Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/29/2020 09:29 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2020 07:57 pmGovernment procurement guidelines don't allow for predatory pricing, and SpaceX is not known for predatory pricing, so if NASA required the fully capabilities of a Falcon Heavy they would pay $150M for the basic launch service. And if they needed more than the basic launch service, which they normally do, then that would be an added cost, but the basic launch service cost does not change.True, but there is a surcharge on top of the $150M for the additional insight, documentation and processing controls that NASA insists on for missions of this type (see price differential between F9 launches for commercial vs F9 launches for NASA and USAF (soon to be USSF) missions).I wouldn't call it a "surcharge". NASA buys additional services for their missions, just like you may buy additional features for the car you buy. That doesn't change the base cost of the product or service.So in order to make apples-to-apples comparisons the norm is to ignore additional services, and stick with the cost for a basic launch. Especially since what NASA asks for on each mission launch is different, so there is no way to estimate what amount of additional services they will want, or how much the provider the charge. So that just confuses things.So for purposes of comparison, an expendable Falcon Heavy is $150M.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2020 07:57 pmGovernment procurement guidelines don't allow for predatory pricing, and SpaceX is not known for predatory pricing, so if NASA required the fully capabilities of a Falcon Heavy they would pay $150M for the basic launch service. And if they needed more than the basic launch service, which they normally do, then that would be an added cost, but the basic launch service cost does not change.True, but there is a surcharge on top of the $150M for the additional insight, documentation and processing controls that NASA insists on for missions of this type (see price differential between F9 launches for commercial vs F9 launches for NASA and USAF (soon to be USSF) missions).
Government procurement guidelines don't allow for predatory pricing, and SpaceX is not known for predatory pricing, so if NASA required the fully capabilities of a Falcon Heavy they would pay $150M for the basic launch service. And if they needed more than the basic launch service, which they normally do, then that would be an added cost, but the basic launch service cost does not change.
Quote from: Comga on 03/28/2020 11:22 pmQuote from: Karloss12 on 03/28/2020 11:02 pmEven though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.My boldingCan you site evidence of anyone making a killing on a NASA contract?Even Boeing isn't "cleaning up" on SLS. They are just getting fixed or award fees for the last decade, and that's good enough.The company I work for has done a many instruments and missions for NASA. It's a good business. Higher margin than the commodity stuff. But it doesn't bloat the bottom line.A big issue for SpaceX is that this is seems to be a fixed price contract, IDIQ, for a system involved with astronauts, and at any time NASA can increase the requirements. SpaceX has experience with this, and probably didn't underbid the competition by $1.6B again. But it remains a risk, not a bonanza.I site the laws of capitalism. In particular, competition.The FH costs about $120mil. The Delta IV is $400mil.SpaceX will have bid around $350mil and be making a packet. Good on them. They need the cash to fund R&D.
Quote from: Karloss12 on 03/28/2020 11:02 pmEven though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.My boldingCan you site evidence of anyone making a killing on a NASA contract?Even Boeing isn't "cleaning up" on SLS. They are just getting fixed or award fees for the last decade, and that's good enough.The company I work for has done a many instruments and missions for NASA. It's a good business. Higher margin than the commodity stuff. But it doesn't bloat the bottom line.A big issue for SpaceX is that this is seems to be a fixed price contract, IDIQ, for a system involved with astronauts, and at any time NASA can increase the requirements. SpaceX has experience with this, and probably didn't underbid the competition by $1.6B again. But it remains a risk, not a bonanza.
Even though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2020 10:30 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/29/2020 09:29 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2020 07:57 pmGovernment procurement guidelines don't allow for predatory pricing, and SpaceX is not known for predatory pricing, so if NASA required the fully capabilities of a Falcon Heavy they would pay $150M for the basic launch service. And if they needed more than the basic launch service, which they normally do, then that would be an added cost, but the basic launch service cost does not change.True, but there is a surcharge on top of the $150M for the additional insight, documentation and processing controls that NASA insists on for missions of this type (see price differential between F9 launches for commercial vs F9 launches for NASA and USAF (soon to be USSF) missions).I wouldn't call it a "surcharge". NASA buys additional services for their missions, just like you may buy additional features for the car you buy. That doesn't change the base cost of the product or service.So in order to make apples-to-apples comparisons the norm is to ignore additional services, and stick with the cost for a basic launch. Especially since what NASA asks for on each mission launch is different, so there is no way to estimate what amount of additional services they will want, or how much the provider the charge. So that just confuses things.So for purposes of comparison, an expendable Falcon Heavy is $150M.The cost of developing a new cargo capsule based on legacy equipment is very subjective.I estimate that the bid price was calculated by offering $150mil for the launch and estimated the costs of the extra's by holding a finger in the air and due to the direction of the wind on that particular day, they plucked out of the air $750mil per launch.Well, that is how old space priced their orders when they had a monopoly and NASA just had to pay. Can anyone cite a reason why SpaceX would be any different? They have a lot of ambitious R&D projects to fund.
QuoteI think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price.
I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2020 10:30 pmSo for purposes of comparison, an expendable Falcon Heavy is $150M.The cost of developing a new cargo capsule based on legacy equipment is very subjective.
So for purposes of comparison, an expendable Falcon Heavy is $150M.
I estimate that the bid price was calculated by offering $150mil for the launch and estimated the costs of the extra's by holding a finger in the air and due to the direction of the wind on that particular day, they plucked out of the air $750mil per launch.
Well, that is how old space priced their orders when they had a monopoly and NASA just had to pay. Can anyone cite a reason why SpaceX would be any different? They have a lot of ambitious R&D projects to fund.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 10:51 pmQuoteI think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price. All evidence points to 8 tonnes being for flyback boosters and downrange core recovery. The only other mode offered on the SpaceX web site and on the NASA NLS 2 mode description is fully expendable. Just look at the first Block 5 Falcon Heavy result. 6,465 kg Arabsat 6A to a 327 x 89,815 x 22.96 degree supersynchronous orbit. It all lines up, and has for awhile now. - Ed Kyle
Switching to a HTV-X style frunk configuration makes good use of wasted upper frustrum space in the allowed payload envelope of a fairing, but something more significant occurred to me.Doesn't DXL functionally have the capability to deliver whole modules, in the same vein as multistart upper stages? If the pressurized volume is shortened to the minimum, and a payload adapter fitted onto the frunk/solar array assembly pancake, you essentially have an OTV. Paired with the alleged Class C fairing, that is a substantial volume available to deliver whole modules to ISS or elsewhere. Imagine DXL with a module payload rolling up to ISS, and getting berthed to an IDSS, then the station arm pulls off the module for attachment elsewhere. The minimum pressurized area can be used to offload garbage.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/30/2020 01:26 amAll evidence points to 8 tonnes being for flyback boosters and downrange core recovery. ...No; that doesn’t line up with 16.7tons to Mars. Either the Mars figure is too optimistic or 8 tons GTO is too pessimistic....
All evidence points to 8 tonnes being for flyback boosters and downrange core recovery. ...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/30/2020 01:26 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 10:51 pmQuoteI think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price. All evidence points to 8 tonnes being for flyback boosters and downrange core recovery. The only other mode offered on the SpaceX web site and on the NASA NLS 2 mode description is fully expendable. Just look at the first Block 5 Falcon Heavy result. 6,465 kg Arabsat 6A to a 327 x 89,815 x 22.96 degree supersynchronous orbit. It all lines up, and has for awhile now. - Ed KyleUse NLS II performance estimator. I used a c3=-0.5. FHR = 6.7tonnes, FHE gets 15.1tonne. I personally think the TMI number they post is utter bollocks.
Use NLS II performance estimator. I used a c3=-0.5. FHR = 6.7tonnes, FHE gets 15.1tonne. I personally think the TMI number they post is utter bollocks.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/28/2020 11:53 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/28/2020 01:37 amI'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed KyleCan't give you the exact numbers but my source says your mass estimate for the vehicle is way off. As in: your mass estimate for the vehicle is way too high.Is your source counting the mass needed for lunar orbit insertion? Maybe there is an entirely separate stage, or maybe the Falcon upper stage does some of the work. Consider this example. Apollo 17 entered trans-lunar injection at 46.8 tonnes. After its lunar insertion burn, the CSM/LM combination weighed 34.72 tonnes, using 26% of the TLI mass for that maneuver. So, if payload is 5 metric tons (tonnes)(SpaceX number), then the spacecraft plus payload in lunar orbit has to weigh maybe 2.1 to 2.75 times as much (see Cygnus, ATV, HTV, etc), which gets us to 10.5 to 13.75 tonnes. That mass divided by 0.74 for the lunar insertion gives 14.2 to 18.6 tonnes at trans-lunar injection. Of course this assumes a low lunar orbit delta-v maneuver, which I guess isn't happening in this case. From TLI to the Gateway NRHO using a lunar flyby would be something like 420 m/s delta-v, which for a 300 sec ISP Draco assumption would I think require about 13.5% of total TLI mass for the burns, resulting in a 12 to 15.9 tonne TLI mass range.This seems to me to be in the range requiring an expendable Falcon Heavy based on published and proven capabilities. SpaceX may be able to do downrange side booster recovery and achieve this result (while expending the center core), or some of it, but downrange recovery of two cores simultaneously on a Heavy flight has yet to be demonstrated. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/28/2020 01:37 amI'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed KyleCan't give you the exact numbers but my source says your mass estimate for the vehicle is way off. As in: your mass estimate for the vehicle is way too high.
I'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed Kyle
L3-GLS-1106 Maximum System Docking Mass Upon first docking to Gateway, the Logistics Module mass, inclusive of cargo and payloads, shall not exceed 14 metric tons (30,865lb).
Quote from: jak Kennedy on 03/28/2020 03:28 pmQuote from: abaddon on 03/27/2020 06:41 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/27/2020 06:38 pmWould Dragon XL require the future elongated FH fairing?I'd assume that (like current Dragon), it is its own fairing, likely with a larger jettisoned nose cap a la Dragon 1.Then why are the control thrusters sticking outside the trunk? Perhaps this is just a rough render for now but strange the RCS thrusters are not placed inside wether or not it uses a fairing.That was early speculation, we now know that it will be in a regular FH fairing. See Woods170's post above.
Quote from: abaddon on 03/27/2020 06:41 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/27/2020 06:38 pmWould Dragon XL require the future elongated FH fairing?I'd assume that (like current Dragon), it is its own fairing, likely with a larger jettisoned nose cap a la Dragon 1.Then why are the control thrusters sticking outside the trunk? Perhaps this is just a rough render for now but strange the RCS thrusters are not placed inside wether or not it uses a fairing.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/27/2020 06:38 pmWould Dragon XL require the future elongated FH fairing?I'd assume that (like current Dragon), it is its own fairing, likely with a larger jettisoned nose cap a la Dragon 1.
Would Dragon XL require the future elongated FH fairing?
Unlike the Dragon 2, which flies without an aerodynamic shroud on top of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, the Dragon XL will lift off inside a payload fairing on the company’s bigger Falcon Heavy launcher, according to Dan Hartman, NASA’s Gateway program manager at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
People are trying to project their hopes and dreams onto this thing, but it's just an expendable Dragon 1 variant with a non-tapered "capsule" to fit more cargo.
This isn't going to have an aft docking adapter. It's not going to be recyclable as a station module. It's not going to launch inside a reusable payload fairing. The only reusability potential in this concept is the FH boosters.
If the Gateway comes to fruition, this is a relatively low-cost design evolution for cargo supply. This isn't something that SpaceX would have wanted on their roadmap, and I doubt they anticipate any commercial market for a vehicle like this, but it would have been poor form for SpaceX not to bid. SpaceX has a strategic interest in playing nice with NASA, and while developing Dragon XL would be a distraction, it's not an overly burdensome detour. NASA will pay enough to make it worthwhile for SpaceX even if they're the only conceivable customer.
Maybe (hopefully?) SpaceX won't ever actually have to build one of these. They'll work through the paper milestones and continue to strengthen their relationship with NASA, because that relationship is what will endure the ever-changing roadmaps for human exploration.
Quote from: Asteroza on 03/30/2020 12:48 amSwitching to a HTV-X style frunk configuration makes good use of wasted upper frustrum space in the allowed payload envelope of a fairing, but something more significant occurred to me.Doesn't DXL functionally have the capability to deliver whole modules, in the same vein as multistart upper stages? If the pressurized volume is shortened to the minimum, and a payload adapter fitted onto the frunk/solar array assembly pancake, you essentially have an OTV. Paired with the alleged Class C fairing, that is a substantial volume available to deliver whole modules to ISS or elsewhere. Imagine DXL with a module payload rolling up to ISS, and getting berthed to an IDSS, then the station arm pulls off the module for attachment elsewhere. The minimum pressurized area can be used to offload garbage.This is an important feature to note. Not just ISS but also Gateway should SpaceX choose to offer delivery services for additional modules.
Quote from: aero on 03/29/2020 12:43 amQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/29/2020 12:20 amThis brings up a question I've wondered about a bit.This is cargo. It's not necessarily 'speed sensitive' on delivery. Therefore, would it not be a reasonable consideration to increase cargo mass by going with a different proven thruster technology. Say an Ion Thruster something like DS-1 used? Trading fuel mass for cargo mass? So it takes weeks instead of days to arrive. Again, it's not necessarily time critical on the delivery.The Falcon Heavy second stage provides the thrust to deliver the Dragon XL to its destination. The maneuvering thrusters on the Dragon don't contribute to the time to the destination except to maneuver to the berthing portal at the Gateway. Or to the target location if the mission is prior to the Gateway's existence. In any case, there isn't any suitable application for Ion Thrusters.And by the way, so far we have discussed the issue of disposal of the Dragon XL after the mission is complete, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ultimate destination of the Falcon Heavy stage 2. It will be in the general vicinity, too. Isn't the Gateway at L1? Or is it L2? Will stage 2 hang around the Gateway for any unreasonable time? It should still have some maneuvering capability, could any use be made of this spent stage?If the FH needs more total impulse to send the payload to Gateway, then the option of streching the stage 2 tanks is on the table.We haven't seen any evidence that the FH second stage will do the TLI burn. To the contrary, the only thing we've seen said the spacecraft would be released in High Earth Orbit, which would mean the Draco thrusters would be used to get to Gateway from Earth orbit. This type of mission could be done with electric propulsion, but the vehicle would need more electrical power.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 03/29/2020 12:20 amThis brings up a question I've wondered about a bit.This is cargo. It's not necessarily 'speed sensitive' on delivery. Therefore, would it not be a reasonable consideration to increase cargo mass by going with a different proven thruster technology. Say an Ion Thruster something like DS-1 used? Trading fuel mass for cargo mass? So it takes weeks instead of days to arrive. Again, it's not necessarily time critical on the delivery.The Falcon Heavy second stage provides the thrust to deliver the Dragon XL to its destination. The maneuvering thrusters on the Dragon don't contribute to the time to the destination except to maneuver to the berthing portal at the Gateway. Or to the target location if the mission is prior to the Gateway's existence. In any case, there isn't any suitable application for Ion Thrusters.And by the way, so far we have discussed the issue of disposal of the Dragon XL after the mission is complete, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ultimate destination of the Falcon Heavy stage 2. It will be in the general vicinity, too. Isn't the Gateway at L1? Or is it L2? Will stage 2 hang around the Gateway for any unreasonable time? It should still have some maneuvering capability, could any use be made of this spent stage?If the FH needs more total impulse to send the payload to Gateway, then the option of streching the stage 2 tanks is on the table.
This brings up a question I've wondered about a bit.This is cargo. It's not necessarily 'speed sensitive' on delivery. Therefore, would it not be a reasonable consideration to increase cargo mass by going with a different proven thruster technology. Say an Ion Thruster something like DS-1 used? Trading fuel mass for cargo mass? So it takes weeks instead of days to arrive. Again, it's not necessarily time critical on the delivery.
Quote from: soltasto on 03/29/2020 06:28 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 03:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price. Secondaries? RTLS for all 3 cores? Extra margin for a softer recovery? Cheaper/lighter payload adapter? Who knows! It isn’t specified!We do know from that page it can do 26.7t GTO in fully expendable mode.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 03:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.
Does anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed Kyle