SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[Herb Schaltegger]

I’d be curious whether there’d be any benefit in a flight profile that exploits the 3-engine restart capability by (for example) shutting them down in parallel with a usual throttle down (IIRC, to 40%?) in the other six engines, and then some combination of restarting the three and/or shutting down the six after booster separation.

I would think that the startup/shutdown transients might be an interesting GNC problem to compensate for when planning a precise interplanetary trajectory.

[Citabria]

Engine throttling or shut down during ascent can only compromise performance. It's done when necessary such as when passing through max Q or when limiting G load. That's part of the reason for fewer engines in the core. Also with 5 engines the spacing is wider and the nozzle extensions can be larger for peak performance between booster sep and staging.

[su27k]

This made an appearance in the PPE/HALO launch thread, was then deleted by mods probably for being off-topic, which is unfortunate since I think it's interesting info and should be preserved, so I'm posting it again here.

Mercury Lander - A Mission Concept Study, final report pdf can be downloaded here.

It's a concept study for a New Frontier class mercury lander mission, launch in 2035 on expendable FH to C3=14.7, for a mass of 9410kg. Takes 10 years cruise using SEP to arrive at Mercury in 2045. The mission is enabled by FH since no other launch vehicle in the LSP catalog has the performance (For C3=14.7, DIVH payload is less than 8t, Atlas 551 is less than 5t, expendable FH is 11t+).

The report mentioned a launch price of $210M ("The price for a LV with expendable Falcon Heavy-type capabilities, based on past pricing to NASA missions of evolved expendable launch vehicles, would be at least $210M for a launch using a standard sized fairing"), but note this is a launch 15 years from now, so need to take inflation into account. $210M in 2035 roughly translate to ~$160M today.

[Slarty1080]

According to Jeff Foust (Space News Inc) it seems like Europa Clipper might have abandoned SLS and be heading to a commercial provider. FH? This was reported on the SLS thread. Thought it would be of interest here as well.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1359591780010889219?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1359591780010889219%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D50297.1100

[Citabria]

Engine throttling or shut down during ascent can only compromise performance. It's done when necessary such as when passing through max Q or when limiting G load. That's part of the reason for fewer engines in the core. Also with 5 engines the spacing is wider and the nozzle extensions can be larger for peak performance between booster sep and staging.

Edit: Since this post I have learned about flow separation inside the nozzle and how damaging that would be, so it makes no sense to enlarge the M1-D nozzles. Still, I wonder if removing 1 or 2 engines from the center core might improve performance as opposed to throttling, due to mass fraction effects.

[shiro]

I don't want to get off topic, but one question about the Falcon Heavy center core is intriguing me. Why the booster's interstage is still being white? I've thought ALL Falcon rockets are enjoying their stylish black interstages with some extra thermal protection nowadays.

I'm also not sure if the lack of it in the FH center core has something to do with the structural loads. No doubt, the center core is not your average Falcon 9 booster, but it's just a special paint, right? Do we have any good explanation why the interstage for B1066 is the "old-fashioned" white one? Maybe it's just cheaper if they don't have any plans to recover this core?

[woods170]

Moved my reply from the Delta IV Heavy discussion thread, because the discussion below is OT for that thread.

The missing Orion might be NROL-69 going up on a Falcon in Q3 2023.

I don't think so. SpaceX is only getting $160M for two launches, so these are likely to be Falcon 9, which is not powerful enough for Orion. Historically, SpaceX has charged over $300M for Falcon Heavy launches to the government ($316M for USAF and $332M for HALO).

You are famous here for being really good with engine numbers.
However, your quoted post shows that you need a bit more information with regards to launch contract numbers.

$316M for USAF is for one specific FH launch which requires VI. As explained by Gwynne Shotwell, this one-time high pricetag contains the cost of building the required VI MST. It also contains the cost of developing the required long fairing. Because SpaceX receives no ELC, the cost of building/developing these VI items are charged on the first contract to make use of them.


$332M for NASA, for the launch of PPE and HALO is the cost to NASA, which is not equal to what SpaceX charges NASA for the launch.
As explained by Jim the cost to NASA includes not only what SpaceX charges for the launch (which is quite a bit less than $332M) but also launch prep related costs born by NASA but not charged by SpaceX.

Particularly 'Payload processing' cost will be very substantial for the PPE/HALO launch. As part of the cost to NASA, NASA has Maxar and Northrop Grumman perform the integration of PPE and HALO into one payload (the Co Manifested Vehicle - CMV), at the launch site, including all the integration testing. Which requires NASA to pay for a large payload processing facility at KSC/CCAFS for a full year. And that is expensive, adding many tens of millions of US dollars to the cost to NASA for this launch.


Edit: that last link is to a PDF that not always loads correctly. So I attached the PDF to this post as well.

[DreamyPickle]

With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.

People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.

We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.

[Mandella]

With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.

People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.

We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.

I think it is applicable to note that this is the price for a *fully expended* launch.

Presumably the price is less if SpaceX plans to get their boosters back.

[rpapo]

With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.

People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.

We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.

I think it is applicable to note that this is the price for a *fully expended* launch.

Presumably the price is less if SpaceX plans to get their boosters back.

Careful with that price point.  It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch.  Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more.  That has been known for a while now.  In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.

[joek]

Careful with that price point.  It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch.  Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more.  That has been known for a while now.  In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.

Believe that is understood. Simple first-order estimate:
1. Take the ~$300M for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 and subtract NRE (non-recurring engineering) for VI and extended fairing. NRE $ unknown.
2. For missions which require VI add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
3. For missions which require extended fairing, add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
4. For missions which require additional DoD/NASA mission assurance, add incremental $. Additional mission assurance $ unknown; will be mission-dependent.
5. Add FH reusable or expended $ for total $.

Would love to see some firm numbers on the above, but so far we appear to have only speculation. And no, it is not "the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch" unless you can fill in some of the blanks with credible sources.

edit: p.s. Putting the data points into a set of linear equations might help suss out more details. I'll leave that for others; I' to lazy (and busy) to do it at the moment.

[Grandpa to Two]

Careful with that price point.  It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch.  Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more.  That has been known for a while now.  In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.

Believe that is understood. Simple first-order estimate:
1. Take the ~$300M for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 and subtract NRE (non-recurring engineering) for VI and extended fairing. NRE $ unknown.
2. For missions which require VI add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
3. For missions which require extended fairing, add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
4. For missions which require additional DoD/NASA mission assurance, add incremental $. Additional mission assurance $ unknown; will be mission-dependent.
5. Add FH reusable or expended $ for total $.

Would love to see some firm numbers on the above, but so far we appear to have only speculation. And no, it is not "the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch" unless you can fill in some of the blanks with credible sources.

edit: p.s. Putting the data points into a set of linear equations might help suss out more details. I'll leave that for others; I' to lazy (and busy) to do it at the moment.

6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine as will be needed for this mission.

[Jim]

6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 …….

Not always provided by the launch vehicle

[AstroWare]

6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine >>>>as will be needed for this mission.<<<<<

Not always provided by the launch vehicle

When did a star48 kick motor get added to Europa Clipper?? (Emphasis added above)

[Grandpa to Two]

6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine >>>>as will be needed for this mission.<<<<<

Not always provided by the launch vehicle

When did a star48 kick motor get added to Europa Clipper?? (Emphasis added above)

As stated in Eric Berger’s ARS Technica article dated July 23. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.

Quote “ However, politicians continued to insist that NASA launch Clipper on the SLS rocket. Three different events finally forced legislators to relent. First, in late 2018, NASA scientists concluded that the Falcon Heavy could complete the Clipper mission without needing a gravity assist from Venus, and therefore it would not have to go into the inner Solar System. The Falcon Heavy could do so with the addition of a Star 48 "kick stage." Reference https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/spacex-to-launch-the-europa-clipper-mission-for-a-bargain-price/
I hope I didn’t break any NSF guidelines with adding the web site link.
Edit to correct spelling of technica.

[Robotbeat]

With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.

People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.

We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.

I think it is applicable to note that this is the price for a *fully expended* launch.

Presumably the price is less if SpaceX plans to get their boosters back.

Careful with that price point.  It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch.  Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more.  That has been known for a while now.  In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.

Yeah, it may include integration of a kick stage.

$150 million is what Musk quoted as expendable Falcon Heavy price, so this really isn't far from that, considering the greater integration costs vs a typical commercial launch.

[Jim]

. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.

There isn’t one.  This is doing a Mars gravity assist

[AstroWare]

. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.

There isn’t one.  This is doing a Mars gravity assist

That was my understanding too. Thanks.

[Coastal Ron]

With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.

A number of people have already chimed in on this topic, and here is what I would say.

The Falcon Heavy price for basic launches was negotiated as part of being an option for the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II Contract. We in the public don't know what that price is, but for the basic launch service that price is set.

What changes from launch to launch is the additional services the customer wants for each payload or mission. I would imagine these are bid for each contract, and they are added to the pre-negotiated NLS II launch cost for that launch vehicle.

And from a public standpoint Elon Musk has stated that a Falcon Heavy fully expended is $150M. The NLS II contract price could be less, but the major takeaway is that SpaceX is not changing their launch prices for every contract. It is the additional services required by each launch customer that is what accounts for the variance in launch contract pricing.

[Jim]

the major takeaway is that SpaceX is not changing their launch prices for every contract.

We don't know that.  The prices are not fixed. The contract has not to exceed prices for each year. The company doesn't have to charge the NTE price.