SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[clongton]

So should FH be a fantastic success, it would likely accelerate the need for a non-clustered LV, as we see with Vulcan.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
And once you exceed certain SHLV sizes, it's far easier to just make the larger vehicle to avoid clusters.

Once it is suspected that there may be a genuine market for payloads that require a heavy, it is wise to verify the existence and viability of that market before you develop a single core LV to service that market. The best way to do that is interim development of the launch capability by a triple core version of an existing LV, which is what DIVH attempted and what FH will be attempting. DIVH failed to verify the viability of the market because it was already the single most expensive LV on the market and triple-coring it eliminated, for purely cost reasons, all possible payloads except for the heaviest DoD birds. FH on the other hand, would be a relatively inexpensive heavy LV and may actually be able to verify that viability because entities other than the DoD could actually afford to fly on it. It remains to be seen whether or not that market will prove to be viable. If it does not then FH will continue to be a low flight rate vehicle. If it does, then that will provide the economic justification for the mini BFR that Elon spoke about recently. That LV would likely be the replacement for the FH.

[pippin]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on Ariane 5, Proton, Atlas and DIV Medium, not to mention HIIA and Chinese launchers

[Lars-J]

Soyuz is clustered, Proton is not.

I'm pretty sure the Proton first stage consists of a cluster of tanks, 6 fuel tanks surrounding a larger oxidizer tank.

By that definition the Saturn I was clustered as well. No, it is a first stage that has final assembly at the launch site. Nothing separates.

And Soyuz does not use identical 'cores', the center one is very different.

And why is that a disqualification for being considered clustered?

I suppose not, although the original point was more about a design where the core and boosters are the identical (or virtually identical) design - like Delta IV-H, Angara A5, and FH. It sounds so easy to do, but there seems to be more gotchas than those providers anticipated. (which caused cost increases or other issues) We'll see if FH can buck that trend or not.

[Lars-J]

Two FH cores spotted in the 39A hangar!   
An FB post with pictures from today (or yesterday) taken from a KSC tour bus, shows the FH center core (note booster attachment hardware highlighted with green arrows) and an FH booster core (only nose cone visible). I have attached contrast enhanced versions of the pictures.

EDIT: An don't forget the employee wearing the FH shirt. 

Original FaceBook source for images: https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155651551926318/

[Jim Davis]

By that definition the Saturn I was clustered as well.

Which is why it acquired the nickname "Cluster's Last Stand".

No, it is a first stage that has final assembly at the launch site. Nothing separates.

Okay, so we now have two criteria. The components must separate and they must be more or less identical.

That gives one flown example (Delta IVH) and one in prospect (Falcon Heavy). So how can one claim "A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach." with such a small sample size? You might assert that the very paucity of examples supports the claim, I suppose.

But I think it would be more prudent to say the jury is still out. If Falcon Heavy makes a dozen or so flights and is then retired the claim would be strengthened. If in 10 or 20 years we're looking forward to its 100th flight the claim will be harder to sustain.

[Space Ghost 1962]

There was no reason/customer for Atlas V Heavy (likewise FH) since DIVH got there first.

Boeing broke the law at some stage in its competition with LM, and I think it was in connection with the heavy variant.  Boeing was punished by losing some launches.

Boeing "stole" LM's IPR, then "won" the EELV competition. Looked for a while like LM/Atlas V was toast.

Then this came out, but by then too much depended on Boeing, so many of the launches were "re-awarded" to LM.

(They couldn't do this with DIVH - already too far down the path. LM was dragged into EELV, quite wary of situation financially. Atlas/Titan heritage carefully translated into AV - truly an "Evolved" ELV.)

So should FH be a fantastic success, it would likely accelerate the need for a non-clustered LV, as we see with Vulcan.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
And once you exceed certain SHLV sizes, it's far easier to just make the larger vehicle to avoid clusters.

Once it is suspected that there may be a genuine market for payloads that require a heavy, it is wise to verify the existence and viability of that market before you develop a single core LV to service that market. The best way to do that is interim development of the launch capability by a triple core version of an existing LV, which is what DIVH attempted and what FH will be attempting. DIVH failed to verify the viability of the market because it was already the single most expensive LV on the market and triple-coring it eliminated, for purely cost reasons, all possible payloads except for the heaviest DoD birds.

(Another great post. You're on a roll.)

Suggest that the polar opposite of building the most expensive cluster out of the most expensive booster/LV to launch the most exotic payloads with the need for the most exotic payload services to get them there ... is to build a cluster out of the least expensive LV that does not initially launch the most exotic payloads, has the cheapest most obvious payload services only, and flies at least once a year.

(The point here is to keep it from inheriting the "cost mantle" of heritage from super expensive. Which is likely when the only payloads that keep the vehicle alive are "spare no expense. Too easy.)

This is why we don't have payload growth in launch services. You have to establish the "cheap volume" first, otherwise nothing but expensive payloads ever use it.

FH on the other hand, would be a relatively inexpensive heavy LV and may actually be able to verify that viability because entities other than the DoD could actually afford to fly on it.

Yes. But its even worse than that IMHO.

It remains to be seen whether or not that market will prove to be viable. If it does not then FH will continue to be a low flight rate vehicle.

One has to give the market time to adapt. "Loss leader".

Large payloads take 5-20 years. And they are designed with multiple LV's as fall back. They are all financed and developed quite differently, and we have to change the way that is done in addition to having a "cheap" HLV. Changing a culture takes multiple iterations.

DIVH cost isn't the real reason, only the current "excuse" for why few payloads. Its the mindset that limits.

If it does, then that will provide the economic justification for the mini BFR that Elon spoke about recently. That LV would likely be the replacement for the FH.

Suggest that regular FH "non exotic payloads" starts the mindset change.

Then, in order to deal with those "dragging the door from closing" who badmouth/schadenfreude "cheap" HLV, the gradual development of NG/ITSy/WTF shuts those insolent mouths as everyone see's the direction that things are going.

There will always be "sky is the limit" priced payloads. The issue is decoupling them from provider HLV/SHLV other payloads.

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on Ariane 5, Proton, Atlas and DIV Medium, not to mention HIIA and Chinese launchers

All of them suffer the same issue.

If you can "change the game", even briefly, you might bifurcate the market.

The key is to not let "sky as the limit" set the limit, because then its only sky.

I suppose not, although the original point was more about a design where the core and boosters are the identical (or virtually identical) design - like Delta IV-H, Angara A5, and FH. It sounds so easy to do, but there seems to be more gotchas than those providers anticipated. (which caused cost increases or other issues) We'll see if FH can buck that trend or not.

It is how you do it that makes all the difference. Perhaps it can't be done?

[GWH]

Wonder what the chances are we can see all 3 cores fit together while they have some available time in the bay?

As I understand it the TEL isn't ready to test fit all 3 cores yet, so it would need to be done on stands.

[AncientU]

Non-exotic payloads definition is nicely met by those recent comm sats that required expendable F9 launches.  If successful in inaugural flight(s), FH with three boosters recovered could become a fairly routine spectacle.

[gospacex]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton

No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.

[pstephens]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton

No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.

In expendable mode, yes. But FH would be needed for reuse.

[groundbound]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton

No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.

In expendable mode, yes. But FH would be needed for reuse.

I'm not sure that there is any certainty yet that a fully re-used FH will be cheaper than an expended F9. I would guess that even the most in-the-know people at SpaceX still have some pretty large error bars on the total operations cost of using and re-using FH.

That is especially true if they plan to replace FH as with something else in less than a decade. Suddenly the "we'll streamline operations to make it super cheap eventually" may become, "and we'll get there slightly ahead of the last time we fly it."

[Kenp51d]

Could start to make sense ($$$) to expend a booster that has already had a number of flights on it? Then the question is how many flights.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

[envy887]

If F9 had a metholox expendable second stage, It could launch loftier payloads without FH.

It couldn't do heavy GSO missions, or lunar Dragon at all. FH can do those with at least partial booster reuse.

[JazzFan]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton

No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.

Maybe its me, but do you think that SpaceX is designing capability against a 50+ year old launcher that Russia is trying to replace?  F9 and FH is targeted at meeting current and future launcher needs at the most affordable means, and which can generate the greatest profit.

[pippin]

Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton

No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.

Maybe its me, but do you think that SpaceX is designing capability against a 50+ year old launcher that Russia is trying to replace?  F9 and FH is targeted at meeting current and future launcher needs at the most affordable means, and which can generate the greatest profit.

I had a whole list of LVs in my post.
Which was kind of the point: large comsats are being designed to have several launch options because nobody in the market wants to be dependent on a single launch provider and that will not change.

But gospacex‘s comment is valid. SpaceX might not like flying in expendable mode but they can and they are competitive that way, too. Whether that means profitable remains to be seen, but at least they can fly them.
I actually thought F9 was still at 6t.
That said, nowadays there are comsats that are even bigger but they are still few and launch options are expensive.

[Dante2121]

"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"

Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.

Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?

[AncientU]

"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"

Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.

Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?

They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost).  Not time for the faint of heart. 

If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.

[M.E.T.]

"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"

Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.

Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?

They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost).  Not time for the faint of heart. 

If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.

I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.

I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?

[Khadgars]

"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"

Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.

Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?

They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost).  Not time for the faint of heart. 

If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.

I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.

I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?

SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own.  Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.

IMO I think FH will be around for a long time.  I could see them utilizing it for a "Deep Space" COTS program with NASA.  That is a lot more attainable and less costly than ITS.

[DJPledger]

"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"

Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.

Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?

They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost).  Not time for the faint of heart. 

If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.

I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.

I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?

I fully agree with you that FH is likely to have a very short lifespan and be retired as soon as ITSy is ready. If FH maiden launch fails then I think it will be retired immediately with heavier payloads launched on expendable F9 Block 5's until ITSy is ready. FH is a dead end kludge and it will be rapidly become obsolete.