SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[deruch]

I'm pretty sure there's a quote from GS somewhere here where she confirms FH will be Block V only (excluding the first one).

Yes.  Gwynne has said in the past that all future FH vehicles would be made up of all Block 5 cores.

[Formica]

Yes.  Gwynne has said in the past that all future FH vehicles would be made up of all Block 5 cores.

Here's the relevant article from spacenews.com.

Shotwell said the Block 5 Falcon 9 should be able to refly “10 or more times” with limited refurbishment. The Falcon Heavy will also use Block 5 cores, she said, with the exception of the first mission.

[tdperk]

The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?

Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?

The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.

Who jumps first and pays for an adapter that can mount that necessarily very dense 63 tons to the upper stage and fitting in the fairing?  Or even the largest fairing that can fit?

And who would bother when by the time the work is done, it's time to redesign for the BFR capacity?

[wannamoonbase]

The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?

Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?

The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.

Who jumps first and pays for an adapter that can mount that necessarily very dense 63 tons to the upper stage and fitting in the fairing?  Or even the largest fairing that can fit?

And who would bother when by the time the work is done, it's time to redesign for the BFR capacity?

I think you just said that the Block 5 FH will be the final version of the FH. 

I think FH will have a good life though, as I don't believe EM's BFR schedule.

[tdperk]

The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?

Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?

The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.

Who jumps first and pays for an adapter that can mount that necessarily very dense 63 tons to the upper stage and fitting in the fairing?  Or even the largest fairing that can fit?

And who would bother when by the time the work is done, it's time to redesign for the BFR capacity?

I think you just said that the Block 5 FH will be the final version of the FH. 

I think FH will have a good life though, as I don't believe EM's BFR schedule.

If the BFR takes 4 years, that's the FH lifespan.  If the BFR takes 7, that's the FH lifespan.

I believe SpaceX has explicitly stated that with Block 5 they are done trying to upgrade the F9 booster stage.  They may still try to make the fairing recoverable, or make the upper stage recoverable, or with Air Force desire and payment make a Raptor upper stage which may or may not be recoverable.

With the BFR having a lower operating cost for at least twice the payload in fully recoverable mode than the FH, the FH will not be used once the BFR is considered a reliable vehicle.

[rockets4life97]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

[John Alan]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

I saw the same article earlier today... 
I think if SpaceX can show it works just fine (Demo, USAF, one more this year maybe)... Then I think 4 times a year and some for NASA deep space payloads is in the cards going forward... 

[groundbound]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

Another possibility is that some other country does the same thing. Some gulf states are contemplating science missions on other launchers. There may be a national prestige motivation to spending 500 million on a science mission for a country without the wherewithal to have their own launcher.

[Bynaus]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

I think its also possible that after a few meager but overall successful years, the FH will generate its own new market niche, by leading to the development of heavier geostationary comsats and milsats. It won't be alone in this market for long though (-> New Glenn), and BFR might one day take over.

I don't think FH is a dead end - it's a bridge towards the future.

[AncientU]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

That handful per year is reasonable unless one or both of the following happen:
1. The FH plays a role in Starlink deployment, like double sats per launch (entire 50 sat plane in one launch -- with larger fairing), reusable upper stage with dispenser, RTLS of all three cores, etc., or
2. NASA is told to go back to the Moon (surface, not some DRO nonsense) starting now -- entire program could be on FH's back until NG/Vulcan ready, with other players having bit parts, including SLS someday.

[Hominans Kosmos]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

[Tomness]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

There was quote from Gwen Shotwell awhile back that said they were sandbagging the numbers. The Demo is block3/block4  diffidently not block 5. also 92% thrust. more than enough to turn all their expendable  F9 to FH recoverable launches.

[woods170]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

Doug Ellison doesn't get it: he fails to understand that most of the future work done by FH is not BEO purposes but GTO/GEO. The super-efficient upper stage isn't needed for the majority of FH's purposes.

[Roy_H]

There was quote from Gwen Shotwell awhile back that said they were sandbagging the numbers. The Demo is block3/block4  diffidently not block 5. also 92% thrust. more than enough to turn all their expendable  F9 to FH recoverable launches.

I think that the 92% thrust is 92% of block 5 which would be full thrust block 3.

[IanThePineapple]

I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.

I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?

I think its also possible that after a few meager but overall successful years, the FH will generate its own new market niche, by leading to the development of heavier geostationary comsats and milsats. It won't be alone in this market for long though (-> New Glenn), and BFR might one day take over.

I don't think FH is a dead end - it's a bridge towards the future.

I think once FH starts flying, sat companies and builders will be thinking "Wait, we can build LARGER now!" Sats could then have more payloads on them, maybe some scientific payloads (like NASA's GOLD on SES-14), or more antennas that could potentially be rented out (like the ones that were to be rented to Facebook for internet on Amos-6).

I also believe FH could do rideshares similar to the Eutelsat/ABS launches on F9, with two large comsats stacked.

[John Alan]

Let assume that folks that already have Geo Birds in place (making them money) are in a planning meeting.

"Ok all... Geobird XYZ will run out of station keeping prop in 7 years per this latest memo"
"Subject of today's meeting is what all do we want it's replacement to do to make us even more money"

Now... assuming they know that the current geo weight limits have basically been throw out the window by FH coming online...
And that they know the coming age of on orbit robotic servicing, upgrading and refueling is being talked about by sat makers...
My guess is some big ass birds are being sketched out on napkins and drawings boards as we speak... 

They are just waiting to see if FH comes online to make the whole idea much cheaper then booking a whole A5 or A6... 

[Joffan]

Abby Garrett is drawing the Falcon Heavy patch live on periscope

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ynKOAEeZbVJR

[envy887]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

SpaceX has not given explicitly expendable pricing for FH, AFAIK. The $90M for FH in their website is for a payload low enough to recover the boosters, but does not assume reuse (e.g. new booster, with landing). Any payload large enough to require expending FH will require special accessories and processing and is unlikely to launch for the base price.
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

The NASA LSP website numbers appear to be from the F9 v1.1-derived Heavy, and appear to only be present for high energy trajectories. Take those numbers with a large grain of salt, they are well out of date.

The latest DIVH estimates are $375M for NASA (the Parker Solar Probe) and estimated $422M for the USAF, based on analysis of budget plans here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/

A GAO report puts DIVH at $400M: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

[su27k]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

The direct comparison is misleading, by this line of thought BFR is much worse than FH or DIVH because it couldn't get anything beyond C3=0 with a single launch. The point is FH (or BFR for that matter) is not supposed to be used this way, they are optimized for cost which necessitate different mission designs.

[Hominans Kosmos]

There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/ 
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961 

Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.

In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.

Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.

The NASA LSP website numbers appear to be from the F9 v1.1-derived Heavy, and appear to only be present for high energy trajectories. Take those numbers with a large grain of salt, they are well out of date.

I suppose the only citations we have refuting those numbers are the performance replications in the forum threads here. Or can we do better, something we can use to convince the misguided scientist putting his faith in government statisticians?