SpaceX Falcon Heavy : PPE/HALO : LC-39A : 2027

[Nevyn72]

It seems they charge whatever is competitive.  In this case the only other option may have been Delta IV Heavy but I suspect it wouldn't have the lift capacity.

Sure there will be red tape, a longer fairing and that vertical integration tower that is now getting amortized over many launches.

But still that's $183M in extras.....

Well they did say

The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million

Nobody said it was all going to Space X.
Who know how many parties there are with their hands in the kitty...

[kkattula]

If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.

It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?


Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.

Also, Maxar estimated 2.5 x PPE xenon use and 2 x duration for Electric Orbit Raising (EOR) due to the doubled mass of the combined vehicles, and a sub-GTO instead of super-synch GTO insertion. So it seems likely NASA would want the maximum available performance from FH, to minimize the Xe use and EOR duration.  Probably cheaper to pay for an expendable FH, than to pay for and manage an early/extra Logistics flight to top up PPE's Xe tanks.

[kkattula]

It seems they charge whatever is competitive.  In this case the only other option may have been Delta IV Heavy but I suspect it wouldn't have the lift capacity.

Sure there will be red tape, a longer fairing and that vertical integration tower that is now getting amortized over many launches.

But still that's $183M in extras.....

Well they did say

The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million

Nobody said it was all going to Space X.
Who know how many parties there are with their hands in the kitty...

Maybe NG is building the payload adaptor...

[theprotobe]

BTW, PPE+HALO integration is a big challenge, so it shouldn't be surprising the costs are as high as this. There's also some other required things in there that wouldn't normally be needed for normal missions(Extended fairing, maybe vertical integration)

[Rebel44]

I expect that part of the price is SpaceX charging a premium for expending 3 cores due to their limited F9/FH core production and desire to reuse cores for multiple missions.

Plus fees for processing, vertical integration, extra-long fairings, etc. (and a mountain of paperwork for all of it).

[DreamyPickle]

The high price for additional services is not unreasonable considering that this is the most complex Falcon mission yet. The extended fairing is an expensive investment that SpaceX made for a limited number of customers so it's reasonable that they pay extra.

A lot of this are not known yet, or maybe I missed them:

 * Will this expend the core or the boosters?
 * Will NASA even accept reused boosters or do they have to be new?
 * What is the total mass?
 * Will vertical integration be used?

[mandrewa]

Why such a high price?

The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.

USSF-67 was $316 million for a 2022 launch.  PPE/HALO is $333 million for a 2024 launch.  Seems like a trend, maybe.  Some of it is launch support, the new fairing, the support tower, etc., but Falcon Heavy itself doesn't appear to be getting cheaper.

A good portion, but we don't know how much, of the $316 million for the USSF-67 mission is to pay for the vertical integration tower that that mission requires.  So this price doesn't tell us much as to the actual cost of the Falcon Heavy.  And we don't have comparables from the ULA because the ULA was given money by the government to build its vertical integration tower and was not required to pay for that from its launch contracts.  But we know whatever the vertical integration tower costs, it's more than just the USSF-67 contract.

It looks like every mission that uses that vertical integration tower is going to have an additional unknown amount tacked on to it until that tower is paid for.

And I expect the same situation applies for the extended fairing.  The government is willing to pay for this because they want to have competition over the full range of missions that they demand.  And so they are paying for the last bit of expansion of the Falcon Heavy's capabilities to match or exceed the Atlas V.  But again we don't know how much money per extended fairing mission is being added. 

And then there is the whole question of development costs.  We know that SpaceX self-funded the development of the Falcon Heavy. I think Elon Musk said something at some point to the effect that the Falcon Heavy cost $1 billion to develop.  That sounds  plausible.  But let's suppose at the end of the day, that the Falcon Heavy only flies 20 times (because it will be superseded by the Starship).  Then that would be $50 million tacked on per launch for development costs. 

Now I don't think they are actually doing that.  I don't think it really makes sense as a business strategy.  I would argue for the sake of being competitive that they project a very successful Falcon Heavy program, say 50 launches, and spread the development cost over that, aka $20 million per launch.  And if it doesn't happen, well then that's just what happens and it's a cost of business.

And then I was so surprised to read the other day that some of the money in these contracts doesn't actually go to SpaceX.  All these factors really make it difficult to try to figure out just what SpaceX is charging for the Falcon Heavy launch itself.

[yg1968]

I suspect that the explanation for the higher price is the same as it was for the U.S. space force mission: a lot of extras and the the price for the stretched fairing has been front loaded on to earlier missions:

Everyone should already know about this, but it's nice to have confirmation: SpaceX explains why the U.S. Space Force is paying $316 million for a single launch

SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell on Nov. 9 explained that the contract pays for launch services but also covers expenses for infrastructure and other items required for national security launches.

“The launch was not that expensive,” Shotwell said during a panel discussion at the virtual World Satellite Business Week conference hosted by Euroconsult.

But Shotwell insisted the company’s launch prices are not going up. SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions.

The price “reflects mostly the infrastructure,” Shotwell said.

Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids. 

“This one was front loaded because the Space Force wanted this capability deployed quickly,” said Shotwell.

[Brovane]

Do we know if this contract was bid as a sole source contract?  (For FAR accounting rules) Since I would assume the FH is the only active LV that can meet the requirements of the mission. 

[scr00chy]

Do we know if this contract was bid as a sole source contract?  (For FAR accounting rules) Since I would assume the FH is the only active LV that can meet the requirements of the mission.

ULA didn't bid apparently, so I think that means SpaceX was the sole bid.

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1359385991501541376

[Lar]

Why such a high price?

The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.

I believe you meant to ask "why such a LOW price?" ...

[yg1968]

Why such a high price?

The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.

I believe you meant to ask "why such a LOW price?" ...

I meant compared to FH's normal (every day) low prices. But, yes compared to other commercial LVs, this price is about what you would expect.

[yg1968]

ULA didn't bid on the contract but perhaps that Blue did?

[PM3]

ULA didn't bid on the contract but perhaps that Blue did?

The 2-stage New Glenn - as of 2018 payload user's guide - can lift 13,6 t to GTO. Not enough performance to accelerate 14-15 t to the moon. 3-stage NG will not be available in time.

[yg1968]

Some nice art work:

https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1359510603862208513

[baldusi]

From the presentation they had to swap the NDS ports to an adapter (like a PAF), the PPE had to launch inverted, the whole propulsion section of the HALO was deleted, but the propulsion of the PPE was redeployed. They increased Power and Xenon. I don't know if any of those changes are into this contract.
Other things: Xenon is expensive. It could cost 5M.
Another: if they do most integration in the pad where they spend a couple of months, they will hold the pad and instalations for a whole two months. That's like 4 launches in lost opportunities for SpaceX.

[yg1968]

SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.

[Herb Schaltegger]

SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.

What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.

[Brovane]

Do we know if this contract was bid as a sole source contract?  (For FAR accounting rules) Since I would assume the FH is the only active LV that can meet the requirements of the mission.

ULA didn't bid apparently, so I think that means SpaceX was the sole bid.

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1359385991501541376

Did SpaceX have to bid using FAR 15 accounting rules? 

[mpusch]

SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.

What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.

I believe he was just saying that they could still launch their normal payloads on SLC 40 while 39A was busy with integration.