SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[Ictogan]

I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?

Falcon Heavy was already a huge challenge in terms of structure and acoustic environment for SpaceX, I think they don't want to have even more of that. Especially given that they want to focus on BFR once all Falcon-related development is finished.

[wannamoonbase]

I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?

At some point you'd be better off adding stages vertically with shorter rounder tanks that can be discarded.  Of course crossfeed would help greatly, although be very complicated and risky.

As mentioned the FH itself has been a long challenging development, and as far as we currently know, with a limited market.  It's exciting to see it almost ready to fly but I believe we are 6.5 years since it was first mentioned.

As we can see with BFR, EM decided that multi-body vehicles is something he'd like to avoid.

[shooter6947]

has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Works great in Kerbal Space Program!

Probably not so good in Human Space Program.  If you need bigger, go BFR.

[Lars-J]

I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?

In theory it is doable, and I seem to recall someone doing some calculations on it in the past. I'm sure it could lift a LOT.

BUT... In practice it is very difficult. For FH they already had to build a special center core to handle the extra loads. Now imaging that with lots more boosters. Also, the upper stage would need to be redesigned, as it would not be able to lift such a heavy payload. You would probably want to make the upper stage even larger.

There is a reason that the Russians are having so many problems with Angara. Being able to support 1, 4, or 5 cores sounded great the in theory but has turned out to be quite a pain for them in practice. You get an overly complex and costly vehicle that is a "jack of all trades but master of none".

It is not worth it - and this is why FH is likely the last multi-core LV that SpaceX will fly.

[biosehnsucht]

I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?

You are not the first, and will not be the last, to suggest such. However well this works in Kerbal Space Program, in the real world, there are many trade-offs, and with BFR around the corner, and a lack of payloads needing more mass to orbit *currently*, there's no point. Plus, you can't reasonably integrate such a launch vehicle horizontally, as Falcon is currently. You'd have to integrate vertically, or make large changes to the ground infrastructure and strongback etc, essentially negating any advantages, as you'd have to basically start over on GSE anyways. Easier to build a bigger single core by far.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Plus they really don't need the extra lift, if they did then propellant crossfeed would most likely happen first.

[DreamyPickle]

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

I wrote a post stating that none of those proposals have flown but the Angara A5 has actually launched once in 2014 and it has 4 boosters identical to the core. But other rockets which seem to be based on "clustering" are not actually built like that:

* The Soyuz has 4 boosters but they are much smaller than the core stage.
* The Proton has a central oxidizer tank and 6 fuel tanks each with their own engine. This operates as a single stage.
* The Saturn IB had 8 tanks but they were 4 LOX and 4 RP1.

[clongton]

I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?

No. It's not designed for that.

[DOCinCT]

I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.

I wrote a post stating that none of those proposals have flown but the Angara A5 has actually launched once in 2014 and it has 4 boosters identical to the core. But other rockets which seem to be based on "clustering" are not actually built like that:

* The Soyuz has 4 boosters but they are much smaller than the core stage.
* The Proton has a central oxidizer tank and 6 fuel tanks each with their own engine. This operates as a single stage.
* The Saturn IB had 8 tanks but they were 4 LOX and 4 RP1.

Don't forget the 5th lox tank in the center

[Comga]

This has been discussed and dismissed a dozen times despite a plethora of facts, none of which I need to restate.

We need a kind but succinct statement to let people know that their question has been previously asked and answered and suggesting that they look for those posts. Reading back through any of a those active and abandoned threads will provide hours of reading on this topic.

[Lar]

This has been discussed and dismissed a dozen times despite a plethora of facts, none of which I need to restate.

We need a kind but succinct statement to let people know that their question has been previously asked and answered and suggesting that they look for those posts. Reading back through any of a those active and abandoned threads will provide hours of reading on this topic.

An index of topics that people could be pointed to is a good thing to put into the header of a thread, and then people can be pointed at it. A volunteer would be great if someone wanted to take it on.

[kevinstout]

well,  here was the last one i remember.  lots of pretty pics. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32719.660

[Tomness]

(Removed ULA info.....) Falcon 9 can't meet all of those requirements.  Its first stage will have to be expended, or a more expensive Falcon Heavy will have to perform the missions, and I'm not certain that recoverable Heavy can reach the highest payload requirements.  So, even SpaceX will have to expend rockets for many of the most-difficult missions, if it wins the work.

 - Ed Kyle

Cross posting this to keep it out of ULA section since deals with SpaceX. Ed and other versed members could you elaborate on Falcon Heavy speculated performance on reaching the heaviest payload requirements for EELV? from SpaceX Website: PAYLOAD TO LEO: 63,800kg / 140,660 lb; PAYLOAD TO GTO: 26,700kg / 58,860 lb; PAYLOAD TO MARS: 16,800kg / 37,040 lb; PAYLOAD TO PLUTO: 3,500kg / 7,720 lb that is for expended performance... Should it not be able to do direct insertion GEO with the entire EELV mission requirements with recovered boosters and main stage, with the long coast and restart expended FH second stage on Block V Performance?

[aero]

This has been discussed and dismissed a dozen times despite a plethora of facts, none of which I need to restate.

We need a kind but succinct statement to let people know that their question has been previously asked and answered and suggesting that they look for those posts. Reading back through any of a those active and abandoned threads will provide hours of reading on this topic.

An index of topics that people could be pointed to is a good thing to put into the header of a thread, and then people can be pointed at it. A volunteer would be great if someone wanted to take it on.

I'm afraid we need some AI code for that although it would be great to have such an index.

[georgegassaway]

* The Saturn IB had 8 tanks but they were 4 LOX and 4 RP1.

Five LOX tanks.  The outer 8 tanks were 70” Redstone based tanks. But there was also a center 105” Jupiter-based tank filled with LOX.

Cropped image below is taken from a 1/70 scale detailed drawing I made, available (free) on my website:

http://www.georgesrockets.com/GRP/Preview/Saturn-IB.html

[M.E.T.]

I'm not sure if there is a specific Falcon Heavy vs New Glenn comparison thread, but with New Glenn's maiden launch steadily creeping up on us (currently somewhere in 2020), and with Falcon Heavy's imminent arrival now not far away at all, I have increasingly been trying to figure out just how much "better" New Glenn will actually be than FH in terms of cost per kg to orbit.

Firstly, it would seem that if all goes well FH will have at least 2 years of operational history behind it when New Glenn's first test launch arrives. So one would imagine that there would be another year or so after that before New Glenn fully hits its straps.

So, let's say 3 years from now, based on current knowledge, how would the two rockets stack up?

New Glenn is rated to place 45 tons in LEO with first stage fully recovered. That compares to perhaps 30 tons or so to LEO for FH (at a guess), if all three cores are recovered. So at first glance, New Glenn seems to outperform FH significantly on this front.

However, how exactly does New Glenn achieve this? Is it because of a more powerful first stage, or because of greater performance from its second stage? And if the latter, surely this would imply a more expensive second stage that is being expended, compared to the "weaker" FH second stage.

Do we have any information on how the costs of the two rockets are likely to compare on a per stage basis? I.E, is the New Glenn single booster stage cheaper to manufacture than the three FH cores, and how much refurbishment cost is there between launches comparitively for the two rockets?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether FH will be able to hold its own to some degree against New Glenn should BFR take longer than expected to arrive. Or will New Glenn instantly make the Falcon family obsolete?

[AbuSimbel]

I think many continue to fall for the bias that while the development of F9 reusability and FH went through many difficulties an orbital, cheaply reusable first stage for NG will magically appear in 2020.
SpaceX is still in the process of achieving cheap, agile reusability for F9. It had to apply learned experience, study many recovered stages, acquire real world data to get to this point and they're still not done.
Even if (and that's a big if, given that Blue Origin has zero experience with orbital launchers, let alone Heavy Lift, partly reusable ones, and is subject to slips as every other space program) NG actually launches in 2020, it won't be cheaply reusable from the beginning.
Refurbishment cost for F9 is not set in stone and lowering it is an ongoing process that's being done with design iterations and by improving operations.
F9/H will have the advantage of years of real world data, many design iterations and operational experience, allowing them to be competitive with NG for years even if BFR is late (and that's hardly a given, as there's a non negligible chance of it flying before NG).

Bezos has a lot of money but there're many things money can't buy, access to proprietary data on reuse that only SpaceX has in the world is one of them.

[Coastal Ron]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether FH will be able to hold its own to some degree against New Glenn should BFR take longer than expected to arrive. Or will New Glenn instantly make the Falcon family obsolete?

To a certain degree what the capabilities are for Falcon Heavy and New Glenn don't matter. What matters is what the marketplace wants.

For instance, does the marketplace want 43mT to LEO? Or 30mT to LEO? Certainly not today.

So at least in the commercial marketplace Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be competing with other launch providers around the world, and that means that the price to do a specific job is likely to be an important factor. Reliability too to a certain degree, since New Glenn does have to prove itself, but SpaceX was able to build up a large backlog of launches without proving themselves ahead of time, and I think Blue Origin should be able to follow in their footsteps.

From that perspective the answer to your question depends on how much Blue Origin charges for New Glenn. But be aware that it is normal for companies to use "introductory pricing" for new products and services, so the initial customers may not be paying "full price" - and Blue Origin could do that for years in order to establish themselves in the marketplace. Certainly Jeff Bezos has the financial wherewithal to do that (and a history of doing it with other businesses).

Bottom line is that I don't fear for SpaceX when New Glenn becomes operational. I would instead fear for the other launch providers that New Glenn will displace.

[envy887]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether FH will be able to hold its own to some degree against New Glenn should BFR take longer than expected to arrive. Or will New Glenn instantly make the Falcon family obsolete?

To a certain degree what the capabilities are for Falcon Heavy and New Glenn don't matter. What matters is what the marketplace wants.

For instance, does the marketplace want 43mT to LEO? Or 30mT to LEO? Certainly not today.

So at least in the commercial marketplace Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be competing with other launch providers around the world, and that means that the price to do a specific job is likely to be an important factor. Reliability too to a certain degree, since New Glenn does have to prove itself, but SpaceX was able to build up a large backlog of launches without proving themselves ahead of time, and I think Blue Origin should be able to follow in their footsteps.

From that perspective the answer to your question depends on how much Blue Origin charges for New Glenn. But be aware that it is normal for companies to use "introductory pricing" for new products and services, so the initial customers may not be paying "full price" - and Blue Origin could do that for years in order to establish themselves in the marketplace. Certainly Jeff Bezos has the financial wherewithal to do that (and a history of doing it with other businesses).

Bottom line is that I don't fear for SpaceX when New Glenn becomes operational. I would instead fear for the other launch providers that New Glenn will displace.

Iridium and OneWeb are both good cases of the market wanting heavy LEO lift. I'm not sure they are good cases for FH, but NG's larger fairing is optimal for launching a lot of constellation sats at once.

The market is also asking for 7-8 tonnes to GTO at the lowest possible price, which both FH and NG are in a good position to fill with reuse. 8 tonnes to GTO with reuse is equivalent about 40 tonnes to LEO expendable, well beyond the capabilities of all current launchers even if they were designed for reuse.

[Coastal Ron]

Iridium and OneWeb are both good cases of the market wanting heavy LEO lift.

I'm not sure how you can justify that statement with the examples given, since Iridium is using Falcon 9, and OneWeb has already contracted for a number of launcher types, such as Arianespace Soyuz, Virgin Galactic, and potentially Ariane 6.

I'm not sure they are good cases for FH, but NG's larger fairing is optimal for launching a lot of constellation sats at once.

OneWeb has contracted for five launches of satellites for a follow-on low Earth orbit broadband constellation using New Glenn. Apparently it won't be available soon enough for the initial constellation.

The market is also asking for 7-8 tonnes to GTO at the lowest possible price, which both FH and NG are in a good position to fill with reuse. 8 tonnes to GTO with reuse is equivalent about 40 tonnes to LEO expendable, well beyond the capabilities of all current launchers even if they were designed for reuse.

SpaceX is well positioned to be competitive going forward, so the market opportunity for Blue Origin is to take away launches from other providers.

And since Falcon Heavy is an interim solution for the marketplace, and that changeover will likely start happening just a few years after New Glenn becomes operational, I don't think New Glenn will affect the market for Falcon Heavy. Although even if the did, the BFS becomes a competitor for New Glenn at some point.

Launch customers are cheering on this competition, while just about everyone that isn't named SpaceX or Blue Origin is wondering how they will survive in the long term...