SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[envy887]

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.

Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible. If New Glenn was available and offered better $/sat launch value (which it could likely do even at $150M to $200M per launch), then Iridium would likely have gone with it, IMO. Or booked both F9 and NG, perhaps.

NG is well positioned for constellation launches thanks to fairing volume, although at disadvantage because it won't fly at all for a couple years, and has no heritage. FH will have a significant advantage in short term availability and flight heritage (thanks to F9).

[Comga]

Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible.
(Snip)

No they don’t. They have to pace the launches per their ability to commission them and decommission the first gen.)
And the timing, capabilities, and cost of NG are wild guesses

[envy887]

Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible.
(Snip)

No they don’t. They have to pace the launches per their ability to commission them and decommission the first gen.)
And the timing, capabilities, and cost of NG are wild guesses

AIUI they are doing that faster than SpaceX can provide vehicles, but obviously I don't know if launching 25 at once would work with their systems.

Blue is booking GTO flights for 2020 or 2021, which supports their claim that the price will be competitive. Anything over $200M isn't competitive.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Be careful in reading the market - even the market (as defined by mission SC builds) doesn't even know sometimes.

Case in point is how things changed to accept booster reuse. Once a few did it, things started to "rewrite" themselves rather fast.

(Arianespace and ULA now "get this". Part of why things are the way they are now.)

My read is that SX has caught enough attention that the market is "warping" around them, where other providers "pick off" missions on a case by case basis. For the moment, this is "good enough" to keep all busy. This moment can be timed entirely by SX's manifest "dwell time".

The impact of a successful FH demo flight likely will be to relieve the "top end" payloads of having few options, but they'll be no rush to fly. It will put more schedule pressure on NG's program, and both A5/A6 programs will face margin pressure.

What else could Musk do to pressure the industry? Perhaps those lunar "free return" missions might make things uncomfortable for other LV.  Or offering inaugural flights of 20+ ton  GTO SC? Anything that allows for a 1-3 FH flight rate per year would choke all comers.

And after a good annual success rate, all other HLV might find themselves in a difficult spot justifying pricing, having to fall back on mission success rate and flight history for another year or so before that goes away too.

As to a successful FH against a impending NG,  should FH flight rate be to the 3-4 per year, it would allow Falcon to dominate across the board and set a tough act for NG to follow - because Falcon flight rate would always stay ahead of NG. Suggest that everything about BO would then become "gradatim".

Falcon would simply dominate because it wouldn't be "gradatim" in flight rate. NG would likely be "second choice" because you had to wait for it.

Those two soaking up global launch services would put the rest on short rations. (ULA's Centaur V decision makes sense in this context, as tight mission capability focus makes the "non generic" launch their forte. It's the "back filling" of manifest through cherry picking that becomes the hard part for them.) Expect that China/India slow down, and Russia has increasing LOM's. The rest become "the quick and the dead". Don't know where Europe will end up as I doubt Ariane N can handle the economics due to stubborn denial.

Don't ever expect BO to be anything but "gradatim". Don't ever expect ULA to compete on "kg/$ to LEO".

[Coastal Ron]

Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible. If New Glenn was available and offered better $/sat launch value (which it could likely do even at $150M to $200M per launch), then Iridium would likely have gone with it, IMO.

Maybe they would be willing to launch all of their satellites on one launch. But putting aside whether that was possible from an orbital insertion standpoint, Iridium may not have been willing to accept that much risk - literally all their eggs in one basket.

Which is something that all payload customers weigh, the financial and operational risk vs the rewards. Iridium likely couldn't make their business case close without the low prices SpaceX offers, but they may not have been willing to risk their entire business on a new launch provider that could launch everything on one rocket.

Or booked both F9 and NG, perhaps.

From what I've heard commercial customers are focused on supporting three launch providers right now, which is why I think SpaceX is not in danger of losing business, but Arianespace and International Launch Services (ILS) might be.

NG is well positioned for constellation launches thanks to fairing volume, although at disadvantage because it won't fly at all for a couple years, and has no heritage.

New Glenn is missing out on all the initial commsat business because it's not yet operational. So this discussion is really about a theoretical need to enhance and/or replace, en masse, existing constellations.

FH will have a significant advantage in short term availability and flight heritage (thanks to F9).

And SpaceX will have credibility in the marketplace when they start selling BFS flights too. So maybe the market seesaws between Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, BFS, New Armstrong, etc.?

[AncientU]

...Arianespace and ULA now "get this".
...

One thing that is crystal clear... FH is entering a market that is evolving fast... in multiple dimensions.

The market that it was originally conceived to serve(GTO from Boca Chica, for instance) -- same market that NGLV (now Vulcan) and Ariane 6 were envisioning 3-5 years ago -- is disappearing.  Reusability is making inexpensive launch available at a launch rate that the commercial space industry has never previously experienced.  Tech advancement is making integrated constellations vastly more capable than most anything currently flying, and calling for lots of inexpensive launches of heavy LEO payloads.  Commodity launches.

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.  Ariane 6 and Vulcan have a triple disadvantage in that they are not pointed at the right market, nor are they being built for high cadence, nor are they 'cheap' launch.

Your comment that ULA and ArianeSpace get this is not obvious*, and I suspect it isn't even accurate.


* Tory Bruno himself argued against the concept of commodity launches a few months ago.

[Space Ghost 1962]

The market that it was originally conceived to serve(GTO from Boca Chica, for instance) -- same market that NGLV (now Vulcan) and Ariane 6 were envisioning 3-5 years ago -- is disappearing.  Reusability is making inexpensive launch available at a launch rate that the commercial space industry has never previously experienced.  Tech advancement is making integrated constellations vastly more capable than most anything currently flying, and calling for lots of inexpensive launches of heavy LEO payloads.  Commodity launches.

Yes things went differently. Mostly though the definitions/response are different. Including the term commodity launch.

In short, F9 addressed enough of what FH was intended for, that the need for BC was handled with the 40 refit.

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

True. Also, they will gradually add experience/capability to increasingly broaden mission reach. When I said gradatim, I mean it in all ways, all areas. As we've already seen.

Ariane 6 and Vulcan have a triple disadvantage in that they are not pointed at the right market, nor are they being built for high cadence, nor are they 'cheap' launch.

True.

You missed the worst consequence for Ariane 6. They are in denial, and getting ministers to cough up N billion euros for 2-4 successive versions of Ariane as they take the long way round the barn to competition likely means it dies after Ariane 6 because they violate the "economic" trust in which they work, so denial is really deadly here.

As to Vulcan, it has less disadvantage than you think for the booster, facilities/GSE/pad, and fairing. I'd put it as more than competitive with Falcon. Where you have a point is with the US and its LRE(s). (ULA can address these in many different ways, much of which they don't want to talk about now.) Also, don't underestimate how quickly ULA can adapt to need.

Your comment that ULA and ArianeSpace get this is not obvious*, and I suspect it isn't even accurate.

Their customers tell them. Every time.

ULA's parents "hear" from Bruno. Bruno says what the parents tell him. Try talking to him in person. He's very forthright.

As to ArianeSpace, they know what they need to do, they just have trouble negotiating the terrain to get there. Also, they are "half way" into certain long term decisions, and this complicates (they can't give up on prior commitments, even though they need to).

* Tory Bruno himself argued against the concept of commodity launches a few months ago.

Because that's what the parents say. (They don't like the idea of commodity sats in particular.)

(Also, the concept of "commodity" here has changed, likely what he's referring to and what I'm referring to are quite different.)

I think he means massive cluster of payloads like cubesats, which isn't going to happen much, and not at all what I mean by the term, which is undersized payloads on quick turn RTLS launches to specific planes.

add:

After I've reread this thread (and others), I think the main misunderstanding is how the character of the business is changing irrespective of capability or market segments.

And you can tell the different responses based on those who are "stuck" in one mode or the other.

There's a "phase lag" in how the provider business adapts from 1) expendable launch, 2)down range landing with booster reuse, 3) RTLS booster only reuse, and 4) full reuse.

I think that there’s a growing acceptance of 1 moving to 2, as long as you have the capability retained for 1. BO is only focused on 2 . Most of SX “bread and butter” currently comes from same.

However, the CRS launches, and likely CC will be RTLS. Suspect that launch frequency will have the greatest increase for RTLS.

However the market hasn’t yet developed for that. It’s reasonable to assume it will take 3-10 years for a stream of payloads to rely on that, thus it’ll be an underpriced capability that will eat smaller payloads from other launchers who cannot respond (Delta II class).

But that’s about the time that NG and Ariane 6 will appear on the scene. What if it does appear? Might it undercut all launch prices as “non-gradatim” time to orbit dominates the launch market? Does this lead to a concept of “commodity launch” for most 440kg payloads, even those with high delta-V requirements? Could a means of having “low cost” US (or reuse) accelerate payloads that exploit this niche?

Number 4 is even more of a difficult one to consider, as it “eats” the market for all of 1-3. If a rival doesn’t have a competitive business established in 3 by that time, likely they have a niche business (like providing above market cost services for (likely) government only use, which will only grow in expense as time goes by.

Planning that 3 is a bust and that market won't grow seems to be the prevailing sentiment of rivals. (Already 2 seems reasonably solid and perhaps we'll see if block 5 consolidates this with 10-20 reuses per booster.)

[scdavis]

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.

[M.E.T.]

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.

I am interested in this answer too. If NG's first stage is supposedly reusable 100 times, does that imply that they only build one or two and can launch repeatedly at a high cadence thereafter? Or is there an inherent limitation in BO's "gradatim" approach that prevents then from upping the cadence too quickly?

[Space Ghost 1962]

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.

Many things.

Downrange recovery, likely much further than furthest SX barge recovery, requiring a large (tanker) ship that needs to sail back. Booster goes to be processed before reflight.

By the time NG makes it to launching payloads, considerable number of payloads on F9/FH will be RTLS with little/no processing of booster.

Likely this means less than 50 NG mission "slots" annually to more than 100 F9/FH annual slots. Also, the missions for NG will likely be large GTO sats - these don't typically launch consecutively (or on time), so likely they would work gradually up from 4-6 annual to something like 15-20 in practice. Meanwhile, F9/FH will have a spectrum of small (2T), medium (4-5T), large (6+T), as well as crew/cargo/lunar HSF, so probably a robust 20-60 per year.

NG LV  strategy is about a high reuse rate vehicle that retains it's performance margin with a robust vehicle flown on a low impact (to the vehicle) trajectory - the long downrange means little propellant and wear/tear on the overlarge booster for large repeat use, with the price being lower turnaround rate (there are means to speed this but likely not in plan/practical).

In comparison, Falcon LV strategy is about a high flight frequency reusable vehicle that means to consume the manifest regardless of propellant/vehicle "consumption", where the smaller/more harshly used boosters cycle w/o processing through handfuls of launches consecutively, and then are either reprocessed or used on expendable launches in place of the need for larger boosters.

From a competitive standpoint, the "first mover" is attempting to grab control of the global market and entrench for a long siege with a "good enough" technology. The "fast follower" (in this case, "gradatim follower") is intending to erode/wear down with a longer term, more capable vehicle that could eventually "learn" how to do the same business better.

In the best case for both, they'll thrash the global market. More likely case is "if you want to fly fast, talk to the one, otherwise, wait for the other".

(Note than NG hasn't flown, it's engine had first test a month ago (possible more setbacks as its not an easy to prove design), no launch pad, no static tests, many years before first customer payload safely on orbit.)

(And likewise Falcon hasn't had profitable reuse, hasn't flown at high cadence, FH as a HLV is a significant challenge.)

Better way of viewing this is that NG really competes with BFR/BFS, not F9/FH, but supposedly will beat it to the pad (being built for NG now, and there's no pad in sight for BFS/BFR).

If NG's first stage is supposedly reusable 100 times, does that imply that they only build one or two and can launch repeatedly at a high cadence thereafter?

NG intends better long term economics, like BFS/BFR, over F9/FH. So you don't have to build as many.

No one has a high cadence launch architecture yet. Doesn't appear to be on the NG plan yet, but it is in plan for F9/FH.

Or is there an inherent limitation in BO's "gradatim" approach that prevents then from upping the cadence too quickly?

Gradatim is Latin for "gradual". How can you move "gradual quickly"?

[meekGee]

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.

NG is not designed for RTLS recovery. NG is designed to do battle with FH, but by the time it flies, it'll be yesterday's war.

SpaceX is all-in on BFR.  If SpaceX can maintain a few trans-pacific p2p cargo routes, the flight rate would be absolutely insane. BFR will make other rockets obsolete, and this will include FH and NG.

If SpaceX executes even close to plan, NG will be too little too late.

[hkultala]

[offtopic]

New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.

What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.

NG is not designed for RTLS recovery.

I'd say it was not originally planned for RTLS recovery.

But these should not be any technical reasons why it cannot do it.

Capacity would be smaller, but they have plenty of capacity anyway, so not a big problem.

BFR will make other rockets obsolete, and this will include FH and NG.

If SpaceX executes even close to plan, NG will be too little too late.

BO can develop a reusable second stage for NG.

Then BO would have a fully reusable rocket which is considerably smaller than BRF.

Of course developing reusable second stage for NG would take many years and would arrive many years after BFR.

[/offtopic]

[Lar]

BO business plan is probably a bit off topic, eh?

[First Mate Rummey]

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.

Are you sure? I think the 45t of NG are expendable either.
Just compare their first stage thrust, 22.8MN for FH, 17.1MN for NG.
NG second stage is about 3x than FH, however.
But the 3 core FH architecture should be more efficient, given the two lateral booster can be dropped leaving the center core still burning.
So I suppose the 45t of NG can be compared to the 63.8t of FH and both are expendable.
Or am I missing something?

[oiorionsbelt]

Gradatim is Latin for "gradual". How can you move "gradual quickly"?

The FH will light it's engines gradually.

[envy887]

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.

Are you sure? I think the 45t of NG are expendable either.
Just compare their first stage thrust, 22.8MN for FH, 17.1MN for NG.
NG second stage is about 3x than FH, however.
But the 3 core FH architecture should be more efficient, given the two lateral booster can be dropped leaving the center core still burning.
So I suppose the 45t of NG can be compared to the 63.8t of FH and both are expendable.
Or am I missing something?

45 t is with booster recovery, Blue has not given any numbers for expendable flights. The large, high thrust upper stage helps a lot.

[hkultala]

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.

Are you sure? I think the 45t of NG are expendable either.

Your thoughts and reality have a very small correlation with each others.

Just compare their first stage thrust, 22.8MN for FH, 17.1MN for NG.

FH has a very high T/W for a liquid-fueled rocket. It's not a very optimal design.
Same engine thrust could lift much higher payload if it had bigger tanks with more fuel. But it does not have, so it has much lower payload that one could think based on it's engine thrust.

Also, FH has gas generator kerosine engine.
NG has staged combustion methane engine, with considerable higher isp.

So, NG has much better payload/thrust ratio than FH.

NG second stage is about 3x than FH, however.
But the 3 core FH architecture should be more efficient, given the two lateral booster can be dropped leaving the center core still burning.

No, because FH center core is not a very good sustainer core. It's practically like ~ 2.3-stage, not like 3 stage.

FH loses more due its too small tanks alone than it winds due it's additional ~ 0.3 stages.(*) Add the isp disadvantage and the combined effect is MUCH more in favour of NG.

So I suppose the 45t of NG can be compared to the 63.8t of FH and both are expendable.
Or am I missing something?

You are missing a lot.


(*) Because FH has 3x more thrust than F9 but only 2.8 times payload, means than by payload/thrust, FH is less optimal than even F9. And even F9 would benefit from bigger tanks.

[maitri982]

Be careful in reading the market - even the market (as defined by mission SC builds) doesn't even know sometimes.

Case in point is how things changed to accept booster reuse. Once a few did it, things started to "rewrite" themselves rather fast.

(Arianespace and ULA now "get this". Part of why things are the way they are now.)

My read is that SX has caught enough attention that the market is "warping" around them, where other providers "pick off" missions on a case by case basis. For the moment, this is "good enough" to keep all busy. This moment can be timed entirely by SX's manifest "dwell time".

The impact of a successful FH demo flight likely will be to relieve the "top end" payloads of having few options, but they'll be no rush to fly. It will put more schedule pressure on NG's program, and both A5/A6 programs will face margin pressure.

What else could Musk do to pressure the industry? Perhaps those lunar "free return" missions might make things uncomfortable for other LV.  Or offering inaugural flights of 20+ ton  GTO SC? Anything that allows for a 1-3 FH flight rate per year would choke all comers.

And after a good annual success rate, all other HLV might find themselves in a difficult spot justifying pricing, having to fall back on mission success rate and flight history for another year or so before that goes away too.

As to a successful FH against a impending NG,  should FH flight rate be to the 3-4 per year, it would allow Falcon to dominate across the board and set a tough act for NG to follow - because Falcon flight rate would always stay ahead of NG. Suggest that everything about BO would then become "gradatim".

Falcon would simply dominate because it wouldn't be "gradatim" in flight rate. NG would likely be "second choice" because you had to wait for it.

Those two soaking up global launch services would put the rest on short rations. (ULA's Centaur V decision makes sense in this context, as tight mission capability focus makes the "non generic" launch their forte. It's the "back filling" of manifest through cherry picking that becomes the hard part for them.) Expect that China/India slow down, and Russia has increasing LOM's. The rest become "the quick and the dead". Don't know where Europe will end up as I doubt Ariane N can handle the economics due to stubborn denial.

Don't ever expect BO to be anything but "gradatim". Don't ever expect ULA to compete on "kg/$ to LEO".

Um... I'll point out the elephant in the room.  Blue origin has yet to launch even an empty rocket into orbit.  And even harder, return said rocket to earth in one piece.  And beyond that, being able to refurbish that rocket for reflight.

All three of those are hard and took SpaceX considerable time and money to achieve.  BO has a very long way to go to even be in the discussion as competitor to SpaceX.

[First Mate Rummey]

...

Everyone likes reading posts of anonymous users on the Internet, but I would be more interested in an official statement. So is there a statement from BO about the expendable payload mass to LEO?

And Merry Christmas to everyone

[loki]

...

Everyone likes reading posts of anonymous users on the Internet, but I would be more interested in an official statement. So is there a statement from BO about the expendable payload mass to LEO?

And Merry Christmas to everyone

Good point.  I have not found official statement yet. But we can do estimating math for fun. Let assume that  thrust /total weight ratio for New Glenn is 1.25, total thrust at sea level is 17.1 MN (Wiki), gives total weight of about 1350 Tons. LEO payload/ total weight ratio is generally at 20-25 range. The ratio of 22 for this case gives 61-62 Tons for max expendable LEO payload.  For case of downrange booster recovery, possible reusable LEO payload is about 60-65% of max payload, which gives payload of 36-40 Tons. Of course it is very rough assumption.
New Glenn rocket is in base phase of development and it will take painful years before real reuse.
To stay with the topic, Falcon Heavy LEO reusable payload mass for current configuration (undersized second stage), estimated on base of stated GTO reusable capacity (8 Tons) is about 23 Tons. With optimal second stage with Raptors (300 Tons?) and Block 5 boosters, reusable LEO capacity should be close to 40 Tons.
Merry Christmas to everyone.