SpaceX Payload capability summary for different vehicle and landing combinations

[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.