SpaceX Falcon Heavy Demo - Discussion and Speculation

[gospacex]

Elon has said the first stage is 75% of the vehicle cost.  I've also heard 70% and 80% from SpaceX.  I've also heard the MVac costs twice what an M1D costs, and the fairing cost $6m.  When I put all these numbers together, and try to get some gross margin between costs and price, it seems like the fairing costs almost as much as the second stage, which doesn't sound right.  I think Elon said once that he was surprised at how much the fairing cost to make.

.	No Reuse	.	First stage	reuse	1st & fairing	reuse	1st, 2nd & fairing	reuse
M1D	$  2.5	.	$  0.5	.	$  0.5	.	$  0.5
First stage remainder	$  7.0	.	$  1.0	.	$  1.0	.	$  1.0
First stage	$29.5	69%	$  5.5	30%	$  5.5	41%	$  5.5	65%
Mvac	$  5.0	.	$  5.0	.	$  5.0	.	$  1.0
Second stage remainder	$  2.0	.	$  2.0	.	$  2.0	.	$  1.0
Second stage	$  7.0	16%	$  7.0	38%	$  7.0	52%	$  2.0	24%
Fairing	$  6.0	14%	$  6.0	32%	$  1.0	7%	$  1.0	12%
Total vehicle cost	$42.5	.	$18.5	.	$13.5	.	$  8.5
Ops cost	$10.0	.	$10.0	.	$10.0	.	$10.0
Total cost	$52.5	.	$28.5	.	$23.5	.	$18.5
Price	$62.0	.	$43.5	.	$40.0	.	$38.0
Gross margin	$  9.5	15%	$15.0	34%	$16.5	41%	$19.5	51%
Price reduction	.	.	30%	.	8%	.	5%
R&D per step	$1,000	.	$1,000	.	$200	.	$500
Launches to recover R&D	105	.	182	.	133	.	167

How did you decide the "price" row?
It does not make sense for SpaceX to drop prices too much.

For example, as of now, they have more customers willing to buy a ride than they can launch, so there is no need to lower the price at all - the only result would be less revenue, and not a single extra launch.

In a hypothetical future where Elon can launch F9s as often as he pleases (say up to 4 per day, which greatly exceeds current launch rate of the entire world), dropping price to ~$50m undercuts everyone, even including Soyuz.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Ok so let us say that a fully reusable FH is developed that has the same per launch cost as that of an F9 (it would normally under the circumstances be ~$11+M more /launch without S2 reuse). Also if it can then launch the CommX constellation of 26 sats/launch vs a F9 of 18. This equates in a ~$400K savings per sat in launch costs. At 4000 sats this becomes $1.6B in savings.

The other items to this is instead of 228 F9 launches over every 7 year (33/yr) vs  158 FH launches over 7 years (23/yr). If such launches started in 2019 by EOY 2021 the count of FH launches would be > 70 which is the current total of all Atlas V launches which took 15 years to accumulate.

Which could mean that before Vulcan can even start$ bidding on contracts the FH would be the old boy with a very large launch record that it would have to compete against. And the FH (fully reusable would be 1/3 the price of a Vulcan).

Economically only fully reusable or much much larger LVs like the NG with at least partial reuse could compete.

So if a FH(FR) is priced at $25M/launch able to put into LEO ~25mt for $1000/kg. An NG able to do 60mt would have to price out at $60M/launch to compete at the $/kg rate for bulk cargo. The real question becomes from an economic point can the FH(FR) compete against itself FH(PR). The estimates show that could both end with the same $/kg rate. The problem arises for payloads in volume available in the faring. So a lower weight but with same volume capability may be the better choice when it offers the same $/kg. This is definitely the case with the sat constellations. The LV runs out of volume before it runs out of weight capability.

[IainMcClatchie]

How did you decide the "price" row?
It does not make sense for SpaceX to drop prices too much.

SpaceX said they were going to drop prices by 30% as a result of first stage reuse.  This model is really simple, I'm just looking at the launches of reused spacecraft.  Obviously some customers will choose virgin cores and will pay more.  Who knows how well that will match the rate at which cores wear out.

I agree that SpaceX shouldn't drop prices so much.  In fact, my guesses for fairing and second stage reuse show that I agree with you.  Lower prices than these would drag out the time to earn back the money spent developing reuse of those pieces.

[Rei]

I agree that SpaceX shouldn't drop prices so much.  In fact, my guesses for fairing and second stage reuse show that I agree with you.  Lower prices than these would drag out the time to earn back the money spent developing reuse of those pieces.

Not to mention that they're reportedly running cash negative right now and certainly could use have more cash on hand to weather hardships, as well as for the R&D for the ever-growing number of expensive new systems they're developing.

[mrhuggy]

When Elon Musk say maybe we launch something stupid, you know when they talk about the ability of a launch system ie could fit a Greyhound Coach or big enough to lift a tank. SpaceX might be stupid enough to try it out.

Put a school bus in orbit with a few cameras, solar panels of the roof and a deorbit package.

Also on the return of the 2nd stage. I don't think they will try to land it rather do a hover dunk into the sea off the west coast.

[CraigLieb]

When Elon Musk say maybe we launch something stupid, you know when they talk about the ability of a launch system ie could fit a Greyhound Coach or big enough to lift a tank. SpaceX might be stupid enough to try it out.

Put a school bus in orbit with a few cameras, solar panels of the roof and a deorbit package.

Also on the return of the 2nd stage. I don't think they will try to land it rather do a hover dunk into the sea off the west coast.

Put "cowboy Johnny" in the driver's seat, and a bunch of cheese in the passenger's seats.

[abaddon]

Not to mention that they're reportedly running cash negative right now

Source?  (That WSJ article was through 2015, so if that is your source, it is very out of date at this point).

[Paper Kosmonaut]

When Elon Musk say maybe we launch something stupid, you know when they talk about the ability of a launch system ie could fit a Greyhound Coach or big enough to lift a tank. SpaceX might be stupid enough to try it out.

Put a school bus in orbit with a few cameras, solar panels of the roof and a deorbit package.

If it really needs to be silly, as Elon put it, I'd say send a photo of Jeff Bezos along. Just for sh*ts and giggles.
All silliness aside, I really am looking forward to this. I definitely want to know more of the techniques used in separating and returning with three boosters in the game. These are interesting times for spaceflight.

[Martin.cz]

A crazy crazy payload idea:

Another upper stage! 

Like that you can reduce the risk by not using a modified upper stage (if your certification requirements dictate a flawlessly running second stage) and you still can test upper stage reuse - possibly with rather radical modifications. Or you can test two recovery techniques at once.

Also depending on your reuse technique you can use a stripped down (maybe even boilerplate!) upper stage - or (if you somehow manage to do that) even put multiple "upper stage payloads" on top, each testing a different reuse technique.

Still probably too little gain for too much work & constructing so many sophisticated payloads in such relatively short timeframe would be unworkable and an of-the-shelf silly payload - like say a medium sized steam locomotive -  is much more likely.

[Surfdaddy]

Seems that successful stage2 recovery presents two major problem areas:

1 - Dissipate tremendous energy of orbital velocity with little weight added/needed by the stage (to minimize payload penalty)
2 - Find a way to non-destructively land the stage

For 1, I don't see them using fuel, that's a big penalty in weight when you have atmosphere to do it for "free". But the heating problem. Are there any chances/has anybody done any research into an inflatable shield with special coatings on it. Then you could inflate, re-enter, and discard it. Otherwise, put the heat shield on top, some grid fins and probably doable without a lot of extra weight or hardware.

For 2, I doubt that any solution involving salt water contamination would be desirable by Elon as a long term solution.

What are other possibilities?:
a - Helicopter midair recovery (seems dicey but I'm no expert)
b - Propulsive w/legs or cradle? Could there be an MVac variant that would have a lower bell section that discards to get rid of the extra expansion? Not soon I know.
d - Steerable parachutes/cradle landing
e - Steerable parachutes/Landing bag on barge to cushion landing? After all, parachutists flare their chutes and often land standing up, so velocity can be reduced to very low values as the chute is essentially a bit of a wing.

[Kaputnik]

A crazy crazy payload idea:

Another upper stage! 

Like that you can reduce the risk by not using a modified upper stage (if your certification requirements dictate a flawlessly running second stage) and you still can test upper stage reuse - possibly with rather radical modifications. Or you can test two recovery techniques at once.

Also depending on your reuse technique you can use a stripped down (maybe even boilerplate!) upper stage - or (if you somehow manage to do that) even put multiple "upper stage payloads" on top, each testing a different reuse technique.

Still probably too little gain for too much work & constructing so many sophisticated payloads in such relatively short timeframe would be unworkable and an of-the-shelf silly payload - like say a medium sized steam locomotive -  is much more likely.

A fully fuelled Falcon US weighs about twice what FH can lift.
Plus you'd need significant mods to the TEL to load another stage and keep it topped off.

[Martin.cz]

A crazy crazy payload idea:

Another upper stage! 

Like that you can reduce the risk by not using a modified upper stage (if your certification requirements dictate a flawlessly running second stage) and you still can test upper stage reuse - possibly with rather radical modifications. Or you can test two recovery techniques at once.

Also depending on your reuse technique you can use a stripped down (maybe even boilerplate!) upper stage - or (if you somehow manage to do that) even put multiple "upper stage payloads" on top, each testing a different reuse technique.

Still probably too little gain for too much work & constructing so many sophisticated payloads in such relatively short timeframe would be unworkable and an of-the-shelf silly payload - like say a medium sized steam locomotive -  is much more likely.

A fully fuelled Falcon US weighs about twice what FH can lift.
Plus you'd need significant mods to the TEL to load another stage and keep it topped off.

You probably would not need it to be fully fueled for recovery testing - approximate fuel/oxidizer amount expected on normal payload delivery should be enough for recovery testing. But that's hardly the only problem with my crazy proposal (TEL modifications & certainly many other things).

[Kaputnik]

A crazy crazy payload idea:

Another upper stage! 

Like that you can reduce the risk by not using a modified upper stage (if your certification requirements dictate a flawlessly running second stage) and you still can test upper stage reuse - possibly with rather radical modifications. Or you can test two recovery techniques at once.

Also depending on your reuse technique you can use a stripped down (maybe even boilerplate!) upper stage - or (if you somehow manage to do that) even put multiple "upper stage payloads" on top, each testing a different reuse technique.

Still probably too little gain for too much work & constructing so many sophisticated payloads in such relatively short timeframe would be unworkable and an of-the-shelf silly payload - like say a medium sized steam locomotive -  is much more likely.

A fully fuelled Falcon US weighs about twice what FH can lift.
Plus you'd need significant mods to the TEL to load another stage and keep it topped off.

You probably would not need it to be fully fueled for recovery testing - approximate fuel/oxidizer amount expected on normal payload delivery should be enough for recovery testing. But that's hardly the only problem with my crazy proposal (TEL modifications & certainly many other things).

I remember Jim saying once that you can't just fly stages partly fuelled. I don't know how much work is needed to change that. Certainly you'd need to change the prop level sensors which doesn't sound too bad, but there may be other stuff like modelling propellant slosh.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Only just worked out the thread was moved here, as I don't normally read all the SpaceX threads. Anyways, here are some reports from the SES-10 presser, some of which has already been reported here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1661115#msg1661115

Marcia Dunn: Will you refly this booster?  Next flight of reuse booster.

Musk:  FH two side boosters are being reflown. That will be interesting mission on FH... hopefully in good direction.

"We're not going to fly anything on, anything on... We're probably going to fly something really silly on the first flight of Falcon Heavy. Its considered a high risk mission."

The boosters will return to the launch site and the core will land on the drone ship.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1661139#msg1661139

Steven Clarke: Where is FH?

Musk: FH sounded easy; actually no, crazy hard.  Required redesign of center core.  Done with testing.  Cores are in final prep.  Finished in 2-3 months.  Late summer launch.

[Varn]

After reading this thread all the way though, all I want to know is, why does the yellow School Bus keep getting mentioned? No one bothers to go full Spaceb*lls (1987) and guess that they are going to launch a winged Winnebago? (If that had been mentioned, and deleted, then pardon me for bringing it up again...)

[Basto]

They should send up a LEGO sculpture ITS. That would be equally silly AND cool.

[Moderas]

After reading this thread all the way though, all I want to know is, why does the yellow School Bus keep getting mentioned? No one bothers to go full Spaceb*lls (1987) and guess that they are going to launch a winged Winnebago? (If that had been mentioned, and deleted, then pardon me for bringing it up again...)

Elon has, on multiple occasions, used a school bus as a reference for the size of the F9/H payload fairing, so it has been a joke for a long time.

[tvg98]

I'm still hoping they lift a school bus into orbit with all kinds of cool stuff inside.

[Steve D]

They should send up a LEGO sculpture ITS. That would be equally silly AND cool.

Great. Shatter a giant lego sculpture in low earth orbit. Have you ever seen "Gravity"?

[dror]

After reading this thread all the way though, all I want to know is, why does the yellow School Bus keep getting mentioned? No one bothers to go full Spaceb*lls (1987) and guess that they are going to launch a winged Winnebago? (If that had been mentioned, and deleted, then pardon me for bringing it up again...)

Elon has, on multiple occasions, used a school bus as a reference for the size of the F9/H payload fairing, so it has been a joke for a long time.

And that: