Gwynne Shotwell on The Space Show 3/21

[guckyfan]

Beginning at 8:57 she says (paraphrasing here) that while the prices on the spacex site don't account for reusability yet, the performance specs do. She says the actual performance is about 30% higher than quoted on the site.  Was this known already? This is HUGE news to me!

That's roughly in line with the old ~16,000-17,000 kg to LEO payload shown in the NLS II vehicle performance plotter and that, if I recall correctly, was briefly on the SpaceX website. I had been hoping that the 13150 kg to LEO number on the website included first stage reuse, so its nice to see confirmation on that.

It would also make a LEO capacity of ~10 tons including second stage reuse likely. Dragon space station missions would then become fully reusable flights. But a discussion shoud go into another thread.

[Oli]

Beginning at 8:57 she says (paraphrasing here) that while the prices on the spacex site don't account for reusability yet, the performance specs do. She says the actual performance is about 30% higher than quoted on the site.  Was this known already? This is HUGE news to me!

So, using Gwynne's previously stated goal of $7 million per Falcon 9R flight, that comes to $7,000,000 / 28,991 Lbs to LEO = $241/Lb to LEO

Wrt to performance, this

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A41fcfd6c-a6f2-42d5-b20b-52e31a103011

pretty much says it all. I don't know why Musk and co. give conflicting information.

[Owlon]

Beginning at 8:57 she says (paraphrasing here) that while the prices on the spacex site don't account for reusability yet, the performance specs do. She says the actual performance is about 30% higher than quoted on the site.  Was this known already? This is HUGE news to me!

So, using Gwynne's previously stated goal of $7 million per Falcon 9R flight, that comes to $7,000,000 / 28,991 Lbs to LEO = $241/Lb to LEO

Wrt to performance, this

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A41fcfd6c-a6f2-42d5-b20b-52e31a103011

pretty much says it all. I don't know why Musk and co. give conflicting information.

The main discrepancy there, I think, is the 1500 m/s vs 1800 m/s performance. It sounds like Falcon 9 is able to do 3500kg to a 1500 m/s orbit with first stage RTLS and ~5300kg to 1800 m/s fully expendable. The website number of 4850kg may be an 1800 m/s orbit with first stage RTLS.

[Oli]

Beginning at 8:57 she says (paraphrasing here) that while the prices on the spacex site don't account for reusability yet, the performance specs do. She says the actual performance is about 30% higher than quoted on the site.  Was this known already? This is HUGE news to me!

So, using Gwynne's previously stated goal of $7 million per Falcon 9R flight, that comes to $7,000,000 / 28,991 Lbs to LEO = $241/Lb to LEO

Wrt to performance, this

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A41fcfd6c-a6f2-42d5-b20b-52e31a103011

pretty much says it all. I don't know why Musk and co. give conflicting information.

The main discrepancy there, I think, is the 1500 m/s vs 1800 m/s performance. It sounds like Falcon 9 is able to do 3500kg to a 1500 m/s orbit with first stage RTLS and ~5300kg to 1800 m/s fully expendable. The website number of 4850kg may be an 1800 m/s orbit with first stage RTLS.

It says currently Falcon 9 can lift 3.5t to a 1500m/s GTO orbit. I don't know how the 30% higher than 4.85t figure is compatible with this, ok I guess she meant LEO performance.

The other things Musk says, is they're aiming for 3.5t (not sure what GTO, I guess 1800m/s) for the version with reusable booster (with minor improvements to the existing F9).

[Elmar Moelzer]

That's roughly in line with the old ~16,000-17,000 kg to LEO payload shown in the NLS II vehicle performance plotter and that, if I recall correctly, was briefly on the SpaceX website. I had been hoping that the 13150 kg to LEO number on the website included first stage reuse, so its nice to see confirmation on that.

Yeah, I always thought that was the case.

[manboy]

Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?

[john smith 19]

At 7:05 she says that NASA requirements add $10m to a standard F9 launch, but USAF launches add more like $20m and security requirements add a further $8-10m

So in principal a DOD launch worst case would be F9 standard launch + USAF costs + security --> F9 cost +$30m

Which sounds like a pretty good deal for any viable payload that can fly on an F9.

That still leaves a pretty broad range of payloads that are not in its range.

And that's won't happen till October 16th 2016 at the earliest.

[EDIT 49:00 3 separate qualification regimes for NASA, USAF and NRO ]

[guckyfan]

Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?

It could also be a 18 Raptor 15m single stick. Or 12 Raptor with increased thrust. I think those could also not launch at 39A. Given RTLS constraints with Heavy central cores such a configuration seems to make more sense to me than a Heavy. But what do I know?

[Jcc]

Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?

Possibly, and there may be a single core version, too.

You would think that a pad that could launch Saturn V, could handle a single core BFR at least, although if the pad is configured for F9/FH the support equipment would be incompatible, and they would not want to stop launching F9/FH there while they retrofit, so better to build new pad. Maybe 39C?

Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.

[guckyfan]

Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.

Interplanetary trajectories also launch east.

[manboy]

Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?

It could also be a 18 Raptor 15m single stick. Or 12 Raptor with increased thrust.

That seems to contradict currently available information.

[guckyfan]

Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?

It could also be a 18 Raptor 15m single stick. Or 12 Raptor with increased thrust.

That seems to contradict currently available information.

True, it is only speculation. But this is the next step. The only thing that seems quite set in stone yet is the 9 Raptor first stage as a first step. A 3 core Heavy is much less clear as the upgrade path.

For me the single stick 9 Raptor launcher seems good enough to do anything regarding Mars quite efficiently.

[ugordan]

Interplanetary trajectories also launch east.

That helps launch vehicle performance, but it's not a prerequisite for an interplanetary injection.

[clongton]

Listening to Ms. Shotwell cleared up a misconception I had about payload capacity v.s. reusability. I had assumed that implementing reusability would reduce payload capacity from those posted on the SpaceX website. It turns out I was wrong. Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy have approximately 30% more payload capacity than what is posted. She said that all that additional capacity is reserved for recovery and reuse requirements. She said that the posted capacities are for the reusable launch vehicles, not the expendables. She also said that the only thing that would change once reuse becomes standard is a lowering of the prices for launch. Wow.

[edkyle99]

Listening to Ms. Shotwell cleared up a misconception I had about payload capacity v.s. reusability. I had assumed that implementing reusability would reduce payload capacity from those posted on the SpaceX website. It turns out I was wrong. Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy have approximately 30% more payload capacity than what is posted. She said that all that additional capacity is reserved for recovery and reuse requirements. She said that the posted capacities are for the reusable launch vehicles, not the expendables. She also said that the only thing that would change once reuse becomes standard is a lowering of the prices for launch. Wow.

Before you put that belief on the books I encourage you to run the numbers through the rocket equation and ask yourself what really makes sense.  Even assuming full expendability, the advertised numbers require unprecedented or nearly unprecedented mass ratios.  Squeezing reuse out of that I can't see without payload reduction.

 - Ed Kyle

[WindyCity]

Even assuming full expendability, the advertised numbers require unprecedented or nearly unprecedented mass ratios.  Squeezing reuse out of that I can't see without payload reduction.

Shotwell mentioned that future SpaceX reusable rockets would recover some mass by removing wiring, sensors, etc. that are being used for data-gathering during their R&D. How significant would these gains be? Enough, do you think, to justify her comment that no payload launch capability would be sacrificed?

[guckyfan]

Interplanetary trajectories also launch east.

That helps launch vehicle performance, but it's not a prerequisite for an interplanetary injection.

For interplanetary launches of cargo or humans you will seek best vehicle performance.

[clongton]

Listening to Ms. Shotwell cleared up a misconception I had about payload capacity v.s. reusability. I had assumed that implementing reusability would reduce payload capacity from those posted on the SpaceX website. It turns out I was wrong. Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy have approximately 30% more payload capacity than what is posted. She said that all that additional capacity is reserved for recovery and reuse requirements. She said that the posted capacities are for the reusable launch vehicles, not the expendables. She also said that the only thing that would change once reuse becomes standard is a lowering of the prices for launch. Wow.

Before you put that belief on the books I encourage you to run the numbers through the rocket equation and ask yourself what really makes sense.  Even assuming full expendability, the advertised numbers require unprecedented or nearly unprecedented mass ratios.  Squeezing reuse out of that I can't see without payload reduction.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not taking it to the bank just yet Ed. But what it does tell me is that SpaceX is not planning on loosing performance to LEO because of reusability. We'll see how that works out.

[Lars_J]

Listening to Ms. Shotwell cleared up a misconception I had about payload capacity v.s. reusability. I had assumed that implementing reusability would reduce payload capacity from those posted on the SpaceX website. It turns out I was wrong. Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy have approximately 30% more payload capacity than what is posted. She said that all that additional capacity is reserved for recovery and reuse requirements. She said that the posted capacities are for the reusable launch vehicles, not the expendables. She also said that the only thing that would change once reuse becomes standard is a lowering of the prices for launch. Wow.

Before you put that belief on the books I encourage you to run the numbers through the rocket equation and ask yourself what really makes sense.  Even assuming full expendability, the advertised numbers require unprecedented or nearly unprecedented mass ratios.  Squeezing reuse out of that I can't see without payload reduction.

 - Ed Kyle

Did you think that the NASA NLSII 16mt figure to LEO for v1.1 required "unprecedented or nearly unprecedented mass ratio"?

Also remember that When Shotwell was talking reusability, she appears to be only talking about first stage reusability. 2nd stage reuse is a bit down the road.

[john smith 19]

Also remember that When Shotwell was talking reusability, she appears to be only talking about first stage reusability. 2nd stage reuse is a bit down the road.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I got the impression with FH she was talking about full IE all stage recoverability, and that with full resue it could get the biggest GEO comm sats to their orbit and still bring all stages back.

How they will get those upper stages (especially the 3rd stage) will be recovered is of course anyone's guess.