SpaceX Payload capability summary for different vehicle and landing combinations

[M.E.T.]

I decided to start this thread as a potential solution to my own constant search for a single reference point for the payload capabilities of the various SpaceX vehicle, mission and landing configurations. I am aware of the (very minimal) information on SpaceX's website, and of the various calculations and estimates that are made on an ad hoc basis in various discussions by those forum members with sufficient knowledge and skills to do so. However, I have not been able to find it all summarized in one place.

So my idea was to compile a list of the most likely SpaceX vehicle, destination and landing combinations, and ask those among us with the requisite knowledge to help populate it with the most accurate estimates available. Hopefully this "table" will gradually improve over time as more information is released, and as each new SpaceX flight provides new insights into vehicle capabilities.

Below I have put down the initial vehicle, destination and landing combinations that I think would be most relevant to most people. My request is for informed payload estimates next to each option. Hopefully others will find it as useful as I do. So here goes.

Definitions

LEO numbers are approximately 200 km circular LEO at 28.5 deg.
GTO from the Cape is commonly specified as GEO-1800 (about LEO+2500 m/s delta-v).
TLI is roughly LEO+3200.
TMI near LEO+3900.

The list (in approximate ascending payload order):

Falcon 9 (commencing with Block V)

Falcon 9 Block V RTLS - Payload to LEO: 13,680kg (40% payload penalty estimate)
Falcon 9 Block V RTLS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon 9 Block V RTLS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon 9 Block V RTLS - Payload to Mars:

Falcon 9 Block V ASDS - Payload to LEO: 18,240kg (20% payload penalty estimate)
Falcon 9 Block V ASDS - Payload to GTO: 5,500kg (SpaceX F9 reusable GTO payload quote for $62m)
Falcon 9 Block V ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon 9 Block V ASDS - Payload to Mars:

Falcon 9 Block V Expendable - Payload to LEO: 22,800kg (SpaceX website)
Falcon 9 Block V Expendable - Payload to GTO: 8,300kg (SpaceX website)
Falcon 9 Block V Expendable - Payload to Moon:
Falcon 9 Block V Expendable - Payload to Mars: 4,020kg (SpaceX website)

Falcon Heavy (assuming Block V boosters)

Falcon Heavy 3 Cores RTLS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores RTLS - Payload to GTO: 8,000kg (SpaceX reusable Falcon Heavy GTO quote for $90m)
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores RTLS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores RTLS - Payload to Mars:

Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS - Payload to Mars:

Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to Mars:

Falcon Heavy Multiple ASDS options

Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Mars:

Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable - Payload to Mars:

Falcon Heavy Fully Expendable

Falcon Heavy Expendable - Payload to LEO: 63,800kg (SpaceX website)
Falcon Heavy Expendable - Payload to GTO: 26,700kg (SpaceX website)
Falcon Heavy Expendable - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy Expendable - Payload to Mars: 16,800kg (SpaceX website)

Suggestions are welcome for further expansions or changes to the list.

Edited with:
Information from SpaceX's website.
Envy887's estimates added.
RonM additional Falcon Heavy configuration added.
Envy887's F9 reusable payload penalty estimates added.
More edits based on various suggestions. Don't think I'm going to be able to reference them all.

[envy887]

SpaceX also lists 5500kg to GTO for $62M on F9, which has to be with ASDS landing. The 8000 kg to GTO for $90M on FH is definitely with booster RTLS, and might be with center RTLS as well.

[Lars-J]

Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Mars:

This configuration will never fly. Boosters will either RTLS or be expended. (they'll need a fleet of ships)

For FH with recovery, there are only two options. Either the core will RTLS, or land on ASDS.

[M.E.T.]

Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Mars:

This configuration will never fly. Boosters will either RTLS or be expended. (they'll need a fleet of ships)

For FH with recovery, there are only two options. Either the core will RTLS, or land on ASDS.

OK. I was wondering about that when I posted it, as I haven't ever seen this configuration discussed before. I just thought that if it managed to squeeze some extra payload out of a recoverable set of boosters, the cost benefit might be there. But ok, I'm happy to remove this option.

[Lars-J]

OK. I was wondering about that when I posted it, as I haven't ever seen this configuration discussed before. I just thought that if it managed to squeeze some extra payload into a recoverable set of boosters, the cost benefit might be there. But ok, I'm happy to remove this option.

I'll grant you that it is a theoretical option that is available, but the need for multiple ships and SpaceX's clear preference for RTLS makes it very unlikely.

[envy887]

It could easily happen if SpaceX adds another ASDS operating out of Brownsville. It would only take a week or two to tow OCISLY and JTRI to the Gulf to catch 3 cores.

[sevenperforce]

Parallel-booster staging for FH will happen at a much lower velocity than F9 staging, so the RTLS penalty is correspondingly lower.

[M.E.T.]

OK. I was wondering about that when I posted it, as I haven't ever seen this configuration discussed before. I just thought that if it managed to squeeze some extra payload into a recoverable set of boosters, the cost benefit might be there. But ok, I'm happy to remove this option.

I'll grant you that it is a theoretical option that is available, but the need for multiple ships and SpaceX's clear preference for RTLS makes it very unlikely.

Would it be possible to estimate the payload gain from booster ASDS landing vs booster RTLS? For both ASDS centre core landing and expendable centre core flights? Would the payload percentage gain be in double digits or not?

[Lars-J]

It could easily happen if SpaceX adds another ASDS operating out of Brownsville. It would only take a week or two to tow OCISLY and JTRI to the Gulf to catch 3 cores.

No, the barges are too wide to pass through the Panama canal without extensive modifications. They had to partially disassemble one to get it to the west coat.

And the goal is a launch every two weeks from each pad.

[guckyfan]

I could imagine they need two ASDS on the eastcoast when the flight rate increases. To really maximise performance and expend only the central core they could do downrange landing of the 2 side boosters. Probably rare if ever needed but possible. Like if they need a lot of throw mass to Mars for Red Dragon with heavy payload and lots of fuel for Mars EDL.

[M.E.T.]

I could imagine they need two ASDS on the eastcoast when the flight rate increases. To really maximise performance and expend only the central core they could do downrange landing of the 2 side boosters. Probably rare if ever needed but possible. Like if they need a lot of throw mass to Mars for Red Dragon with heavy payload and lots of fuel for Mars EDL.

Well, a booster costs what, $40m to construct? So if the payload is too heavy for the boosters to RTLS, that's $80m that could be saved if there are two barges waiting to catch them.

How many times would you need to do that before paying for the costs of the extra barges and support ships? And I guess the other question is, what is the payload range where such a scenario would be beneficial. I.E., the payload is too heavy for booster RTLS, but light enough for boosters to land on ASDS.

Or perhaps, by pushing the boosters a bit harder resulting in the need for ASDS recovery, it makes the difference between the more expensive centre core having to be expended vs landing on ASDS. In that case, it saves you only the one core, but it is the presumably more expensive, reinforced centre core. (And would require 3 barges instead of 2, since all three boosters land ASDS).

[envy887]

Would it be possible to estimate the payload gain from booster ASDS landing vs booster RTLS? For both ASDS centre core landing and expendable centre core flights? Would the payload percentage gain be in double digits or not?

Here are some estimates by user nadreck from before the Block 5 thrust upgrades were announced:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480

The thrust upgrades will bump payloads to high energy orbits up about 10% across the board.

[docmordrid]

"Falcon Heavy Expendable - Payload to GTO: 22,200kg "

@elonmusk
Looks like it could do 20% more with some structural upgrades to handle higher loads. But that's in fully expendable mode.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847884776719740928

22,200t * 1.20 = 26,640t

[LouScheffer]

Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to LEO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to GTO:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Moon:
Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS - Payload to Mars:

This configuration will never fly. Boosters will either RTLS or be expended. (they'll need a fleet of ships)

For FH with recovery, there are only two options. Either the core will RTLS, or land on ASDS.

Given the accuracy they have demonstrated, and since differential GPS is much better than regular GPS, I don't see any reason in principal why they could not land the two side boosters on one ship, and the core on another.  The two side cores could line up, perhaps 20 meters apart (using differential GPS for relative location), and land simultaneously.

SpaceX are likely to have two ships anyway to avoid a single point limitation on regular launches.  So if they had a payload too big for 2 cores RLTS, one core ASDS, then they could try this.  Otherwise they need to expend the boosters anyway, so why not?   And if it's deemed too risky, splash one and save one - still better than splashing both.

And if the steering authority is enough, and the structure can stand it, you could imagine an even wilder strategy where they burn the side boosters at different rates.   (Current missions launch with asymmetrical solids, so this is not completely unprecedented.)   Then you drop the first, then sometime later the second, then the central core.  This could lead to all sorts of mission profiles, RLTS, ASDS, ASDS, or RLTS, ASDS, expend, or RLTS, expend, ASDS, and so on.

[Jim]

 since differential GPS is much better than regular GPS

What  differential GPS?

And if the steering authority is enough, and the structure can stand it, you could imagine an even wilder strategy where they burn the side boosters at different rates.   (Current missions launch with asymmetrical solids, so this is not completely unprecedented.)

yes, it is completely unprecedented.  Not liquid boosters and not ones as large as the core.  The upper attach points have some role in opposing each other.

[RonM]

Our four Falcon Heavy options are:

1) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS
2) Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS
3) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable
4) Falcon Heavy Expendable.

Options 2 and 3 require multiple ASDS, so they should be labeled "theoretical" or something like that.

We're missing an option, Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable.

[M.E.T.]

Would it be possible to estimate the payload gain from booster ASDS landing vs booster RTLS? For both ASDS centre core landing and expendable centre core flights? Would the payload percentage gain be in double digits or not?

Here are some estimates by user nadreck from before the Block 5 thrust upgrades were announced:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480

The thrust upgrades will bump payloads to high energy orbits up about 10% across the board.

Are these numbers generally endorsed by knowledgeable members of the forum? I'd love to insert them into the table, as "No less than" figures.

[LouScheffer]

Given the accuracy they have demonstrated, and since differential GPS is much better than regular GPS

What  differential GPS?

Purely passive - just that the difference between two nearly GPS positions is much more accurate than the absolute location.   (This is what GPS surveying does - it can get mm differences even though the GPS positions themselves are off by meters.)  So if two boosters aim for coordinates 20m apart by GPS, then this part of the position calculation should be more than accurate enough, even if the individual GPS locations are meters off.

And if the steering authority is enough, and the structure can stand it, you could imagine an even wilder strategy where they burn the side boosters at different rates.   (Current missions launch with asymmetrical solids, so this is not completely unprecedented.)

yes, it is completely unprecedented.  Not liquid boosters and not ones as large as the core.  The upper attach points have some role in opposing each other.

A liquid booster 2*core radius away from the centerline, throttled to 50%, applies the same torque as a similar thrust solid located 1 radius away from the centerline.  And in this case, it's applying thrust, so the upper attach points are still in compression.   But obviously you'd need to do the analysis - that's why I said IF the structure can stand it.

[stcks]

Our four Falcon Heavy options are:

1) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS
2) Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS
3) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable
4) Falcon Heavy Expendable.

Options 2 and 3 require multiple ASDS, so they should be labeled "theoretical" or something like that.

We're missing an option, Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable.

The likely scenarios:

1) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core RTLS
2) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core ASDS (Red Dragon?)
3) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core Expendable (Red Dragon?)

IMO everything else is very unlikely or only for performance advertisement

[M.E.T.]

Our four Falcon Heavy options are:

1) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS
2) Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS
3) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable
4) Falcon Heavy Expendable.

Options 2 and 3 require multiple ASDS, so they should be labeled "theoretical" or something like that.

We're missing an option, Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable.

OK, I added the option, and the ASDS categorisation. My aim is also to try and maintain a progressive payload increase as one moves through the options, but I'm not sure how a 3 core ASDS recovery payload would compare with a side booster RTLS, expendable core payload. My guess would be that the expendable core would provide more added energy than pushing two of the boosters to ASDS landings along with the centre core. But that's just a guess.

[M.E.T.]

Our four Falcon Heavy options are:

1) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core ASDS
2) Falcon Heavy 3 Cores ASDS
3) Falcon Heavy Side Boosters ASDS, Centre Core Expendable
4) Falcon Heavy Expendable.

Options 2 and 3 require multiple ASDS, so they should be labeled "theoretical" or something like that.

We're missing an option, Falcon Heavy Side Boosters RTLS, Centre Core Expendable.

The likely scenarios:

1) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core RTLS
2) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core ASDS (Red Dragon?)
3) FH Side Boosters RTLS, Center Core Expendable (Red Dragon?)

IMO everything else is very unlikely or only for performance advertisement

Really? I would have thought that all three cores expendable would be a very real option, particularly for a Moon or Mars mission.

[Proponent]

Suggestions are welcome for further expansions or changes to the list.

I think it might make edkyle99 happy if you kept track (maybe in parentheses) of the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration.

[Jim]

A liquid booster 2*core radius away from the centerline, throttled to 50%, applies the same torque as a similar thrust solid located 1 radius away from the centerline.  And in this case, it's applying thrust, so the upper attach points are still in compression.   But obviously you'd need to do the analysis - that's why I said IF the structure can stand it.

Meaningless.  The point was that SRM's are smaller and attach differently.  They attach to an area on the tank that is reinforced to take asymmetrical SRM attachments.  The three core heavies use an upper attach point that requires minimal mods by using opposing loads. 

[Jim]

So if two boosters aim for coordinates 20m apart by GPS, then this part of the position calculation should be more than accurate enough, even if the individual GPS locations are meters off.

No, then one is going to land in the water.

 

Given the accuracy they have demonstrated,

Which isn't enough to support two on the same barge.  See current landing

[M.E.T.]

Suggestions are welcome for further expansions or changes to the list.

I think it might make edkyle99 happy if you kept track (maybe in parentheses) of the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration.

In fact, my thinking was that the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration would be a key source of validating minimum payload capacities for each combination. In a sense, I would like this list to reflect a "No less than" payload estimate for each configuration, much like the "No earlier than" dates used for launch schedules.

Maybe a second figure could be added for "Upper extreme estimate" for each configuration, if people feel that way.

Also, I'm not sure if I am on the forum frequently enough to keep it updated, and I would love if there was a way for multiple people go update it as more information becomes available. It is the reference source that excites me, as it brings into stark focus the trade-offs, options and decision criteria for selecting appropriate configurations for different payloads and destinations.

[RotoSequence]

Which isn't enough to support two on the same barge.  See current landing

For reference, see here: https://i.imgur.com/IREsB6H.jpg

[RonM]

Which isn't enough to support two on the same barge.  See current landing

For reference, see here: https://i.imgur.com/IREsB6H.jpg

When you consider how wide the booster is with the legs extended, they would need two areas at least as wide as the white circle. The barge is a little too small for that.

[stcks]

Really? I would have thought that all three cores expendable would be a very real option, particularly for a Moon or Mars mission.

Well, it was just my opinion. I can't see SpaceX tossing away three cores in one mission. Maybe if the price is right but thats one very expensive launch for a few extra tonnes TMI

[saliva_sweet]

In fact, my thinking was that the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration would be a key source of validating minimum payload capacities for each combination. In a sense, I would like this list to reflect a "No less than" payload estimate for each configuration

Then you could use currently demonstrated F9 performances as minumum estimates as we know block 5 will be more powerful.

[M.E.T.]

In fact, my thinking was that the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration would be a key source of validating minimum payload capacities for each combination. In a sense, I would like this list to reflect a "No less than" payload estimate for each configuration

Then you could use currently demonstrated F9 performances as minumum estimates as we know block 5 will be more powerful.

I have the F9 ASDS GTO payload at 5,500kg. Not sure what the maximum LEO figure would be for for the F9 RTLS and ASDS configurations, as I assume that Dragon and other LEO flights haven't really pushed that boundary yet?

[envy887]

In fact, my thinking was that the heaviest payload actually flown in each configuration would be a key source of validating minimum payload capacities for each combination. In a sense, I would like this list to reflect a "No less than" payload estimate for each configuration

Then you could use currently demonstrated F9 performances as minumum estimates as we know block 5 will be more powerful.

I have the F9 ASDS GTO payload at 5,500kg. Not sure what the maximum LEO figure would be for for the F9 RTLS and ASDS configurations, as I assume that Dragon and other LEO flights haven't really pushed that boundary yet?

Iridium 1 was 9600kg to 625 km SSO and used an ASDS landing.

This page might be useful for "not less than" estimates: https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx

Also useful for estimating: http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html

[envy887]

Would it be possible to estimate the payload gain from booster ASDS landing vs booster RTLS? For both ASDS centre core landing and expendable centre core flights? Would the payload percentage gain be in double digits or not?

Here are some estimates by user nadreck from before the Block 5 thrust upgrades were announced:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480

The thrust upgrades will bump payloads to high energy orbits up about 10% across the board.

Are these numbers generally endorsed by knowledgeable members of the forum? I'd love to insert them into the table, as "No less than" figures.

They appear to be reasonably comparable to my own estimates for v1.2 performance. Perhaps include (est. min.) after the figure to indicate that they are estimates and lower bound values.

[TomH]

I think the 54 mt for FH fully expendable is from long before latest thrust upgrades and densified super cooled prop. I remember it going to 63 mt and later someone calculated (not a guess, but actual calcs) fully expendable Block 5 at 71 mt w/o cross feed and 72 mt w/ cross-feed. I will see if I can find the post. If so, will copy/link.

I would suggest adding fully expendable FH with crossfeed, just to show max theoretical mass. They probably will never add x-feed, but if they did, I could only see it on a fully expendable (using cores at the end of their lives) for the sake of getting some very heavy bird up. Again, it's highly unlikely ever to happen, but if it did, I think fully expendable is the only time they would do it.

[LouScheffer]

So if two boosters aim for coordinates 20m apart by GPS, then this part of the position calculation should be more than accurate enough, even if the individual GPS locations are meters off.

No, then one is going to land in the water.
 

Given the accuracy they have demonstrated,

Which isn't enough to support two on the same barge.  See current landing

On the contrary, take a look at the landing locations in the landing bingo..  The squares are about 3 meters on a side.  The boosters could be 30 meters apart, and if the center (midpoint) is where it was on this mission, both are on the deck even in the worst case alignment (offsets in direction of short edge).

And surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could spread them out along the long axis.

[TomH]

  The squares are about 3 meters on a side.  The boosters could be 30 meters apart, and if the center (midpoint) is where it was on this mission, both are on the deck even in the worst case alignment (offsets in direction of short edge).

And surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could spread them out along the long axis.

And are you sure the blast from the second landing would not blow over the first core? And if that doesn't happen, what if the first lands successfully, but the second hits the first, or tips and dominoes into it? Is the risk worth it?

[abaddon]

With cross feed, the boosters deplete much earlier and could RTLS without much perf loss.  Not that they will ever implement cross feed.

[LouScheffer]

  The squares are about 3 meters on a side.  The boosters could be 30 meters apart, and if the center (midpoint) is where it was on this mission, both are on the deck even in the worst case alignment (offsets in direction of short edge).

And surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could spread them out along the long axis.

And are you sure the blast from the second landing would not blow over the first core? And if that doesn't happen, what if the first lands successfully, but the second hits the first, or tips and dominoes into it? Is the risk worth it?

Of course I'm not absolutely sure, but a back of the envelope calculation indicates no problem with the second core blowing over the first. 

We know the landed stage masses about 27 tonnes.  So the rocket exhaust will generate about 30 tonnes-force (it's a hoverslam).  This will hit the deck and spread out in a circle.  Assume the other booster is 30m away.  So we draw a circle of radius 30m, which will have a circumference of about 200m.  The landed booster is about 4m wide, so it blocks 1/50 of the outflow.  So we can guess the force as 1/50 of 30 tonnes-force, or about 0.6 tonnes-force pushing the booster away.  But the booster has a downforce of 27 tonnes, a footprint of more than 10% of its height, and a center of gravity very close to the deck.   Therefore the force will not be enough to either tip it over or cause it to skid on the deck.  Now of course this is a super-crude estimate, but it would have to off by an awful lot for this to be a problem. 

As for the boosters colliding, SpaceX was shooting for 10m accuracy. So if they are 30m apart, it would take a 3 sigma error to make them hit, which should be rare enough.  Of course the legs stick out, but they can reduce the odds of the legs colliding by clocking the boosters such that one is a 0 degrees, and one 45 degrees.

[Coastal Ron]

Maybe I saw it in L2, in which I don't expect anyone to copy it to the public side, but has anyone on the public side calculated the following yet:

Falcon 9 Reusable - Payload to LEO
Falcon Heavy Reusable - Payload to LEO

Since all launcher providers typically provide capacity to LEO as well as GTO, knowing what the capacity to LEO for a reusable SpaceX launcher would help to make cost comparisons.

Thanks.

[envy887]

Maybe I saw it in L2, in which I don't expect anyone to copy it to the public side, but has anyone on the public side calculated the following yet:

Falcon 9 Reusable - Payload to LEO
Falcon Heavy Reusable - Payload to LEO

Since all launcher providers typically provide capacity to LEO as well as GTO, knowing what the capacity to LEO for a reusable SpaceX launcher would help to make cost comparisons.

Thanks.

Musk said that the payload hit is 15% for ASDS and 30% for RTLS, for F9 to LEO (presumably to ISS?).

This paper calculated a 20%/40% payload hit to 200 km circular LEO:

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks%20VTVL%20Study%20-%20Release.pdf

[M.E.T.]

Maybe I saw it in L2, in which I don't expect anyone to copy it to the public side, but has anyone on the public side calculated the following yet:

Falcon 9 Reusable - Payload to LEO
Falcon Heavy Reusable - Payload to LEO

Since all launcher providers typically provide capacity to LEO as well as GTO, knowing what the capacity to LEO for a reusable SpaceX launcher would help to make cost comparisons.

Thanks.

Musk said that the payload hit is 15% for ASDS and 30% for RTLS, for F9 to LEO (presumably to ISS?).

This paper calculated a 20%/40% payload hit to 200 km circular LEO:

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks%20VTVL%20Study%20-%20Release.pdf

OK, I've added the more conservative 20% and 40% payload penalty estimates for F9 LEO reusable configurations. They don't seem to hold true for the F9 GTO configurations, as the drop from 8,300kg expendable to 5,500kg ASDS is already more than 30%. Unless I'm missing something, the GTO penalties are higher than the LEO penalties.

[Mongo62]

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

[M.E.T.]

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

Thanks for that. I could swear it still showed 54,400kg when I checked a couple of days ago. Must be a recent update.

Also, why would the LEO payload increase without a corresponding increase to the GTO and Mars payloads?

[envy887]

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

Expended is not presumed, it's explicitly stated on the SpaceX website.

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

Thanks for that. I could swear it still showed 54,400kg when I checked a couple of days ago. Must be a recent update.

Also, why would the LEO payload increase without a corresponding increase to the GTO and Mars payloads?

It was 54,400kg yesterday. And the GTO/Mars payload should be higher, maybe they haven't finished updating it yet.

Also, I'm fairly certain that FH 8,000 kg to GTO for $90M is with all cores RTLS. Sending the center core out to ASDS should increase GTO payload to at least 10,000 kg after all Block 5 upgrades. Both my own calculations and nadreck's model agree on this.

[Dante80]

OK, I've added the more conservative 20% and 40% payload penalty estimates for F9 LEO reusable configurations. They don't seem to hold true for the F9 GTO configurations, as the drop from 8,300kg expendable to 5,500kg ASDS is already more than 30%. Unless I'm missing something, the GTO penalties are higher than the LEO penalties.

This is a given. RTLS/DPL losses for GTO campaigns are much higher, and a design like F9 is optimized for LEO duty. Hell, the fact that the rocket can still make GTO with a 5t payload, while being a 2 stage kerolox LV is still amazing (everyone else needs 3 stages).

And now the first stage can come back too!

[RDMM2081]

Can I make a meta suggestion for the thread itself to please include citations for these payload numbers ala the manifest thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40231.0 and the launch log: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.0

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of a quick-reference thread for this type of information.  Great work and initiative to get it started, thank you!

[Kasponaut]

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

But they forgot to change the number in the text above 😉
It still reads 54 metric tons (119.000 lbs).

[S.Paulissen]

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

Expended is not presumed, it's explicitly stated on the SpaceX website.

Spacex website now lists FH payload to LEO at 64,000 kg (presumably in fully expendable mode).

Thanks for that. I could swear it still showed 54,400kg when I checked a couple of days ago. Must be a recent update.

Also, why would the LEO payload increase without a corresponding increase to the GTO and Mars payloads?

It was 54,400kg yesterday. And the GTO/Mars payload should be higher, maybe they haven't finished updating it yet.

Also, I'm fairly certain that FH 8,000 kg to GTO for $90M is with all cores RTLS. Sending the center core out to ASDS should increase GTO payload to at least 10,000 kg after all Block 5 upgrades. Both my own calculations and nadreck's model agree on this.

Elon may have answered this to some extent in a tweet.  His tweet implies that Falcon Heavy is structurally limited in addition to being limited by impulse.

54000-->64000 is pretty close to 20%.

Elon Musk‏Verified account @elonmusk  Mar 31
More
 Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot.
1,072 replies 2,735 retweets 15,788 likes
Reply  1.1K   Retweet  2.7K   
Like 16K

 Elon Musk‏Verified account @elonmusk  Mar 31
More
 Falcon Heavy test flight currently scheduled for late summer
331 replies 1,275 retweets 7,748 likes
Reply  331   Retweet  1.3K   
Like 7.7K

 Jason Lamb‏ @jasonlamb  Mar 31
More
 Is the GTO payload still projected for 22,200 kilograms?
1 reply 3 retweets 21 likes
Reply  1   Retweet  3   
Like 21

Elon Musk‏Verified account
@elonmusk

 Follow
 More
Replying to @jasonlamb
Looks like it could do 20% more with some structural upgrades to handle higher loads. But that's in fully expendable mode.

[M.E.T.]

Can I make a meta suggestion for the thread itself to please include citations for these payload numbers ala the manifest thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40231.0 and the launch log: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.0

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of a quick-reference thread for this type of information.  Great work and initiative to get it started, thank you!

Good suggestion. I will start by just listing the latest source for each populated figure next to it in brackets. Such as (SpaceX website). I will also state where figures are based on estimates such as expected payload penalties, or on the heaviest actual payload transported to date, etc.

It is a bit of a puzzle building exercise which will hopefully eventually result in a complete picture. An evolving picture, no doubt, as performance estimates improve over time.

[gongora]

It might also be good to define the orbits for LEO and GTO in the first post, just to be clear.

[M.E.T.]

It might also be good to define the orbits for LEO and GTO in the first post, just to be clear.

Please help. I don't know what those definitions would be. I just have a broad concept of LEO, GTO, Moon, Mars etc.

[envy887]

It might also be good to define the orbits for LEO and GTO in the first post, just to be clear.

Please help. I don't know what those definitions would be. I just have a broad concept of LEO, GTO, Moon, Mars etc.

This will be difficult to define precisely as SpaceX doesn't define the reference orbits for their payload capacity. But to get close, the LEO numbers have to be approximately 200 km circular LEO at 28.5 deg.

GTO from the Cape is commonly specified as GEO-1800 (about LEO+2500 m/s delta-v). TLI is roughly LEO+3200, and TMI near LEO+3900.

[M.E.T.]

It might also be good to define the orbits for LEO and GTO in the first post, just to be clear.

Please help. I don't know what those definitions would be. I just have a broad concept of LEO, GTO, Moon, Mars etc.

This will be difficult to define precisely as SpaceX doesn't define the reference orbits for their payload capacity. But to get close, the LEO numbers have to be approximately 200 km circular LEO at 28.5 deg.

GTO from the Cape is commonly specified as GEO-1800 (about LEO+2500 m/s delta-v). TLI is roughly LEO+3200, and TMI near LEO+3900.

Thanks. I'm happy to put those definitions in, but it might create inconsistencies if some of the payload estimates don't conform to those orbits. As you alluded to in your opening sentence stating that SpaceX doesn't define it precisely.

What I would really like is if the thread was open to modification by more people, so that changes can be made by anyone with the knowledge to do so. Then the main reference document would gradually build itself.

Not sure if that is possible, though.

EDIT

I've added the definitions as provided by you above.

[envy887]

The GTO and TMI numbers for FH have been updated on the SpaceX website.

[Lars-J]

The GTO and TMI numbers for FH have been updated on the SpaceX website.

Here it is attached, in case it changes again:

[M.E.T.]

The GTO and TMI numbers for FH have been updated on the SpaceX website.

Here it is attached, in case it changes again:

Ok, updated accordingly.

EDIT

Is the 8,000kg GTO RTLS estimate still correct, considering the latest information? That's only 30% of the expendable payload to GTO, which seems a bit low, doesn't it?

[envy887]

The GTO and TMI numbers for FH have been updated on the SpaceX website.

Here it is attached, in case it changes again:

Ok, updated accordingly.

EDIT

Is the 8,000kg GTO RTLS estimate still correct, considering the latest information? That's only 30% of the expendable payload to GTO, which seems a bit low, doesn't it?

SpaceX is likely reserving the difference as margin for an easier landing. There aren't many payloads over 8,000 kg to GTO anyway, and those that exist can generally afford pay more.

[M.E.T.]

Does anyone have a solid estimate for what the latest Falcon Heavy configuration can put into LEO in reusable format (say ASDS recovery for the centre core). If the fully expendable configuration can put 63 tons in LEO, is it safe to estimate around 30 tons with all three cores recovered?

I'm trying to estimate how cheaply Falcon Heavy could place sufficient mass in LEO for a Mars Direct type manned Mars mission (using multiple launches obviously). The required LEO mass for such a mission has been estimated to be between 250 and 500 tons. So if Falcon Heavy can put say 30 tons in orbit and recover all three cores, well, you could be talking around 10 launches in total, without expending a single core.

That could cost as little as $500 million in terms of launch costs for a manned Mars mission (assuming a $50 million Falcon Heavy launch cost if all three cores are recovered). And of course assuming a mission that can be assembled in orbit from 10 independently launched modules.

Alternatively, you would look at around 5 fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches. But I assume that would cost quite a bit more, as no cores can be reused. I suspect somewhere I underestimated the cost savings of full reusability in the above scenario. But a starting point is figuring out what Falcon Heavy can actually put into LEO in reusable format.

[sevenperforce]

Does anyone have a solid estimate for what the latest Falcon Heavy configuration can put into LEO in reusable format (say ASDS recovery for the centre core). If the fully expendable configuration can put 63 tons in LEO, is it safe to estimate around 30 tons with all three cores recovered?

I'm trying to estimate how cheaply Falcon Heavy could place sufficient mass in LEO for a Mars Direct type manned Mars mission (using multiple launches obviously). The required LEO mass for such a mission has been estimated to be between 250 and 500 tons. So if Falcon Heavy can put say 30 tons in orbit and recover all three cores, well, you could be talking around 10 launches in total, without expending a single core.

That could cost as little as $500 million in terms of launch costs for a manned Mars mission (assuming a $50 million Falcon Heavy launch cost if all three cores are recovered). And of course assuming a mission that can be assembled in orbit from 10 independently launched modules.

Alternatively, you would look at around 5 fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches. But I assume that would cost quite a bit more, as no cores can be reused. I suspect somewhere I underestimated the cost savings of full reusability in the above scenario. But a starting point is figuring out what Falcon Heavy can actually put into LEO in reusable format.

I did a fixed point simulation for a variety of mission types and came up with this.

Since these numbers are significantly lower than what Falcon Heavy is currently advertised at, going expendable, then the 31 tonnes for full reuse is definitely a lower bound. Probably 35 tonnes or so.

[TheKutKu]

Does anyone have a solid estimate for what the latest Falcon Heavy configuration can put into LEO in reusable format (say ASDS recovery for the centre core). If the fully expendable configuration can put 63 tons in LEO, is it safe to estimate around 30 tons with all three cores recovered?

I'm trying to estimate how cheaply Falcon Heavy could place sufficient mass in LEO for a Mars Direct type manned Mars mission (using multiple launches obviously). The required LEO mass for such a mission has been estimated to be between 250 and 500 tons. So if Falcon Heavy can put say 30 tons in orbit and recover all three cores, well, you could be talking around 10 launches in total, without expending a single core.

That could cost as little as $500 million in terms of launch costs for a manned Mars mission (assuming a $50 million Falcon Heavy launch cost if all three cores are recovered). And of course assuming a mission that can be assembled in orbit from 10 independently launched modules.

Alternatively, you would look at around 5 fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches. But I assume that would cost quite a bit more, as no cores can be reused. I suspect somewhere I underestimated the cost savings of full reusability in the above scenario. But a starting point is figuring out what Falcon Heavy can actually put into LEO in reusable format.

I did some estimate, using the following numbers/assumption

-

Without a payload attached to the second stage, the Falcon 9 launch vehicle weighs 553,600 kilograms, contains 526,950 kilograms of propellant, and is 70.1 meters tall and 5.2 meters wide.

.
-M1D SL isp is 282 s, vac is 311 s, S2 dry mass is 3900 kg, Fairing mass is 1750 kg I averaged the S1 (until Booster sep) isp to 301 s.
-SES 9's first stage lifted 125 tons with Fairing, Fueled S2 and Payload.
-Thrust figures on SpaceX's site.
-I did some assumption with throttling: i assumed that the Boosters would throttle down near MaxQ (+- 20 s)  like the dragon and GTO missions because otherwise the FH would have a lot of structural stress, especially with the less aerodynamic shape and higher TWR, furthermore i assumed that the FH would have a trajectory similar to CRS 10's (the fastest RTLSing First stage) before booster sep for booster RTLS , also i assumed the core, which according to SpaceX's site "Throttle down quickly after launch), will throttle down to 50% at around 30s. In the end it gives me 50 t of fuel remaining for each booster.
-18 ton of fuel to recover the center core, similar to some estimate for GTO launches recovery.

With these assumptions i got 38 metric tons to 28° LEO from the Cap, nearly 15 metric tons to GTO 1800, 12.8 metric tons to GTO 1500, Payload in Metric Tons

Orbit

GTO 1800

GTO 1500

TLI

TMI

ASDS+RTLS

38

15

12.8

10.8

8.8

RTLS+Expended Core

42

17.3

15

12.6

10.2

Note that even with these up to date numbers i can't get the fully expendable payload figures on SpaceX's site, i can only get 54 tons to (9400 m/s of dV) LEO and 22 tons to (9400+2400 m/s of dV) GTO 1800, so i think you could multiply my figures by 1.1 to 1.2 for the real block 5 payload figures.

[M.E.T.]

Does anyone have a solid estimate for what the latest Falcon Heavy configuration can put into LEO in reusable format (say ASDS recovery for the centre core). If the fully expendable configuration can put 63 tons in LEO, is it safe to estimate around 30 tons with all three cores recovered?

I'm trying to estimate how cheaply Falcon Heavy could place sufficient mass in LEO for a Mars Direct type manned Mars mission (using multiple launches obviously). The required LEO mass for such a mission has been estimated to be between 250 and 500 tons. So if Falcon Heavy can put say 30 tons in orbit and recover all three cores, well, you could be talking around 10 launches in total, without expending a single core.

That could cost as little as $500 million in terms of launch costs for a manned Mars mission (assuming a $50 million Falcon Heavy launch cost if all three cores are recovered). And of course assuming a mission that can be assembled in orbit from 10 independently launched modules.

Alternatively, you would look at around 5 fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches. But I assume that would cost quite a bit more, as no cores can be reused. I suspect somewhere I underestimated the cost savings of full reusability in the above scenario. But a starting point is figuring out what Falcon Heavy can actually put into LEO in reusable format.

I did some estimate, using the following numbers/assumption

-

Without a payload attached to the second stage, the Falcon 9 launch vehicle weighs 553,600 kilograms, contains 526,950 kilograms of propellant, and is 70.1 meters tall and 5.2 meters wide.

.
-M1D SL isp is 282 s, vac is 311 s, S2 dry mass is 3900 kg, Fairing mass is 1750 kg I averaged the S1 (until Booster sep) isp to 301 s.
-SES 9's first stage lifted 125 tons with Fairing, Fueled S2 and Payload.
-Thrust figures on SpaceX's site.
-I did some assumption with throttling: i assumed that the Boosters would throttle down near MaxQ (+- 20 s)  like the dragon and GTO missions because otherwise the FH would have a lot of structural stress, especially with the less aerodynamic shape and higher TWR, furthermore i assumed that the FH would have a trajectory similar to CRS 10's (the fastest RTLSing First stage) before booster sep for booster RTLS , also i assumed the core, which according to SpaceX's site "Throttle down quickly after launch), will throttle down to 50% at around 30s. In the end it gives me 50 t of fuel remaining for each booster.
-18 ton of fuel to recover the center core, similar to some estimate for GTO launches recovery.

With these assumptions i got 38 metric tons to 28° LEO from the Cap, nearly 15 metric tons to GTO 1800, 12.8 metric tons to GTO 1500, Payload in Metric Tons

Orbit

GTO 1800

GTO 1500

TLI

TMI

ASDS+RTLS

38

15

12.8

10.8

8.8

RTLS+Expended Core

42

17.3

15

12.6

10.2

Note that even with these up to date numbers i can't get the fully expendable payload figures on SpaceX's site, i can only get 54 tons to (9400 m/s of dV) LEO and 22 tons to (9400+2400 m/s of dV) GTO 1800, so i think you could multiply my figures by 1.1 to 1.2 for the real block 5 payload figures.

Great. Thanks. So potentially up to 40 tons to LEO then, with centre core ASDS recovery.

If a Mars mission could be designed to utilise modular FH-compatible 40-ton components docking together in LEO, you would need only 5 fully reusable launches to assemble a 200 ton ship (inclusive of fuel), in orbit.

At a launch cost of whatever 5 fully reusable FH launches would cost. Which presumably is vastly lower than the 2-3 SLS launches that would be required to do the same.

[TheKutKu]

I did the same Falcon Heavy Payload estimate while taking into account today's launch numbers, first i got 35 tons of propellant at least at MECO for NROL 76's launch, and if you remove the Boostback burn it goes down to 15 tons. Payload is in metric ton.

Orbit

GTO 1800

GTO 1500

TLI

TMI

ASDS+RTLS

42

16.8

14.5

12.2

9,9

RTLS+Expended Core

46

19

16.5

13.9

11.4

[M.E.T.]

I did the same Falcon Heavy Payload estimate while taking into account today's launch numbers, first i got 35 tons of propellant at least at MECO for NROL 76's launch, and if you remove the Boostback burn it goes down to 15 tons. Payload is in metric ton.

Orbit

GTO 1800

GTO 1500

TLI

TMI

ASDS+RTLS

42

16.8

14.5

12.2

9,9

RTLS+Expended Core

46

19

16.5

13.9

11.4

So the entire mass of the ISS, which is currently just over 400 tons according to Wikipedia, could have been lifted to LEO with just 10 fully reusable Falcon Heavy launches? So effectively, with just one Falcon Heavy rocket, reused 10 times.

Does anyone know what the total launch cost of the ISS structure has been to date?

[Celestar]

Hard to say.

There were 27 shuttle flights, 5 Protons, and a low number of Soyuz. But how do we price the shuttle flights. According to wikipedia (cough), the total cost of the Shuttle program is about 200 billion. About 20% of the flights were ISS assembly flights, so that would put the costs at about 40 billion (which would place a single flight way north of a billion). The Proton flights seem to be rounding errors in that computation.

Celestar

[gospacex]

It could easily happen if SpaceX adds another ASDS operating out of Brownsville. It would only take a week or two to tow OCISLY and JTRI to the Gulf to catch 3 cores.

No, the barges are too wide to pass through the Panama canal without extensive modifications. They had to partially disassemble one to get it to the west coat.

(1) Actually, these barges are designed to pass through the canal. It is not a coincidence they are 100 feet wide while canal is 106. Wing extensions are foldable.

(2) Panama canal just opened a wider lock last year.

[rpapo]

Wing extensions are foldable.

They weren't, and aren't.  They were removed and placed on deck for the Panama crossing, and welded back in place after the ASDS arrived in Los Angeles.

Removing and reinstalling the wings is not a big deal by some standards, but is far more work than just folding them up.  It takes days, if not weeks, to do it.