SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[AncientU]

Falcon 9 is currently the world's leader in payload mass fraction at 4.15% which is a ratio as you are calculating of 24.09.  FH is expected to top that because it uses same tech but has extra staging.  Any assumption that New Glenn will exceed that pair of PMFs is completely unfounded.  Your assumption of '22' would place it at 4.45%.

[loki]

Falcon 9 is currently the world's leader in payload mass fraction at 4.15% which is a ratio as you are calculating of 24.09.  FH is expected to top that because it uses same tech but has extra staging.  Any assumption that New Glenn will exceed that pair of PMFs is completely unfounded.  Your assumption of '22' would place it at 4.45%.

I am Spacex  true admirer and have been following their amazing success for almost 10 years.
My assumption  is for fun only.
I took 22 ratio because of relative high Isp of BE-4.
Falcon Heavy has very high thrust/weight ratio and boosters reaches higher speed and  altitude and as a consequence more fuel must be left for back and/or reentry burn. It needs bigger (read optimal) second stage if market exists.
To stay on the topic, another assumption, Spacex spent maybe only 150+ millions for FH development , using smartly slightly modified F9 elements and get very capable modular launcher .

[envy887]

FH has a fairly high reuse penalty, even to LEO, due to the small upper stage leading to high staging velocity. Anything over 35 or 40 tonnes will result in the center core getting very toasty in the way down.

New Glenn has a very large upper stage so the staging velocity for LEO is lower, and the stage is designed for lifting entry with no fuel mass required for entry burn. The flip side of this is that expending the core only gains 10-12% more payload by my calculations. So the expended payload is probably 50-55 tonnes.

[loki]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

[Michael Baylor]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

[Roy_H]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.

[loki]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

OK, making correction: 100% of market by payload mass and 96,5% of market by fairing length, diameter and vertical payload integration. Also, ULA was paid for developing large fairing and vertical integration?

[guckyfan]

I believe SpaceX go vor all military payloads. So I  do think the tooling for the new fairing allows for a longer variant.

[envy887]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.

Designing, building, and qualifying (especially qualifying) a long fairing for a large NSS payload would cost a lot more than $5M. Just manufacturing a single such fairing would cost more than $5M.

That said, SpaceX could bid a lot more than $150M for the launch, since those payloads generally go on DIVH for $400M or more.

[dror]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.

If I'm not mistaken, Bigelow has chosen Vulcan over Falcon because of the fairing size:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43992.msg1738605#msg1738605
"The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat. "

[AncientU]

Bigelow has chosen to partner with ULA in proposing a multi-billion dollar package to the USG.
They didn't buy a launch.  Since ULA helped write that splash, it's a bit biased.

(Yes, you are mistaken.)

[envy887]

Also it's probably not true now that Blue is developing a 7 meter fairing for New Glenn.

[loki]

Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year,  Spacex will become only company that can launch either  payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.
I can't wait for launch.

Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation?

It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.

Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.

If I'm not mistaken, Bigelow has chosen Vulcan over Falcon because of the fairing size:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43992.msg1738605#msg1738605
"The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat. "

Let me expand above FH capabilities discussion, now for future launch market, i.e. launching Bigelow B330.
F9/FH fairing fits industrial standard minimal useful internal diameter of 4720mm (15’).  To fit  B330, with length of 13.7m  existing fairing has to be extended for about 5m at cylindrical part. With mass of about 20 Tons and distance from PLA flange to its center of gravity of about 7m, B330 can’t fit any existing PLA even close. FH Block5 could easily launch B330 to LEO 1000x1000 km. So, to launch B330, Spacex has to rebuild existing autoclave by length, manufacture additional cylindrical mold to extend existing one and upgrade vacuum system, to be able to produce extended and strengthened fairing. Additionally, new PLA must be designed and probably upper stage should be reinforced.
Is there a business case for Spacex, considering one launch per year?
The story further becomes more complicated as Bigelow need supply and crew transportation service at least for times per year.
By the end of next year, Begelow could get all needed services on one place: Spacex.
Mrs. Shotwell recently held meeting with Bigelow executives negotiating buying alien alloys.

[speedevil]

Let me expand above FH capabilities discussion, now for future launch market, i.e. launching Bigelow B330.
F9/FH fairing fits industrial standard minimal useful internal diameter of 4720mm (15’).  To fit  B330, with length of 13.7m  existing fairing has to be extended for about 5m at cylindrical part. With mass of about 20 Tons and distance from PLA flange to its center of gravity of about 7m, B330 can’t fit any existing PLA even close. FH Block5 could easily launch B330 to LEO 1000x1000 km. So, to launch B330, Spacex has to rebuild existing autoclave by length, manufacture additional cylindrical mold to extend existing one and upgrade vacuum system, to be able to produce extended and strengthened fairing. Additionally, new PLA must be designed and probably upper stage should be reinforced.

This does rather presume total investment in the B330 hardware and/or design costs are considerably larger than F9 fairing re-engineering - how much is built hardware, and how much is waiting on someone committing to actually funding it before getting something that requires more than a USB stick as a fairing.

In principle, tooling being developed for BFR might have a role in developing a large fairing, and recovery operations for the existing fairings could greatly reduce cost if you only need to make one for a launch campaign.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Let me expand above FH capabilities discussion, now for future launch market, i.e. launching Bigelow B330.
F9/FH fairing fits industrial standard minimal useful internal diameter of 4720mm (15’).  To fit  B330, with length of 13.7m  existing fairing has to be extended for about 5m at cylindrical part. With mass of about 20 Tons and distance from PLA flange to its center of gravity of about 7m, B330 can’t fit any existing PLA even close. FH Block5 could easily launch B330 to LEO 1000x1000 km. So, to launch B330, Spacex has to rebuild existing autoclave by length, manufacture additional cylindrical mold to extend existing one and upgrade vacuum system, to be able to produce extended and strengthened fairing. Additionally, new PLA must be designed and probably upper stage should be reinforced.

This does rather presume total investment in the B330 hardware and/or design costs are considerably larger than F9 fairing re-engineering - how much is built hardware, and how much is waiting on someone committing to actually funding it before getting something that requires more than a USB stick as a fairing.

In principle, tooling being developed for BFR might have a role in developing a large fairing, and recovery operations for the existing fairings could greatly reduce cost if you only need to make one for a launch campaign.

The one primary user of a larger faring for use on FH is Starlink. Currently the volume of the faring is maxed out but weight is less than the max that an F9 can throw. Double the volume and you can double the number of Starlink sats that can be deployed in one launch. 1/2 orbital ring on F9 ~up to 32 sats vs a complete orbital ring with FH ~ up to 64 sats.

The reason would be that cost of launch per sat would be less on FH in this case. That is the incentive for a longer faring. Cost (cost to SpaceX not price) of F9 ~$40M (used booster RTLS flight) at ~$1.25M/sat. Cost (cost to SpaceX not price) of FH ~$50M (3 used boosters RTLS and ASDS center core) at ~$0.8M/sat. Savings to starlink per launch using FH vs 2 F9 $30M each time. Over 800 the first sats that is $360M in savings definitely enough to pay for the development of a longer faring for FH plus advanced faring reuse tech.

[cppetrie]

I predict we won’t see a larger fairing until we see fairing recovery and reuse be successful. They won’t develop a ~$10 million pallet of cash until they figure out how to get the current $6 million pallet back in useable form.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I predict we won’t see a larger fairing until we see fairing recovery and reuse be successful. They won’t develop a ~$10 million pallet of cash until they figure out how to get the current $6 million pallet back in useable form.

Especially true for Starlink. A single design faring not requiring to be a generic design to handle multiple payloads. At 10 to 20 launches per year for Starlink a $5M savings average per launch is $50-$100M savings per year. Starlink is the primary driver for faring reuse.

[TorenAltair]

I don't think they currently could be able to launch 32 or more sats even with a larger fairing due to PAF limit of about 11 tonnes. I assume they would have to strengthen the second stage first.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I don't think they currently could be able to launch 32 or more sats even with a larger fairing due to PAF limit of about 11 tonnes. I assume they would have to strengthen the second stage first.

The PAF is not a limiting factor. They can build a stronger one and in fact this 11mt one dates back to F9-1.0. They had 2 models a light (for <3.5mt GTO payloads) and heavy (for <10.8mt LEO payloads). Since then they have added a design for a 22mt PAF but have not needed to use it yet. The limit is the structural strength of the US attachment ring that the PAF and the Faring attach to not the PAF.

[speedevil]

The one primary user of a larger faring for use on FH is Starlink. Currently the volume of the faring is maxed out but weight is less than the max that an F9 can throw. Double the volume and you can double the number of Starlink sats that can be deployed in one launch. 1/2 orbital ring on F9 ~up to 32 sats vs a complete orbital ring with FH ~ up to 64 sats.

I have failed to find a nice mass or volume number for the satellites.
F9 fairing enclosed payload volume is somewhere in the range of 120m^3.

I've failed to find any source saying the volume for the satellite is between 3m^3 and 6m^3, and not (say) 1m^3.
What's your rationale for the above calculation?
I may have missed a source.