Commercial Super Heavy Lift Launchers?

[bulkmail]

We have "commercial" small, medium and heavy lift launchers - by Orbital and ULA. DoD, NRO, NOAA, NASA and other government and academia customers are happy to use these on a service contract basis. And actually the majority of the flights of these launchers are for such government customers (most of the commercial payloads go to foreign launchers).

Next year SpaceX will have its first commercial (non-NASA) flights for their medium lift launcher. They already accomplished a couple of NASA flights and have plenty of commercial payloads booked.

DoD, NASA seem comfortable placing their major military and science payloads on commercial launchers. NASA seems comfortable placing their ISS cargo and crew (after 2017) on commercial launchers utilizing commercial spacecrafts.

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).

IMHO NASA should boldly embrace the commercial sector, both newspace and oldspace. Super Heavy launches should be brought just like current EELV/Falcon9/Antares launches. If non-NASA crewed LEO flights become reality, then there will be a business case for non-NASA Moon flights - thus allowing for commercialization of Beyond LEO spacecrafts and Moon landers. Propellant depots, if required for those flights, can also be commercialized. NASA should invest their current SLS/Orion money into actual scientific stations, telescopes, observatories, lunar infrastructure, deep space habitats and NEO/Mars enablers.

[docmordrid]

I think the problem is not NASA failing to embrace the notion of commercial heavy lift but Congress. Gotta have those big projects steered to their districts and NASA centers, not some outfits in the wrong states or in the middle of tumbleweeds & tarantulas.

[pathfinder_01]

SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).

FH and the ULA proposals make much more sense because they are not monolithic launchers. So long as Space X can sell Falcon 9, it has the capacity to produce a  FH. The EELV phase II would lift anything from 10MT to 130MT.  This would be heavy lift that is not totally dependent on NASA as a customer(i.e.  they only modify the rocket to handle the heavy stuff when needed).

[Jim]

Just a point, only 3 gov't buyers, USAF, NRO and NASA.  NOAA does not buy launch services.

[Downix]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?
</quote>
Not a large enough market to support the costs needed to develop, and support such a vehicle.
<quote>
SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).
</quote>
No, their ~35 metric ton launcher enters service next year. The 50 metric ton eventual goal design requires a significant investment in new technologies, and that means you need a large up-front development cost. Refer to point #1 above.

SpaceX admits it would cost billions to develop a superheavy launch vehicle. This vehicle would require a huge ground support and manufacturing base just to allow them to theoretically build it. The cost to support it would drive the per-launch costs at the anticipated once every other year cost into the billions per launch, no cheaper than NASA developed craft but costing NASA control it currently has. And unlike the current situation, if SpaceX were to fold, encounter funding issues, or become a victim of a court order freezing launches, NASA would be up the creek. Alternatively, keeping their heavy lift in-house, should their subcontractor for, say, the solid boosters fail to deliver, they hand the contract over to an alternative vendor (in the case of solids, from ATK to Aerojet). All pieces of the puzzle here work in this manner. If PWR fails to deliver SSME's, they hand the SSME contract to Northrop or Aerojet. If Boeing fails to deliver the core, the core contract gets handed to Lockheed, Chrysler, Dynetics, or some other firm. NASA owns the rights, they can do this. The flexibility comes at a cost, of course, in overhead demands which adds costs to both R&D as well as launch, but that is the price you pay for independence.

[Go4TLI]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

[spectre9]

SLS is a commercial launcher.

The problem is that there is no money to develop new rocket engines and shuttle derived is now bloated to a point where it looks unaffordable.

Direct Jupiter WAS a good idea.

The way NASA wants to implement it by pushing it bigger and bigger doesn't fill me with confidence.

I guess we can just hope that everything they build for it is cheap as chips. The one part that I'm most concerned about is RS-25E. I thought cryogenic hyrdogen was incredibly expensive to use. Seems like costs are projected to fall quite sharply though if this rocket is ever to be useful.

[pathfinder_01]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program, don't use prop depots, don't use SEP or on orbit assembly) then you run into those problems. If not.

1.   ULA did. Atlas phase II would lift from 10MT to over 130MT. In that way you don’t need NASA to fund 100% of the capability(i.e. DOD and others could use the smaller vechiles).

2.   Space X seems to be able to make the FH on it’s own…

3.   I don’t think NASA is an expert at this esp. after CXP…but Lockhead Martin, Boeing, and Space X have all done recent work on orbital vechiles.

4.   ULA, Orbital, and Space X don’t seem to have that problem…but that is because they built rockets that are commercially viable to begin with.

5.   ULA offered to build Atlas Phase II for far less than SLS. Likewise Space X

6.   They already have those already.

7.   ULA and Orbital both seem to have this solved.

8-11 not much of a show stopper.

[Go4TLI]

1.  SLS is a commercial launcher.

2.  The problem is that there is no money to develop new rocket engines and shuttle derived is now bloated to a point where it looks unaffordable.

3.  The way NASA wants to implement it by pushing it bigger and bigger doesn't fill me with confidence.

4.  I guess we can just hope that everything they build for it is cheap as chips. The one part that I'm most concerned about is RS-25E. I thought cryogenic hyrdogen was incredibly expensive to use.

1.  This is true as long as we define commercial in the way every NASA project, including commercial crew to a large extent, has been designed and operated by a commercial company.

2.  Can you provide specifics?

3.  Again, specifics?

4.  So the cost and use of hydrogen is what has driven you to assume SLS is unaffordable?

[Go4TLI]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program, don't use prop depots, don't use SEP or on orbit assembly) then you run into those problems. If not.

1.   ULA did. Atlas phase II would lift from 10MT to over 130MT. In that way you don’t need NASA to fund 100% of the capability(i.e. DOD and others could use the smaller vechiles).

2.   Space X seems to be able to make the FH on it’s own…

3.   I don’t think NASA is an expert at this esp. after CXP…but Lockhead Martin, Boeing, and Space X have all done recent work on orbital vechiles.

4.   ULA, Orbital, and Space X don’t seem to have that problem…but that is because they built rockets that are commercially viable to begin with.

5.   ULA offered to build Atlas Phase II for far less than SLS. Likewise Space X

6.   They already have those already.

7.   ULA and Orbital both seem to have this solved.

8-11 not much of a show stopper.

If it is not much of a show stopper, I look forward to the Pathfinder 01 Super Heavy Launch Vehicle in the near futre. 

More to the point.

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?
2.  FH is not a "super heavy" launch vehicle and tops out at maybe 53 mT to LEO.
3.  This has nothing to do with anything I said.
4.  Because they see a potential market for their class of vehicle and a business case.
5.  "Offered to build" is not the same as providing the funding and doing it. 
6.  Not for a "super heavy" launch vehicle
7.  Do it for the "super heavy" launch vehicle in order to become and remain profitable where the ROI is within reason

[pathfinder_01]

SLS is a commercial launcher.

err...not quite. If I wanted to lift a feather using a FH becuase I wanted to burn lots of money, and I had the money I could buy it. NASA does not sell launch capacity on the market. In theory you might be able to workout an arrangement, but trust me if I showed with cash and feather, ULA, Orbital, and Space X would be happy to launch it.

[neilh]

Threads like this would be a lot more productive if people actually used the same definitions for terms like "commercial."

[spectre9]

1. Yes NASA designed, commercial built. I think Marshall tests stuff before Boeing builds it at MAF.

2. Direct Jupter-130 was a quick to build, affordable rocket. SLS is way beyond that design now. Extra segs on solids, extra engine, tank stretch.

3. Personal opinion based on scaremongering from many sources. The reason for the extra size of the rocket can't even be justified as there is no payload or mission.

4. If Hydrogen was cheap why don't the most popular/cheap launchers use it? Soyuz and Falcon 9 looking good right now (NASA crew & cargo) and Atlas V is used for everything else with it's one RL-10 Centaur upper stage.

SSME was good because you could take the engine back down and use it again. Using man power to refurbish things is better than building new expendable as it keeps people working. Money spent on jobs is not bemoaned as much as money spent on new hardware. Sorry if that last bit is slightly political.

[Go4TLI]

1. Yes NASA designed, commercial built. I think Marshall tests stuff before Boeing builds it at MAF.

2. Direct Jupter-130 was a quick to build, affordable rocket. SLS is way beyond that design now. Extra segs on solids, extra engine, tank stretch.

3. Personal opinion based on scaremongering from many sources. The reason for the extra size of the rocket can't even be justified as there is no payload or mission.

4. If Hydrogen was cheap why don't the most popular/cheap launchers use it? Soyuz and Falcon 9 looking good right now (NASA crew & cargo) and Atlas V is used for everything else with it's one RL-10 Centaur upper stage.

SSME was good because you could take the engine back down and use it again. Using man power to refurbish things is better than building new expendable as it keeps people working. Money spent on jobs is not bemoaned as much as money spent on new hardware. Sorry if that last bit is slightly political.

1.  NASA does not do 100% percent of the design by any means.  In fact they do little.  Generally what they do design is then provided in what is known as GFE or Government Furnished Equipment, if they then build it. 

As for testing, it is rather common to use government facilities to test if it makes sense since they are there and available and can be used for little additional money.

2.  That says nothing and your proof is based on conjecture. 

3.  "Scaremongering from sources".  Translation:  "I have nothing and am just ranting"

4.  This is just confusing.  Your justification for your fear of hydrogen seems to be that refurbishment keeps people working but new production does not. 

[pathfinder_01]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

2.  FH is not a "super heavy" launch vehicle and tops out at maybe 53 mT to LEO.

It is heavy enough that you could do a lunar landing with about 2 flights. If you lift a stage and your lunar eqiument.

4.  Because they see a potential market for their class of vehicle and a business case.

There is no law that states that a vehicle that can lift 100MT or more must have no other users than NASA. It is a matter of design. Design the vehicle to have as much commonality with other launchers and you can lower your costs for the SHLV. That is the idea behind the Atlas Phase II and the FH.
They lift commmercailly viabable amounts in their smaller forms.

5.  "Offered to build" is not the same as providing the funding and doing it.
 

Generally if you are a customer of a service provided by a contractor, you provide the funding. i.e. You want  a new roof for your house, you provide the funding.

[Go4TLI]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

Then you have answered your own question and the rest of your supposed argument is invalid. 

This thread is stupid anyway.  So again, if nothing is really a "showstoper", I look forward to your own super heavy launch vehicle and the discussion on all the above you will offer here at NSF.com

[spectre9]

1.  NASA does not do 100% percent of the design by any means.  In fact they do little.  Generally what they do design is then provided in what is known as GFE or Government Furnished Equipment, if they then build it. 

As for testing, it is rather common to use government facilities to test if it makes sense since they are there and available and can be used for little additional money.

2.  That says nothing and your proof is based on conjecture. 

3.  "Scaremongering from sources".  Translation:  "I have nothing and am just ranting"

4.  This is just confusing.  Your justification for your fear of hydrogen seems to be that refurbishment keeps people working but new production does not. 

1. Good to know.

2. Can build the bigger version for the same price in the same time frame now? I don't understand how you're attacking this point.

3. Yes, exactly.

4. No my justification is price.

The point about SSME was that the refurbishments were an acceptable trade off because the workforces that removed, stripped down, rebuilt and replaced those engines into the orbiters were seen as vital NASA jobs. Some fat engine contract is an entirely different beast.

[Go4TLI]

2. Can build the bigger version for the same price in the same time frame now? I don't understand how you're attacking this point.

3. Yes, exactly.

4. No my justification is price.

The point about SSME was that the refurbishments were an acceptable trade off because the workforces that removed, stripped down, rebuilt and replaced those engines into the orbiters were seen as vital NASA jobs. Some fat engine contract is an entirely different beast.

2.  Bigger version than what?  The Jupiter proposal had many larger rockets in the line-up as well.  Compare them, if a comparison is valid, to the SLS versions.

3.  Weird.

4.  How about if you provide the SSME refurbishment actuals versus the projected cost of RS-25E production.  Differntiate why one is a vital NASA job and the other is a fat engine contract. 

[pathfinder_01]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

Then you have answered your own question and the rest of your supposed argument is invalid. 

This thread is stupid anyway.  So again, if nothing is really a "showstoper", I look forward to your own super heavy launch vehicle and the discussion on all the above you will offer here at NSF.com

The show stopper is political (must keep certain jobs in certain states), not technical or even financial.  DOD didn’t design the EELV but got two for the price of three billion.  NASA spent ten billion on CXP before the axe fell.  A good example would be cargo planes. If you had to maintain an entire separate supply to produce something like airbus beluga or the Dream lifter it would cost far more to keep them going. Both of them are modified standard aircraft.  Even standard cargo plans are derived from passenger ones. Only military cargo planes do not and only due to their very special requirement (plus the military tries to use commercial transport as much as possible too).

With shuttle derived (like the Saturn V), you maintain an entire separate supply chain for that one vehicle that makes those vehicles extra costly because no one else besides NASA uses them in anyway shape or form.  If on the other hand you do something like Atlas phase II then others could use it. 

[spectre9]

2. Jupiter-130, not Jupiter-130 Heavy. See attach.

3. Yeah, so I rant sometimes, the sane stuff in spaceflight is going nowhere because it's all to based on who works for who and politics get involved. I only rant what I feel is right and leads to a better future.

4. How about no? I don't really care too much for looking up shuttle info. This engine contract isn't even being discussed right now for good reason. It's going to be mammoth.

[Go4TLI]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

[spectre9]

I know which launchers are the most cost effective and they don't involve high thrust hydrolox engines.

The reason I can't say for sure how expensive this technology is is because the people that make it are secretive about the prices.

If RS-25E is cost effective in the long run I will eat my rants.

Until then I feel it needs to be proven that SLS will be cheap not the other way around.

[neilh]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

Because of the definition issue I mentioned earlier, you're all actually ranting about entirely different things

[IRobot]

If Mir and the ISS showed the way to go was modularity, future spacecrafts will also be modular, not a single launch mission like Apollo.
For those you don't really need any super heavy lift launcher.

[Go4TLI]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

Because of the definition issue I mentioned earlier, you're all actually ranting about entirely different things

Note this post here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29629.msg939131#msg939131

befor your "definition issue".  That is all.

[spectre9]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

[Prober]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

take a look at this.....the 7 body looks like a Proton to me.

[Downix]

I know which launchers are the most cost effective and they don't involve high thrust hydrolox engines.

The reason I can't say for sure how expensive this technology is is because the people that make it are secretive about the prices.

If RS-25E is cost effective in the long run I will eat my rants.

Until then I feel it needs to be proven that SLS will be cheap not the other way around.

Why is the RS-25E your target? The Japanese H-II is quite cost effective. Delta IV's cost issue is from low flight rate. If you could get it up to the original projections, it would be quite affordable.

[Downix]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

Delta is not the only rocket using high thrust hydrolox. Ariane 5 and H-II both use high thrust hydrolox.

[spectre9]

Well there you go. Thanks Downix.

I guess Ariane 5 is cost effective as they're still launching commercial payloads. Still need subsidies I think.

H-II I wouldn't know anything about. Seems like it was just built so JAXA could participate in ISS regardless of the cost.

LE-7A looks like a good engine and cost savings were made with the A version.

Is there even any customers besides HTV for the H-IIB?

[Downix]

Well there you go. Thanks Downix.

I guess Ariane 5 is cost effective as they're still launching commercial payloads. Still need subsidies I think.

H-II I wouldn't know anything about. Seems like it was just built so JAXA could participate in ISS regardless of the cost.

LE-7A looks like a good engine and cost savings were made with the A version.

Is there even any customers besides HTV for the H-IIB?

H-IIB has flown three HTV plus some cubesats. H-IIA (which is still hydrolox) has flown 22 times, most of them commercial missions. H-II had 6 launches, of which 5 were commercial.

[alexw]

Delta is not the only rocket using high thrust hydrolox. Ariane 5 and H-II both use high thrust hydrolox.

       Ariane V isn't quite "high-thrust" hydrolox, in the sense that Vulcain 2 is close in thrust to J-2X. Delta IVH, which seems the most comparable variant to Ariane V for higher energy orbits, has something like seven times the thrust in pure hydrolox, instead of ~90% solids for first-stage flight. H-II seems similar.
      -Alex

[RyanC]

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program

Atlas V 541 (SEC) can send about 12,000~ ish pounds to Mars.

Basic Saturn V could have sent 86,000~ lbs to Mars.

There were proposals for Saturn V Centaur -- remember that Centaur was originally S-V; and under MSFC control before it got transferred out.

Ares V would have been about 99,000~ lbs to mars while Ares V Centaur would have been 110,000~ lbs.

[Ben the Space Brit]

To me, the rough designation-to-payload goes like this:

Medium - 10-25t IMLEO (Falcon-9, EELV-medium and -heavy)
Medium-Heavy - 25-50t IMELO (EELV Phase-1 and Falcon Heavy)
Heavy - 50-100t IMLEO (SLS Block I, Atlas-V Phase-2/3A, Falcon-X)
Super-Heavy - 100t+ IMLEO (SLS Block II, Atlas-V Phase-3B, Falcon-XX)

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy, then I think ULA will be able to justify EELV Phase 1 to compete with them.  It is possible that DoD might have payloads for that weight class too but I suspect that they are more interested in driving forwards the Flyback Booster program than funding development of an upgrade to the existing Atlas- and Thor-heritage vehicles.

A Heavy-class launcher really only has one putative non-governmental payload at the moment, the Bigelow BA-2100 Olympus.  All other payloads for the 100t IMLEO/8m PLF class are exclusively NASA HSF.  The decision was made at a political level that the launcher for these payloads would be done on the old arsenal pattern with NASA as project lead.  This may ultimately turn out to be the wrong choice on both economic and technical grounds but it is rather late in the day to reverse it now.

It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.

[Hauerg]

[quote author=Ben the Space Brit link=topic=29629.msg939298#msg939298
...
It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.
[/quote]
Even the justification (business case, technological merits) for NASA developing the SLS looks, well, not THAT persuading to me.
 

[bulkmail]

To me, the rough designation-to-payload goes like this:

Medium - 10-25t IMLEO (Falcon-9, EELV-medium and -heavy)
Medium-Heavy - 25-50t IMELO (EELV Phase-1 and Falcon Heavy)
Heavy - 50-100t IMLEO (SLS Block I, Atlas-V Phase-2/3A, Falcon-X)
Super-Heavy - 100t+ IMLEO (SLS Block II, Atlas-V Phase-3B, Falcon-XX)

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy, then I think ULA will be able to justify EELV Phase 1 to compete with them.  It is possible that DoD might have payloads for that weight class too but I suspect that they are more interested in driving forwards the Flyback Booster program than funding development of an upgrade to the existing Atlas- and Thor-heritage vehicles.

A Heavy-class launcher really only has one putative non-governmental payload at the moment, the Bigelow BA-2100 Olympus.  All other payloads for the 100t IMLEO/8m PLF class are exclusively NASA HSF.  The decision was made at a political level that the launcher for these payloads would be done on the old arsenal pattern with NASA as project lead.  This may ultimately turn out to be the wrong choice on both economic and technical grounds but it is rather late in the day to reverse it now.

It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.

Actually, I had in mind http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/500393main_TA01-LaunchPropulsion-DRAFT-Nov2010-A.pdf where they say:
Small - up to 2t IMLEO
Medium - 2-20t IMELO
Heavy - 20-50t IMLEO
Super-Heavy - 50t+ IMLEO
But I agree that "50t+" is too wide a range and some intermediate lines would be helpful for the discussion.

To recap the two opening questions:
1. is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher? - from the comments it seems that there aren't many (if any) such reasons.
2. Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? - here it's much more murky (but also more important)...

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php shows for the FH one demo flight and one Intelsat flight. http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28442 shows a third flight (unknown if a second demo or first customer). At the other hand current 20t launchers are often utilized to loft 2 payloads, so is it feasible for 50t/100t launchers to be utilized for multiple (e.g. 3, 4 or more) 10t or 20t payloads? Is it cheaper in comparison with multiple 20t launches?

Are there any commercial or military applications that will be possible only with 50t+ launchers?

[Robotbeat]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

If SpaceX is wildly successful with falcon Heavy over the next 5+ years, then we can start talking about launh vehicles twice as powerful. But not before.

[pathfinder_01]

It is feasible to lift more than one satellite with a 50MT lifter but it can be hard to find two satellites with compatible orbits.  Anyway in the case of FH it competes with Delta. It can lift 53MT to LEO but only lifts like about 19MT to GTO. Delta lifts 12 to GTO but only about 25ish to LEO.  i.e. In terms of GTO where many communications satellites go not much difference in performance(but big difference in price..FH is offered as cheaper).  It is an example of a heavy that has commercial applications. i.e. It can lift a lot to LEO while still being useful for other purposes.

A more extreme exmaple would be Atlas Phase II. It would be a system capable of lifting 10MT and up to 100+MT.

There may be no other users for supper heavy lift than NASA, but a rocket system capable of being a supper heavy or heavy does not have to be designed in such a way that it is useless to other users.

[Prober]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

Also don't say that around the SPS guys either.

A while ago I was curious about the SPS business case as how the SpaceX possible launcher prices would affect the $/kw prices. The result was that for a 50Mw 500mt demo sat with the DOD as a customer which would purchase the power at $.50 to $1.00/kwh, the FH prices made the case close but only if there was a government/private partnership of the development costs of the SPS part at the government supplying >50% or about $6.5B.

The odd thing here was that due to development costs of a heavier vehicle which would have little usage other than for the SPS (5 flight per year vs 1 from other customers) and little cost sharing with other customers the best business case was the FH and not some larger SpaceX vehicle. The caviat here was that the larger vehicles were all expendibles. A twice size vehicle but that only lifted the same payload as FH but was nearly fully reusable at 1/4 the flight price would make a more significant effect on such busness cases than any SHLV expendable.

[Downix]

It is feasible to lift more than one satellite with a 50MT lifter but it can be hard to find two satellites with compatible orbits.  Anyway in the case of FH it competes with Delta. It can lift 53MT to LEO but only lifts like about 19MT to GTO. Delta lifts 12 to GTO but only about 25ish to LEO.  i.e. In terms of GTO where many communications satellites go not much difference in performance(but big difference in price..FH is offered as cheaper).  It is an example of a heavy that has commercial applications. i.e. It can lift a lot to LEO while still being useful for other purposes.

A more extreme exmaple would be Atlas Phase II. It would be a system capable of lifting 10MT and up to 100+MT.

There may be no other users for supper heavy lift than NASA, but a rocket system capable of being a supper heavy or heavy does not have to be designed in such a way that it is useless to other users.

The SpaceX website only gives a ~12 metric ton payload of FH to GTO now:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO):   12,000 kg (26,460 lb)
Inclination   27 degree

[jongoff]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

I know he showed some pretty concept art for a bigger module, but do you know if there is any actual engineering/development going on? Or was it just marketing eye-candy?

~Jon

[Prober]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

I know he showed some pretty concept art for a bigger module, but do you know if there is any actual engineering/development going on? Or was it just marketing eye-candy?

~Jon

He built and flew the test units.   But the space to make the much larger stations.  Just needs the launchers as the final pieces.   

[baldusi]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

I know he showed some pretty concept art for a bigger module, but do you know if there is any actual engineering/development going on? Or was it just marketing eye-candy?

~Jon

He built and flew the test units.   But the space to make the much larger stations.  Just needs the launchers as the final pieces.   

From what Orbital Debris has written, it would seem that the Genesis were technology demonstrators. But making a full space station requires a lot more development. Things like ECLSS (which Bigelow appears to be far from having one), station keeping, prox ops, and even the folding and transport of a module are on it's infancy. I got the impression that he was about SRR or even farther.
With some investment, it can be done. But the question is if there's an actual market. I believe, that the possible extension of the ISS would be "bad", from that POV. If full utilization actually happens by 2015 to 2020, then it might happen that a lot of science and industry research get's used to have a microgravity lab. Then a Bigelow might have a market. Before that, it seems very difficult. I could see him supplying parts and modules, but that sort of goes against the spirit. Since they would have to do everything the NASA way.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Actually, I had in mind http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/500393main_TA01-LaunchPropulsion-DRAFT-Nov2010-A.pdf where they say:
Small - up to 2t IMLEO
Medium - 2-20t IMELO
Heavy - 20-50t IMLEO
Super-Heavy - 50t+ IMLEO
But I agree that "50t+" is too wide a range and some intermediate lines would be helpful for the discussion.

To recap the two opening questions:
1. is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher? - from the comments it seems that there aren't many (if any) such reasons.
2. Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? - here it's much more murky (but also more important)...

1) The reason why NASA is driving the development of SLS appears completely political.  Indeed, it is my impression that the political wing forced NASA to commence work on the SLS when the agency (at its highest level anyway) was generally unwilling to do so.

2) 50t IMLEO/20t+ GTO is pretty excessive for most commercial payloads, although it would open the way for commercial support for human missions to cis-Lunar space and even the lunar surface.

In terms of pure commercial payloads, a FH/EELV Phase-1-class launcher would be mostly doing dual-payload launches of the most heavyweight comsats and Earth Resources sats.  This may change should Bigelow get their business off the ground but I certainly wouldn't fund launcher development on the basis of a 'if' of that scale.

Falcon Heavy seems to have been largely driven by these repeated hints of a >25t IMLEO payload requirement from DoD about which the DIRECT team often laid heavy hints.  The fact that EELV Phase 1 is not in serious development does suggest that either ULA does not take these hints as seriously as others or, possibly, development has been blocked by those higher up the chain in Boeing and Lockheed to prevent it (wrongly) being perceived as being in competition with SLS.

[Prober]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

I know he showed some pretty concept art for a bigger module, but do you know if there is any actual engineering/development going on? Or was it just marketing eye-candy?

~Jon

He built and flew the test units.   But the space to make the much larger stations.  Just needs the launchers as the final pieces.   

From what Orbital Debris has written, it would seem that the Genesis were technology demonstrators. But making a full space station requires a lot more development. Things like ECLSS (which Bigelow appears to be far from having one), station keeping, prox ops, and even the folding and transport of a module are on it's infancy. I got the impression that he was about SRR or even farther.
With some investment, it can be done. But the question is if there's an actual market. I believe, that the possible extension of the ISS would be "bad", from that POV. If full utilization actually happens by 2015 to 2020, then it might happen that a lot of science and industry research get's used to have a microgravity lab. Then a Bigelow might have a market. Before that, it seems very difficult. I could see him supplying parts and modules, but that sort of goes against the spirit. Since they would have to do everything the NASA way.

Guess my point got lost......Bigelow has put his own funds into this project.  His money where his mouth is so to speak.

[ArbitraryConstant]

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy

They won't find anyone trying to launch 53 ton payloads to LEO for a while, but I doubt most customers would mind so long as it meets whatever their requirements are at the right price.

Eg, the first customer for Falcon Heavy appears to be a GTO launch from Vandenberg. This is grossly inefficient, but that's where SpaceX has a hanger and pad, the performance is adequate to do the job, so as long as it's a competitive price and they do the launch on time it doesn't matter.

The 53 ton number seems to be determined not by any particular anticipated payload, but rather by implementing everything that could be done quickly and cheaply, the low hanging fruit.

So the payload is lower than it could have been for a more ambitious upgrade (eg a hydrogen US), but OTOH the price is low enough that it's competitive even when not being used to anywhere near its potential.

[Jason1701]

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy

They won't find anyone trying to launch 53 ton payloads to LEO for a while, but I doubt most customers would mind so long as it meets whatever their requirements are at the right price.

Eg, the first customer for Falcon Heavy appears to be a GTO launch from Vandenberg. This is grossly inefficient, but that's where SpaceX has a hanger and pad, the performance is adequate to do the job, so as long as it's a competitive price and they do the launch on time it doesn't matter.

The 53 ton number seems to be determined not by any particular anticipated payload, but rather by implementing everything that could be done quickly and cheaply, without requiring anything exotic like a hydrogen US.

Sorry for this side note, but that Falcon Heavy flight is now manifested from the Cape.

[ArbitraryConstant]

Ah - thank you for the correction.

[Lobo]

It is heavy enough that you could do a lunar landing with about 2 flights. If you lift a stage and your lunar eqiument.

Which makes it a medium lift vehicle if you are including actual heavy lift vehicles like Saturn V and technically STS (even though it's delivered payload was only medium lift-class.)

If you are comparing FH to EELV's, then it could be considered HEavy, bcause that scale is different.  But I don't know about "super-heavy" even on the lower EELV scale. 

It's all a relative scale I suppose, but typically I think something about 60mt to Saturn V class is "Heavy" lift, anything over would be "super heavy" lift or "Nova class".  19-50ish mt is medium lift.  And under 19mt is "light"lift.
At least, those are the ranges I hear refered to most. 

So FH would really be a medium lift vehicle, or perhaps a "Medium-heavy" lift vehicle.
Fh will be interesting though, as it will be the first LV (that I am aware of) that will get into that 40-50mt range.  That's beed a big donut hole in LV's.  We've gone above it with INT-21/Skylab, Saturn V, STS (if you include the orbiter as payload), N-1, and Energyia, but on the other end, about 23mt is about the max that's been done with Proton, DVH, and Titan IV (And STS if you don't count the orbiter as paylaod).  So there really hasn't been anything from 23mt to about 75mt.  FH will be the first that actually gets in there.

[edkyle99]

If you are comparing FH to EELV's, then it could be considered HEavy, bcause that scale is different. 

I've never liked the "Delta IV Heavy" moniker.  It really is a much different launch vehicle than "Delta IV Medium".  Personally, I would have preferred "Delta IV" for the "Medium" versions and "Delta V" (or maybe "Epsilon" or some other name) for the "Heavy".  Or follow the Titan IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, IIID, IIIE naming approach.

As for Medium, Heavy, Super-Heavy, etc., I would drop all of that and just talk about LEO mass category (10t, 20t, 50t, 100t, etc.). 

As for the idea of a commercial biggie (100t plus), I don't see any single single company wanting to want to spend its own R&D on such a massive project.  NASA is going to have to pony up the development money, or much of it, up front, which is what it is doing with SLS.  Fair to note, however, that SLS has become, more and more, a Boeing rocket, which is a change from prior NASA practice.

 - Ed Kyle

[GalacticIntruder]

The only theoretical customer I know that is asking for medium lift is Bigelow Aerospace. BA330 is 20mT. The BA2100 65mT.

Also, Elon Musk has said many times, if is there is no demand, you create demand. Many things in space are not done because it is too damn expensive. 

[Lobo]

With shuttle derived (like the Saturn V), you maintain an entire separate supply chain for that one vehicle that makes those vehicles extra costly because no one else besides NASA uses them in anyway shape or form.  If on the other hand you do something like Atlas phase II then others could use it. 

Or they could have done something like clustering Atlas 5 CCB's around a D4 core to get heavy lift.  They probably couldn't get feasibly super heavy lift like CxP or SLS Block 2 out of that in a single launch, but such an LV could probably get something like 60-70mt per LV, and then just have went with a two launch architecture for lunar programs, which is what CxP really was anyway.  So they wouldn't have lost anything by doing that.

Atlas V Phase 2 could have been an option to study vs. clusterd existing AV/D4 CCB's, but I think the reason AVP2 hasn't been developed is becuase there wouldn't be any non-NASA customers for it or it's variants.  AVH could push up about 29mt without SRB's, which is about what a single stick AVP2 would do.  AVP2 would be a little more efficient than AVH, but you'd have those extra development costs.
A clustered AV/D4 LV would be more off-the-shelf.  The D4 core would probably have to be modified to mount more than two other CCB's, and maybe some barrel strengthening for the larger payload capacity. 
Would probably need a new upper stage too, but that would have been a good reason for ACES.   Maybe the ACES-71 could be the US for the AV/D4 LV. 
As NASA would be the only customer for the custlered LV's, they could have modified a MLP and the VAB to process and launch them at LC-39, where all other EELV launches would still be done as normal from LC-41 and LC-37. 
The RD-180 (or an American made replacement) and the RS-68 could be man-rated then.
I think that would have just been a fraction of the cost of CxP, and cheaper than Direct over the long run. 

And maybe AVP2 and/or AVP3a could be developed for a future Mars mission.

[Lobo]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

take a look at this.....the 7 body looks like a Proton to me.

Ahh...similar to the post I just did. 
So, if a 7-body D4 could do 100mt to LEO, what would a 7-body D4/AV do?  As in a central D4 core with 6 AV boosters aroundged around the same way?
How about a central D4 CCB, with 4 AV CCB's around it?

[go4mars]

Though it's name disagrees, I don't consider FH to be "heavy lift" which means over 100 tonnes (to me). 

In that context, I don't think it is likely that current companies will spend much of their own money on heavy lift.  Except for SpaceX.  And I don't think that they have enough money yet to do it so their money is better spent on the smaller systems for now.  The SpaceX eventual goal is super heavy.  But until they have a reusable rocket, or Tesla has sold about 300,000 model X cars, with bluestar production underway, or a customer shows up with a big bag of money, then they'll be stuck doing smaller-scale development programs;  Reusability, raptor, etc.  But none of the other launch companies expect tens of thousands will want to go to Mars (which will need reusable super-heavy).  To me, super heavy means roughly 400+ tonnes.

[spectre9]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

take a look at this.....the 7 body looks like a Proton to me.

Ahh...similar to the post I just did. 
So, if a 7-body D4 could do 100mt to LEO, what would a 7-body D4/AV do?  As in a central D4 core with 6 AV boosters aroundged around the same way?
How about a central D4 CCB, with 4 AV CCB's around it?

L2 link to RAC3 cards.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27645.0

[Robotbeat]

There is nothing magic about the 100 ton number.

Also, "heavy" is an intrinsically relative adjective, arguing about this or that launch vehicle being "heavy" or not is a complete waste of time except to clarify what we're talking about.

[Lobo]

L2 link to RAC3 cards.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27645.0

Thanks, but the RAC3 cards don't give that information.  They look at variants like that, but with SRB's.   I'm curious about it without SRB's, and a config withonly 4 Atlas V CCB's. 

They also look at RS25E on the central core instead of RS68, which would be the point of "off-the-shelf" had these been looked at prior to CxP. Base heating could have been looked at, and a regen version of RS-68 jointly developed between NASA and DoD if necessary, or stick with ablative if not.  Either way, it'd need man-rated.  But then you have just one engine used by both which is the point.  The RS-68 would throttle down after lift off, then throttle up after booster separation and take the payload to disposable orbit as a sustainer stage.
Then a kick stage could put the payload in LEO, or an upperstage would do a circ burn, then the EDS burn. 

Like I said before RAC-3 was hamstrung by trying to come up with configurations of EELV's that could grow to 130mt to LEO in a single launch with a big upper stage on that per NAA2010.  And you just really can't without making it some monstrosity with a zillion SRB's and various reinforcements to support those big loads on top.  So it was the quintessentially square peg into a round hole scenario.  Of course Shuttle Derived looked better than RAC-3.  However, rewind back before RAC-3, and NAA2010, and CxP, and even ESAS in a sense, since it sort of seemed ESAS was looking not at the most efficient way forward post-shuttle, but different ways to get a preset mass to orbit with as few launches as possible, hence why 1.5 won out over 2 launch Direct-like.  Atlas Phase 3a and 3b were looked at, but those required new development too and those vehicles really weren't needed for non NASA launches, so they might not have been saving much vs. Shuttle derived, and still needed multiple launches.  (although they'd have more commonality in engines, obviously).
You go back, and you change the question to what can we do with existing EELV assets with the least amount of new modification or development? And then we'll plan our missions around that capability.  (which should have been done in the 70’s en leu of STS)  It doesn’t seem like ESAS looked at it like that. 

The upper stage could have been something with commonality with EELV, like ACES, and then a wide 8m-ish PLF on top of that. 
So if there’d been a modified D4 core, that was modified to take 2, 4, or 6 Atlas V LRB’s, then it could even be configured depending on the mission, almost like Atlas V SRB’s. 
 

[Patchouli]

The SpaceX website only gives a ~12 metric ton payload of FH to GTO now:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO):   12,000 kg (26,460 lb)
Inclination   27 degree

The poor GTO payload of Falcon Heavy relative to it's LEO payload suggests the vehicle could really use a high energy upper stage eg Raptor or even just the addition of some sort of third stage.
Even just something derived from the F1 second stage or a solid upper stage probably would greatly increase those GTO numbers.

[ArbitraryConstant]

As for Medium, Heavy, Super-Heavy, etc., I would drop all of that and just talk about LEO mass category (10t, 20t, 50t, 100t, etc.).

It's interesting that there's so few data points in the 25-100 ton range, though this seems like the most fruitful area for commercial to expand into.

SpaceX appears to have implemented all their low hanging fruit upgrades to get up to 53 tons. There's that chart of Delta IV growth options that suggests a similar payload is reachable by implementing the low hanging fruit for that vehicle (cross-feed, upgraded engine, a very similar story AFAICT).

The implication I get from this is that the core booster size these companies have ended up with is well chosen for basic satellite work and is similar across multiple companies. Easily accessible Heavy configurations based on those core boosters are pretty similar too.

The implication from that is that under present circumstances, commercial (either oldspace or newspace) is not going to get up into the 100+ ton range, but could very well produce extremely economical launchers in the 50 ton range using the existing manufacturing base and technology.

Exploration architectures able to use multiple of these smaller (but still not "small") launchers may well find themselves at a considerable advantage.

The poor GTO payload of Falcon Heavy relative to it's LEO payload suggests the vehicle could really use a high energy upper stage eg Raptor or even just the addition of some sort of third stage.

It probably would benefit from such, but it's not even consistent with the Falcon 9 GTO payload. There's some other limitation at work here. The most likely candidate I'm aware of is that they want the flexibility to change launch sites, and are advertising considerably less than the best they could do with a KSC launch with an instantaneous launch window so they have sufficient margin to do this.

As there are no GTO launches requiring 19 tons, saving a slot at KSC in exchange for payload they would not have used is a good trade.

[Downix]

The SpaceX website only gives a ~12 metric ton payload of FH to GTO now:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO):   12,000 kg (26,460 lb)
Inclination   27 degree

The poor GTO payload of Falcon Heavy relative to it's LEO payload suggests the vehicle could really use a high energy upper stage eg Raptor or even just the addition of some sort of third stage.
Even just something derived from the F1 second stage or a solid upper stage probably would greatly increase those GTO numbers.

Which is something I've been saying. I would have rather kept the Merlin-1C for now and focused on even a Hydrolox version of the Merlin, without the staged-combustion of Raptor, just to get a high-energy upper stage going. Instead of developing the Merlin-1D, this hypothetical engine would open up far more. A Falcon Heavy using Falcon 9 1.0 stages, Merlin 1C's, but the estimated hydrolox upper stage performance, would push more to GTO than this FH, and would rival the GTO performance of the Falcon 9 1.1.

[Downix]

The poor GTO payload of Falcon Heavy relative to it's LEO payload suggests the vehicle could really use a high energy upper stage eg Raptor or even just the addition of some sort of third stage.

It probably would benefit from such, but it's not even consistent with the Falcon 9 GTO payload. There's some other limitation at work here. The most likely candidate I'm aware of is that they want the flexibility to change launch sites, and are advertising considerably less than the best they could do with a KSC launch with an instantaneous launch window so they have sufficient margin to do this.

As there are no GTO launches requiring 19 tons, saving a slot at KSC in exchange for payload they would not have used is a good trade.

No, it fits very well with the Falcon 9's 4.8 metric ton GTO capability. Similar mass growth for the Delta IV when going from the Medium to the Heavy as well, where it goes from 3.9 metric tons to 13.1 metric tons, but with a high-energy upper stage (something FH lacks).

[ArbitraryConstant]

No, it fits very well with the Falcon 9's 4.8 metric ton GTO capability. Similar mass growth for the Delta IV when going from the Medium to the Heavy as well, where it goes from 3.9 metric tons to 13.1 metric tons, but with a high-energy upper stage (something FH lacks).

What FH has is crossfeed.

[Downix]

No, it fits very well with the Falcon 9's 4.8 metric ton GTO capability. Similar mass growth for the Delta IV when going from the Medium to the Heavy as well, where it goes from 3.9 metric tons to 13.1 metric tons, but with a high-energy upper stage (something FH lacks).

What FH has is crossfeed.

Which is good for the LEO performance in compensating for gravity losses. It is *not* good for GTO, where the majority of the burn is outside of the atmosphere. By the point of GTO burn, the first stage and boosters are already gone.

For comparison, the Proton with the similar kerolox kick-stage can lift about 20 metric tons to LEO, but only 5 metric tons to GTO. This means Protons LEO to GTO ratio is about 4:1 . This is a similar LEO to GTO pattern as Falcon Heavy has, going from 50 to 12, which is also about 4:1. Crossfeed does improve, but it still cannot get over the basic issue, the SpaceX vacuum engine is a high density engine, not a high-energy engine. As a result, the Delta IV Heavy, going from 26 metric tons to 13 metric tons, has a ratio of 2:1, twice as much GTO performance per ton LEO performance, compared to the Falcon Heavy.

And there's nothing wrong with that. They are focusing on two different approaches to the problem. SpaceX's way has worked fine for the Russians for years, as the Blok-DM demonstrates.

[hkultala]

No, it fits very well with the Falcon 9's 4.8 metric ton GTO capability. Similar mass growth for the Delta IV when going from the Medium to the Heavy as well, where it goes from 3.9 metric tons to 13.1 metric tons, but with a high-energy upper stage (something FH lacks).

What FH has is crossfeed.

Which is good for the LEO performance in compensating for gravity losses. It is *not* good for GTO, where the majority of the burn is outside of the atmosphere. By the point of GTO burn, the first stage and boosters are already gone.

For comparison, the Proton with the similar kerolox kick-stage can lift about 20 metric tons to LEO, but only 5 metric tons to GTO. This means Protons LEO to GTO ratio is about 4:1 .

This is a similar LEO to GTO pattern as Falcon Heavy has, going from 50 to 12, which is also about 4:1. Crossfeed does improve, but it still cannot get over the basic issue, the SpaceX vacuum engine is a high density engine, not a high-energy engine.

Proton has launched Intelsat 22 which was 6200 kg.
Which means like GTO-LEO-ratio of 30%.

Though it seems this was with breze-m upper stage with hypergolics, which actually have _lower_ isp than kerosine.

And compared to "traditional boosters", cross-feed actually makes gravity losses WORSE as it causes the boosters to separate earlier, and makes the center core close-to-full (bad T/W) vs almost empty after booster separation.

What cross-feed does it that it practically converts the boosters into a "full stage", though in case of FH the core engine nozzles are not optimized as vacuum nozzles but first stage nozzles, which takes away some of the advantage.

Adding stages should give more benefit in high-energy orbits than it gives in low-energy orbits, so FH should have better GTO to LEO-ratio than F9.

F9-v1.1 GTO-to-leo percentage:

4.85t / 13.15t = 36%

based in this what FH _should_ lift to GTO:
53t * 0.36 = 19t.

So FH should lift something like 20t to GTO if the known values for F9-1.1 are true.

So, either
1) F9-1.1 can lift more to LEO than 13.15t
2) The FH 12t GTO number is without crossfeed
3) The FH numbers (at least the GTO number) is from vanderberg with bootleg manouver which costs quite a lot of fuel. (because they cannot yet lunch FH from cape, they cannot sell numbers they cannot deliver, and that 12t is number they are selling, 53t is number they are only hyping "for the future")
4) 2+3

As a result, the Delta IV Heavy, going from 26 metric tons to 13 metric tons, has a ratio of 2:1, twice as much GTO performance per ton LEO performance, compared to the Falcon Heavy.

And there's nothing wrong with that. They are focusing on two different approaches to the problem. SpaceX's way has worked fine for the Russians for years, as the Blok-DM demonstrates.

Delta with LH upper stage scales much, better, yes, but the difference should not be so big.

[MATTBLAK]

I know it would be a silly number of first stage engines - 45 - but I've been wondering in this or that thread how a Falcon 9-based 'Super Heavy' would perform - this is assuming that somehow, Falcon X never happens or gets badly deferred. Recipe: 5x Version 1.1 stages ganged together - propellant cross-feed from 2x boosters only; the other two would be jettisoned relatively early, Upper Stage: 1x Raptor powered LOX/LH2 5-meter diameter stage. Payload to LEO? I don't know, but it would have to be in excess of 75 metric tons.

[MikeAtkinson]

So, either
1) F9-1.1 can lift more to LEO than 13.15t
2) The FH 12t GTO number is without crossfeed
3) The FH numbers (at least the GTO number) is from vanderberg with bootleg manouver which costs quite a lot of fuel. (because they cannot yet lunch FH from cape, they cannot sell numbers they cannot deliver, and that 12t is number they are selling, 53t is number they are only hyping "for the future")
4) 2+3

5) the upper stage is optimised for F9 (only difference for FH is a possible tank stretch).

[Downix]

No, it fits very well with the Falcon 9's 4.8 metric ton GTO capability. Similar mass growth for the Delta IV when going from the Medium to the Heavy as well, where it goes from 3.9 metric tons to 13.1 metric tons, but with a high-energy upper stage (something FH lacks).

What FH has is crossfeed.

Which is good for the LEO performance in compensating for gravity losses. It is *not* good for GTO, where the majority of the burn is outside of the atmosphere. By the point of GTO burn, the first stage and boosters are already gone.

For comparison, the Proton with the similar kerolox kick-stage can lift about 20 metric tons to LEO, but only 5 metric tons to GTO. This means Protons LEO to GTO ratio is about 4:1 .

This is a similar LEO to GTO pattern as Falcon Heavy has, going from 50 to 12, which is also about 4:1. Crossfeed does improve, but it still cannot get over the basic issue, the SpaceX vacuum engine is a high density engine, not a high-energy engine.

Proton has launched Intelsat 22 which was 6200 kg.
Which means like GTO-LEO-ratio of 30%.

Though it seems this was with breze-m upper stage with hypergolics, which actually have _lower_ isp than kerosine.

And compared to "traditional boosters", cross-feed actually makes gravity losses WORSE as it causes the boosters to separate earlier, and makes the center core close-to-full (bad T/W) vs almost empty after booster separation.

What cross-feed does it that it practically converts the boosters into a "full stage", though in case of FH the core engine nozzles are not optimized as vacuum nozzles but first stage nozzles, which takes away some of the advantage.

Adding stages should give more benefit in high-energy orbits than it gives in low-energy orbits, so FH should have better GTO to LEO-ratio than F9.

F9-v1.1 GTO-to-leo percentage:

4.85t / 13.15t = 36%

based in this what FH _should_ lift to GTO:
53t * 0.36 = 19t.

So FH should lift something like 20t to GTO if the known values for F9-1.1 are true.

So, either
1) F9-1.1 can lift more to LEO than 13.15t
2) The FH 12t GTO number is without crossfeed
3) The FH numbers (at least the GTO number) is from vanderberg with bootleg manouver which costs quite a lot of fuel. (because they cannot yet lunch FH from cape, they cannot sell numbers they cannot deliver, and that 12t is number they are selling, 53t is number they are only hyping "for the future")
4) 2+3

As a result, the Delta IV Heavy, going from 26 metric tons to 13 metric tons, has a ratio of 2:1, twice as much GTO performance per ton LEO performance, compared to the Falcon Heavy.

And there's nothing wrong with that. They are focusing on two different approaches to the problem. SpaceX's way has worked fine for the Russians for years, as the Blok-DM demonstrates.

Delta with LH upper stage scales much, better, yes, but the difference should not be so big.

Intelsat-22 was launched on a Proton 8K82KM 14S43 Phase III, which has more LEO performance than the model Proton I discussed above (I used the 8K82K for simpler math). The model of Proton used an upgraded 3rd stage, which when combined with the Briz-M increases the total performance by almost 10%.

In addition, hypergols can have comparable isp to kerolox, and a few hypergol solutions are even able to reach a performance rate just below hydrolox. But not the case of the Briz-M here, which has an impulse of only just slightly less than the Falcon's upper stage. However, the Briz-M is also significantly lighter, as it does not need to perform any of the orbital burn.

[GalacticIntruder]

It seems to me SpaceX's top priority is to always be the lowest cost launch provider. Developing a hydrolox Upper really only makes sense for BEO. They can compete pretty well in most sat launches with RP1 and FH. If they are serious about TMI then I think they must develop that higher Isp capability.

Maybe they can buy the manufacturing rights to a LH2 upper because in house development would be very expensive and not be as good as off the shelf engines.

[Downix]

It seems to me SpaceX's top priority is to always have the low cost lunches. Developing a hydrolox Upper really only makes sense for BEO. They can compete pretty well in most sat launches with RP1 and FH. If they are serious about TMI then I think they must develop that higher Isp capability.

Maybe they can buy the manufacturing rights to a LH2 upper because in house development would be very expensive and not be as good as off the shelf engines.

They can modify their existing engine to run on hydrolox for cheaper than buying the manufacturing rights to another engine. Not as good as the RL-10, but the RL-10 is the single largest cost factor for the EELV's price increase as well. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. A hydrolox Merlin would be more than sufficient for this job.

And yes, it can be done. Aerojet has a long history of modifying existing engines to run on multiple fuel. The Aerojet LR-87 is distinctive for running on Kerolox, Hydrolox *and* Hypergols.

Alternatively, they can buy a Hydrolox upper stage from another vendor.

[sewand]

It seems to me SpaceX's top priority is to always have the low cost lunches.

I recommend the ham sandwich.

I recommend the roast Falcon, though it's a bit on the Heavy side.

[darkenfast]

It seems to me SpaceX's top priority is to always have the low cost lunches.

I recommend the ham sandwich.

I recommend the roast Falcon, though it's a bit on the Heavy side.

That was fowl.

[Joel]

On a side note, Musk said in the Mars Society video that reusability will take away half of the payload. To be more precise, he said that a good expendable rocket could get 4 % of the liftoff mass to orbit. And then adding reusability will then costs two percentage points, leaving 2 %.

So, know knows, maybe FH is deliberately overdimensioned now and the idea is for it to be 25 mT in reusable mode. Or 35 mT with a high-isp US.

EDIT:
Another way of interpreting this is that SpaceX needs to scale up FH a factor 2 in order for it to make 50 mT reusable. In expendable mode, the same rocket might be able to lift 100 mT.

[aero]

The expend verses reuse idea troubles me. If you really do have a $50 million (my number) machine capable of half your total launch mass requirement in reusable mode at say for example, $10 million fuel and refurb. costs, would you really throw it away just to launch the total mass in one go?

Why would you throw away $50 million to launch mass that could be launched for $20 million? What might exist at a mass of 100 tonnes that could not be split into two or more pieces for less than $30 million?

I think that expending a Falcon Heavy will be rare once it becomes reusable. Maybe not though, assembly on orbit is very expensive.