What Is The Largest Payload Under Consideration?

[jpfulton314]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

[john smith 19]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

For commercial use, nothing. I think this "gateway" in Lunar orbit is of the size and delta v to need big launches.

Here's the thing. Most "big" missions are actually large delta V missions IOW it needs propellant and propellant is the easiest stuff to sub-divide. On that basis the question is what is the biggest tank  you can fit in available (or potential) fairings. ULA have stated they've worked on launches with fairings 1.89x the core diameter, which would give, for Vulcan, a 9.45m fairing, not far short of the maximum 10m of SLS.

With regard to actual indivisible payloads you are looking at mostly very large optical devices (telescopes) or a large nuclear reactor (10s of MW, not 10Kw). AFAIK there is no infrastructure to deliver either of these sorts of missions.

[speedevil]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

Perhaps the most concrete proposal for large payloads is BFR ISRU on Mars.

Which is admittedly cheating a bit, but not really - nobodies really expressed an interest publically, even at 'tyre kicking' level.
The lack of a payload for FH test says something also about if anyone had test hardware they could do with throwing up.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

I would say the Bigelow modules might be a contender.

A planned BA 2100 should weigh around 65 to 70t.

B330 would be around 20t.

[Darren_Hensley]

For my GWS(Fictional) the largest single article launched would weigh 60,000 US Lbs or 30t  one of the fuel tanks for GWS when filled to capacity is 4 million US Lbs in orbit. I agree the game is more about Delta V than it is lifting mass from the surface. I have over 300 objects to place in orbit, I have diversified my launch schedule and booster roster to reduce qty of launches, structure the priority of launches, and have used many multi payload launches to herf all objects into space, in a 5 year period. I still have yet to decide on a what orbit to place the station in.

[yoram]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

Lifetimes of existing probes and sats are often limited by the amount of on board fuel for course corrections and station keeping. I wonder how hard it would be to take some existing satellite busses and "bolt on" large fuel tanks to send a few extra tons of propellant.

[john smith 19]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

Perhaps the most concrete proposal for large payloads is BFR ISRU on Mars.

Which is admittedly cheating a bit, but not really - nobodies really expressed an interest publically, even at 'tyre kicking' level.
The lack of a payload for FH test says something also about if anyone had test hardware they could do with throwing up.

That certainly paints a vivid word picture. 

Joking aside TBF FH was a long time coming and I think some people had signed up for the maiden launch but went with other launchers because it took so long. Obviously none of them were of the size that made  a 25t+ LV mandatory.

FH has the same issue that Delta IV H has. Payload designers really don't like to find themselves boxed in to using just one launcher.
What if a launch mishap grounds the type pending investigation?
What if they don't have the payload built in time for their agreed launch? They have to accept the LV providers schedule as they can't go anywhere else.
What if someone else is ahead of schedule and asks to bump my payload back?

Then of course there is the fact that while it can lift 50t+ it's fairing diameter is limited. Jon Goff said ULA had looked at fairings 1.89x the core dia. Even if SX pushes that to say 2x that's still only about 6m. Is that big enough?
[EDIT I checked and the standard fairing is 5.2m in dia and about 13m long. That means it's volume limited if (for example) you wanted to fill it with a LOX tank, which would need to be 17m long at 6m wide ].

I think a lot will depend on how long people think FH will be around for, given SX's stated intention to replace it and F9 with the BFR.BFS within 4 years.

If most people think that's a realistic time frame then they would move directly to designing for BFS. If they don't then FH will be around for a longer period and people will look a it as a viable LV if they were already considering D IV H.

Of course if someone wanted a 70t payload in a 3-6m fairing ASAP FH would be the only option.

[Zed_Noir]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

[A_M_Swallow]

The life of the Falcon Heavy is not until the BFR flies but until the BFR is certified. If DOD and NASA take as long to certify BFR for high value payloads as they did for the Falcon 9 then the overlap could be several years.

Note: Falcon 9 Block 5 still has not been certified to fly people (and nuclear payloads?).

[speedevil]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

That's not a payload, that is a second stage.

[Zed_Noir]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

That's not a payload, that is a second stage.

Not if you use it as refuelable transfer vehicle, orbital station or orbital propellant depot.

[speedevil]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

That's not a payload, that is a second stage.

Not if you use it as refuelable transfer vehicle, orbital station or orbital propellant depot.

Then ISS would count.

[envy887]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

That's not a payload, that is a second stage.

Not if you use it as refuelable transfer vehicle, orbital station or orbital propellant depot.

Then ISS would count.

BFS is a transfer stage, hab, lander, ascent stage, and return EDL vehicle. In any other system all those would be payload.

[john smith 19]

BFS is a transfer stage, hab, lander, ascent stage, and return EDL vehicle. In any other system all those would be payload.

Which is a rather striking feature of the SX Mars architecture.

I think the question would be "If BFS was not the payload what would be the biggest payload?" On that basis it would 150tonnes in the cargo variant.

but outside the SX Mars architecture who needs a single indivisible payload like that?

[speedevil]

I think the question would be "If BFS was not the payload what would be the biggest payload?" On that basis it would 150tonnes in the cargo variant.

but outside the SX Mars architecture needs a single indivisible payload like that?

It can manage 170 tons, if you don't want to come down. (or refuel).

The Mars payload isn't really indivisible.
Much of it can in principle be loaded in orbit - which would be admittedly more annoying, but tanks can be filled, and spam carried onboard, if designed so, with minimal penalty other than time.

[AncientU]

...
Then ISS would count.

The Starlink constellation is something like 4,800,000kg... on initial deployment.
That's about 12xISS.
800,000kg per year or 2xISS per year to maintain it.

Chop it up into whatever mass/volume your vehicle of choice can handle.

Fuel for one BFS heading to Mars will be 1,100,000kg or almost 3xISS.

[Nomadd]

Folks are forgetting the obvious giant payload. The many variants of the BFS.

That's not a payload, that is a second stage.

Since BFS is made to be refueled in LEO, it doesn't really fit the old definitions, since the second stage is the payload in this case. No need for an eight page long semantics fest.

[john smith 19]

Chop it up into whatever mass/volume your vehicle of choice can handle.

Exactly.

The fact is there are very few indivisible payloads, unless you need a 9m wide single mirror for a humongous  telescope (either looking up or looking down). Or a monster nuclear power reactor (given GW class NTR reactors where designed as multiple engines for the nuclear Saturn V concepts).

However constellation launches (which are very divisible) are not likely to be economic on smaller LV.s. Despite superb production engineering to cut the mfg time of the satellites to days the launch costs multiplied the deployment cost of Iridium.

So I guess "Big constellations of stuff" would be the 3rd (potential) class of big payloads you might want to put up in one go.

[envy887]

The discussions regarding Falcon Heavy, BFR, New Glenn, SLS, etc. got me to wondering.  It would make some sense that satellite (and other) providers have started considering payloads larger than the standard 5,000 to 8,000 kg platforms currently beling launched.  Most of the discussion centering around why do this, that, or the other usually ends up with 'there is no payload large enough to make <blank> do this.'

What has anyone heard of rumors, plans or speculation regarding truly large payloads in planning or development?

The largest payload actually being built is probably Orion, at around 25 tonnes on orbit (plus some 8 tonnes of parts discarded suborbitally). Also, Crew Dragon is around 12 tonnes. Both can make use of a much larger rocket because they are designed for missions to high energy orbits.

Blue Origin is speculated to have a large crewed spaceship in detailed design for New Glenn, and Blue's proposed lunar lander could also use New Glenn's heavy lift capability.

The next largest payload actually going through detailed design is probably BA330, at around 20 tonnes on orbit. The BA-2100 has been proposed at ~70 tonnes.