012 02:00 am »
Well, if there's enough demand for larger secondaries (I'm not saying there is), a dedicated flight for just a bunch of secondaries isn't unthinkable, either. That said, they will probably remain "missions of opportunity" for the time being.

Remember that SpaceX said the same thing for Falcon 1 (ie dedicated small sat launch) but with the exception of the test flights which were essentially free never happened ( and Falcon 1 grounded, at least for now)
Except that Falcon 9 is going to be in active production and won't need dedicated production like continuing Falcon 1(e) would be (dedicated tooling, dedicated Kestrel production and testing procedures, etc). If there's only enough demand for SpaceX to profitably launch a secondaries-only flight of Falcon 9 once every, say, five or ten years, then it'd be still worth it since they're going to be launching a whole bunch of other Falcon 9s anyway. Same isn't true for Falcon 1(e) (especially when they had a dedicated launch site that was a logistical nightmare).

It's a big question whether there will be that much demand. Most likely secondaries will live with the status of being targets-of-opportunity.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 02:07 am 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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #15 on: 05/01/2012 02:35 am »

If you're only going to launch one of them, then you have plenty of room for large secondaries (even enough for the most profitable GSO (or deep space) secondaries with the SHERPA payload adapter/kick-stage).

They are designed to be stacked and fly two at a time.  They aren't going to be launched one at a time
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 02:37 am by Jim »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #16 on: 05/01/2012 02:50 am »
For Falcon launches to GTO/GSO, every single kilogram will be allocated for the prime spacecraft to carry as much prop as possible.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #17 on: 05/01/2012 02:55 am »

If you're only going to launch one of them, then you have plenty of room for large secondaries (even enough for the most profitable GSO (or deep space) secondaries with the SHERPA payload adapter/kick-stage).

They are designed to be stacked and fly two at a time.  They aren't going to be launched one at a time

How certain of this are you? 

On the site they have somewhat ambiguous wording:

Quote
Because of its lower mass and weight, two 702SP satellites can be launched on a single launch vehicle

I'm assuming you have access to more detailed info, is it publicly available somewhere?

If it is definite, any chance of them creating a variant that does not require stacking?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #18 on: 05/01/2012 03:03 am »

If it is definite, any chance of them creating a variant that does not require stacking?

Spacecraft are not designed to fly in a stack and then not be stacked.  The structure is over designed to fly single.   When a company buys a dedicated launch, it is going to use the capability to its advantage.   Secondaries are require more integration work than a primary payload.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #19 on: 05/01/2012 03:11 am »
I see a company whose business plan relies pretty heavily on the idea that sharing a launch is going to be worth it for all the parties involved. And SpaceX thinks it's worth their while, as well. And there already are secondaries flying. So, saying that no one will ever do a secondary flight seems unlikely to me.

But anyway, what secondaries are slated to fly on SpaceX so far?
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 03:13 am 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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #20 on: 05/01/2012 03:14 am »
I see a company whose business plan relies pretty heavily on the idea that sharing a launch is going to be worth it for all the parties involved.

Not every plan is successful, see RPK.  Also, they are trying to be a middleman with a company that like to do everything itself.

Secondaries require a benefactor to let them fly or to pay for a mission.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 03:16 am by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #21 on: 05/01/2012 03:21 am »
Okay, Jim and Danderman... at what price discount would it be worth it to have a secondary on board? What's the equilibrium price? (because dedicated launches to GTO are VERY expensive... and getting to GSO itself is even more so and dedicated trips to LLO are, I believe, in the $50-100+ million range, no matter how small)

This is supposed to be a general thread about secondaries on Falcon 9, using Spaceflight Services as an example.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2012 04:08 am 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 Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #22 on: 05/01/2012 06:51 am »
Is it conceivable that there would be a launch contract for a primary payload, but SpaceX implement a performance upgrade and decide to add a secondary? Or would the initial launch contract forbid that (or at least require consent of the customer)?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #23 on: 05/01/2012 12:20 pm »
FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.


There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?

Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #24 on: 05/01/2012 01:31 pm »
FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.


There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?



It is interesting to study the GTO costing assuming that a government market for propellant also existed for L2.  The cost model includes a propellant ZBO depot in LEO (the economics of L2 depot only do not seem practical for the *government*)

==============
Why LEO?   - Amplification factor
Boeing Propellant Depot:  Allows up to 15 times more payload to the moon]

The amplification factor is shown in Figure 1 of the ULA *appropriate named* paper: as is attached.

So propellant delivery to LEO is already a market for Falcon LVs with a LEO depot.

The concept of amplification factor is simple: Launch stretched upper stage tanks and fill or top them off on orbit.  It is preferred to launch the tanks empty and not design for the higher launch loads to improve the mass fraction of the transfer stage.  Hence one does not require a HLV to launch empty stretched tanks--simply fill them up on orbit, either by a refueling stage or the less expensive ZBO depot with LH2/LOX to reduce the IMLEO for the transfer due to higher ISP.

===========
What about a L2 only depot?

As shown above, more mass transferred to BEO favors larger LVs which have fewer launches than smaller LVs.

Higher launch rate however gives a significant cost advantage to smaller LVs.

So the the HLV only architecture is inflexible to other LV providers without a LEO depot.

===========
LH2 versus Kero     The payload mass fractions of methane are 60 to 80% of the payload mass fractions of LH2, so the IMLEO has to be increased accordingly, creating a significant cost advantage for the higher ISP fuel.

For transfer stages to reduce multiple mission IMLEO, LH2 is by far the most cost effective.  While the merlin may be cheaper than RL10s, the performance disadvantage is a cost driver.

Regardless, one option is a kero/lox depot.  Fill up with Kero before departing to GTO.

But for any significant BEO missions, LH2 without boiloff is clearly the cheaper solution.

So the evolved ULA architecture with RL10s is a strong contender.

So the question:  While the current model for Falcon is a Kero upper stage for commonality and LEO plus a few GTO payloads, would it make sense to evolve a different Falcon upper stage to LH2? 

If this was discussed previously, then please point to thread:)

Just purchase RL10s or purchase a common upper stage?
« Last Edit: 05/02/2013 02:00 pm by muomega0 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #25 on: 05/02/2012 03:41 pm »
FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.


There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?


I can think of many reasons:
1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.
2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.
3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.
4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.
5)??

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #26 on: 05/02/2012 04:51 pm »
FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.


There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?


I can think of many reasons:
1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.
2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.
3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.
4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.
5)??

 Loss of engine out capability?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #27 on: 03/26/2013 12:10 am »
I think this PDF is appropriate for this thread:


PS- I found the link, too:

http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~bklofas/Presentations/DevelopersWorkshop2011/37_Bjelde_Keynote.pdf

Great document there.
Clayton Birchenough

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #28 on: 03/26/2013 01:52 am »

FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.

There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?

I can think of many reasons:
1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.
2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.
3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.
4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.
5)??

Loss of engine out capability?

That wouldn't increase the cost of the booster. It probably would increase the cost of any insurance, but that's paid by the owner of the payload to the insurance company, not to SpaceX.

Offline krytek

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #29 on: 03/27/2013 11:18 am »

FH, less than 6.4 ton to GTO: $83M
FH, greater than 6.4 ton to GTO: $128M

F9,  $54M.

There is a $45 million dollar difference at the 6.4 ton mark.  Is that just to capture extra income from dual manifested launches or presumably big gov missions?  Or is there a technical reason for it (like side-core boostback and landing attempt versus not)?

Or is it just so that they can put $45 million worth of secondaries on there (thinking ORBCOMM)?

I can think of many reasons:
1) They are expecting to reuse the boosters. More than that would require expendable boosters. Not exactly the "safest" assumption, but I wanted it stated.
2) They can dual manifest upto 6.4 tonnes (13.x total counting SLYDAS like structure). And they don't want to worry with mixing and matching satellites ala Ariane 5.
3) That's the Proton capacity. Over that they are competing with Ariane 5 and Atlas V only, so they can charge more.
4) They can launch GTO from SLC-4, thus saving a new pad at CCAF.
5)??

Loss of engine out capability?

That wouldn't increase the cost of the booster. It probably would increase the cost of any insurance, but that's paid by the owner of the payload to the insurance company, not to SpaceX.
IIRC SpaceX is the insurance company.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #30 on: 03/27/2013 11:20 am »
Not for the payload

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #31 on: 03/29/2013 12:47 am »
Anyone know if there would be room for some downmass payload on a Dragon in any of the Commercial Resupply Missions? Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?
« Last Edit: 03/29/2013 12:50 am by ClaytonBirchenough »
Clayton Birchenough

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #32 on: 03/29/2013 12:58 am »
Anyone know if there would be room for some downmass payload on a Dragon in any of the Commercial Resupply Missions? Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?

There's plenty of non-NASA payloads on the Dragon CRS flights.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #33 on: 03/29/2013 01:15 am »
Anyone know if there would be room for some downmass payload on a Dragon in any of the Commercial Resupply Missions? Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?

There's plenty of non-NASA payloads on the Dragon CRS flights.



Ahh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth.
Clayton Birchenough

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #34 on: 03/29/2013 01:38 am »
Ahh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth.

Yep, me too. Here's the CRS-2 cargo manifest: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729030main_spacex_2_cargo_manifest.pdf

There's Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency experiments in both up and downmass.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #35 on: 03/29/2013 04:20 am »
Ahh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth.

Yep, me too. Here's the CRS-2 cargo manifest: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729030main_spacex_2_cargo_manifest.pdf

There's Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency experiments in both up and downmass.

What about a getaway special type thing that goes up and down and which is not an agency owned thing? Not allowed? (my bet would be not)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #36 on: 03/29/2013 05:49 am »
Would a non-NASA payload even be allowed in the Dragon on a CRS flight?

Things are paid for between the partners on the ISS by barter, and providing downmass capability to the other partners gives NASA something to barter with.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #37 on: 03/29/2013 07:10 am »
Ahh, hadn't realized. Care to name some? Also, I'm talking about inside the Dragon's pressurized portion to be returned to Earth.

Yep, me too. Here's the CRS-2 cargo manifest: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729030main_spacex_2_cargo_manifest.pdf

There's Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency experiments in both up and downmass.

What about a getaway special type thing that goes up and down and which is not an agency owned thing? Not allowed? (my bet would be not)

This was what I was looking for. A non-agency payload, say a science package made by a university.
Clayton Birchenough

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #38 on: 03/29/2013 09:30 am »
This was what I was looking for. A non-agency payload, say a science package made by a university.

Nanoracks is also on the manifest (upmass). I don't know if you must go through a space agency to get your stuff on the flight, but no doubt it's the cheapest way to go.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Secondary payloads thread for Falcon 9 (and Dragon)
« Reply #39 on: 03/29/2013 11:44 am »

This was what I was looking for. A non-agency payload, say a science package made by a university.

NASA requirements have be maxing out the past missions.

And since the payload would share its environment with the ISS, NASA would have some say or awareness of it safetywise.

Cubesats were carried before and deployed after second stage sep before thruster burns to go to the ISS.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2013 11:48 am by Jim »

Tags:
 

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