Author Topic: Falcon1 'Heavy'  (Read 27138 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #40 on: 05/17/2011 12:44 PM »
not another thread on this.  There are many other one this forum

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Florida
  • Liked: 411
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #41 on: 05/17/2011 12:47 PM »
Why the need for a F1eH when you can just launch it on a F9?

Cheaper by far in the long run, given the costs for R&D, ect.

Orbiter
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, Falcon 9 CRS-9, Falcon 9 JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, Falcon 9 SES-11, Falcon Heavy Demo.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #42 on: 05/17/2011 02:12 PM »
not another thread on this.  There are many other one this forum

Because bad ideas never die, even when confronted by the laws of economics ;)
« Last Edit: 05/17/2011 02:17 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12811
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3796
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #43 on: 05/17/2011 02:21 PM »
A Falcon Heavy is largely three Falcon 9s with cross-feed thereby
making it as though it is a three-stage rocket.

A Falcon 9 can lift about 9,500 kg to LEO.  Three cores plus
cross-feed brings that to about 53,000 -- a 5.6 times increase in
payload.

Nope.  Falcon Heavy will use three much longer cores powered by substantially up-thrusted Merlin 1D engines.  These aren't going to be Falcon 9's (which is why it is not called a "Falcon 9 Heavy").  Three existing Falcon 9 cores strapped together would only get 20-something to low 30-something tonnes to LEO, even with crossfeed.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/17/2011 02:22 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #44 on: 05/17/2011 02:23 PM »
Merged on request.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8459
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #45 on: 05/17/2011 06:29 PM »
A Falcon Heavy is largely three Falcon 9s with cross-feed thereby
making it as though it is a three-stage rocket.

A Falcon 9 can lift about 9,500 kg to LEO.  Three cores plus
cross-feed brings that to about 53,000 -- a 5.6 times increase in
payload.

So, could the same thing be done with a Falcon 1e (e for extended).  A
Falcon 1e will lift about 1,367 kg to LEO.  Multiplying that by 5.6,
would it be correct to assume that a Falcon 1eH would therefore be
able to lift 7,627 kg to LEO?

If this were true, then it would be lifting 80% of the mass of a
Falcon 9 but would use only three engines instead of 9 so there could
be a considerable savings for companies that don't need payloads above
7,600 kg.

The above figures look optimistic.  However 7,600 kg is nearly twice the mass of the Gemini capsule (3,851 kg).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_spacecraft

The Russians are charging over $50 million per seat to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station on a Soyuz.  If Gemini type 2 on Falcon 1e triple core can get two people to spacestations for less than $100 million someone may be interested in buy tickets.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1445
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #46 on: 05/17/2011 06:41 PM »
Again. The Falcon Heavy uses Block 3 cores that are longer and more powerful. A Block 3 Falcon 9 has a LEO payload of 16mT. That gives you a 3.3 multiplication factor. The F1e is proposed as a 1mT to LEO, so a Heavy would put 3.3mT. They have trust margin to make that 3.7mT. It should cost something like 20M.
One of the issues is that the new Merlin 1D is just too powerful for what they expected as a Falcon 1e, so it would require a complete redesign, and possibly a new tooling. The second issue is that the Omelek pad is a headache of logistical problems and not ready for a Heavy. So you'd need a new pad at the Cape, for a new rocket design, in a segment that isn't it clear that has a market, when they are trying to develop a Heavy launcher. I don't see the point of this thread.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 832
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #47 on: 05/17/2011 07:23 PM »
You just showed the need for the thread, although perhaps you also completed the thread as well.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 113
Falcon1 'Heavy' and other Falcon config's
« Reply #48 on: 06/08/2011 11:34 PM »
I know this is a little bit off topic, but this topic comes closed becouse it's about a new falcon launcher config.

I've came up with a Falcon Medium, this would be a falcon 9 with two falcon1 first stage boosters. I think the boosters need more powerful engines, moost likely the merlin 1D will be alright. With the stage cross-feed, I suppose this would make a nice single GTO (8 metric ton) launcher (that would compete with Ariane 5). I havn't don any math jet.

Is this a feasible config.? Or is the trust to weight ratio of the F1 first stage to low to be a booster?
« Last Edit: 06/09/2011 12:09 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #49 on: 06/09/2011 12:07 AM »
Been talked about to death in other threads, it makes no sense. The vehicle that will compete with the Ariane 5, will be the Falcon Heavy, not a Falcon 9 with two Falcon 1 strap-ons.

The question is can they do the Falcon Heavy with the engineering force they have, in the time frame they set, for the cost they have promised. Everything else is a paper rockets that is not part of the SpaceX program of record.

It is ISS resupply, 5m fairing, Merlin-D, Heavy, and Falcon 1e delayed until they have the resources.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2011 12:08 AM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #50 on: 06/09/2011 12:22 AM »
I know this is a little bit off topic, but this topic comes closed becouse it's about a new launcher config.

I've came up with a Falcon Medium, this would be a falcon 9 with two falcon1 first stage boosters. I suppose this would make a nice single GTO (8 metric ton) satelite launcher (that would compete with Ariane 5). Is this a feasible config.? Or is the trust to weight ratio of the F1 first stage to low to be a booster?

Maby the cross linking, SpaceX wants to implement on FH, is a possible performence improving technology. 

Search the threads, I've talked about this in the past...

A single F1 first stage isn't enough of a benefit with it's stock 1xM1 engine configuration.  With a few F1 1st stages, modified with a thrust structure that carried two Merlin engines, it gets mildly more interesting (especially if there were otherwise any meaningful market for F1 launches.)

I've even played with the idea of a F1 1st stage with a 3xM1 thrust structure, mounted such that one M1 takes the place of an existing M1 on the F9 thrust structure the 3rd would live in a fairing opposite the 1st engine with the 2nd inline under the booster core. 

Four of those around an F9 would launch with with 17xM1, and go like hell, separate the strap-ons, then leave a core with 5xM1 engines in the thrust structure. 

Ultimately, though, there just isn't enough real benefit to have such a complicated/expensive/reliability decreasing setup.  It's not likely the existing F9 core design can even handle the additional thrust/loading that such a setup would create.  (then there is the details like whether the avionics could handle that configuration, and changes to flight software to support it)


Using F1s as strap-on boosters for F1 or F9 is probably way too much work/cost and just no real benefit for a company with plenty to do and no other market for F1s to justify keeping the F1 production running.  I can't imagine the F1 production coming back any time soon.

If the upgraded Merlin engines hit some of the numbers that have been thrown out, the F9 will be quite a capable launch vehicle in standard or heavy configurations. 

The money would be FAR better spent on something like a high-energy upper stage, which if it ever happened would be a **MAJOR** upgrade to the F9.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2011 12:26 AM by jimvela »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #51 on: 06/09/2011 01:04 AM »
A5 has a 21 m.ton LEO and  10 m.ton GTO capability. If FH would have a 40+ LEO capability, I expact it's GTO capability to be a little higher than A5's. This becouse of the higher latitude of the launch site. Most com. sats. weight less than 8 m.ton. ESA wants a less capable launcher, becouse the dual launch compains are less fexible and suffer earlier from delays.

The only use for heavy and super heavy launchers is manned space flight. And becouse of the financial situation in the western world, I don't see a huge market in this category. This was the reson for me to came up with a single GTO satelite launcher.

Then there also is the movment toward clauds of small sats instaid of one big one. Becouse this increases reliability. With would create demand for small F1 class launchers. I think the small launcher market will grow faster than the heavy launcher market. All becouse of money.


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #52 on: 06/09/2011 01:07 AM »
But if Falcon Heavy is really cheaper* to fly than the Ariane V, does the heavy's extra capacity really matter?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline MP99

Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #53 on: 08/10/2011 06:01 PM »
Since this thread has just been linked to...

F1H mentioned briefly in this post:-

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24728.msg720443#msg720443

cheers, Martin

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Liked: 435
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy' and other Falcon config's
« Reply #54 on: 08/10/2011 06:27 PM »
One thing that occurred to me was that the way they do crossfeed in Falcon 9 is to switch the feeds on a per-engine basis. A Falcon 1 only has one engine to start with.

I know this is a little bit off topic, but this topic comes closed becouse it's about a new falcon launcher config.

I've came up with a Falcon Medium, this would be a falcon 9 with two falcon1 first stage boosters. I think the boosters need more powerful engines, moost likely the merlin 1D will be alright. With the stage cross-feed, I suppose this would make a nice single GTO (8 metric ton) launcher (that would compete with Ariane 5). I havn't don any math jet.

Is this a feasible config.? Or is the trust to weight ratio of the F1 first stage to low to be a booster?
I think the larger argument against it is that I don't believe SpaceX is looking to introduce a huge number of variants.

F9 looks to be cannibalizing much of the smaller launches F1 was supposed to address, F9 has been growing due to engine upgrades, there is a potential high energy US with the new engine that's been announced, and F9 can turn off crossfeed where not needed. With all that, it's not clear to me where the benefit for extra variants would be, for SpaceX or for customers.

I think in hindsight, F1's most important impact will have been to give SpaceX the credibility to secure contracts that allowed them to develop the Falcon 9.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3458
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1864
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Falcon1 'Heavy'
« Reply #55 on: 08/10/2011 07:23 PM »
Letís see how the price and capability of the various possible SpaceX LVs stack up:
VehicleLEO Capability (MT)Price (Millions)LEO $/kg
F1e1.110.59,545
F1eH3.9?215,384
F9 (M 1C)9.9545,454
F9 (M 1D)16?543,375
FH53?1252,358

Letís look at a satellite constellation that SpaceX has a contract for that has a satellite weight that would fit on F1eH: Iridium. Two sats would fit on 1 F1eH but are too heavy to fly on an F1e. But 8 fit on an F9. On F1eH thatís $10M per sat on F9 thatís < $8M per sat. So F1e and F1eH would still only be suitable to the one of a kind small sat market where total costs are King.

ORBCOMM was F1eís anchor customer, but they have moved to F9 where in their business model they save money. Other small sat enterprises are also moving in that direction leaving the Government On Demand market for the expensive small boosters.

Tags: