Falcon Heavy might match first version of SLS.

[Frozen_Heart]

Wouldn't the crossfeed help the reusability? It means the boosters drain their fuel more quickly which in turn means that when they decouple they have less distance to boostback. It would also mean that a payload mass that demands the boosters be expended without crossfeed might permit booster recover with it; depending on the payloads customers want to launch this could let the crossfeed pay for itself.

While it would make recovering the side booster easier, it would make returning the centre core impossible. It would just be going too fast and would probably burn up on the way down.

As they want to ideally reuse all 3, they are better off not using crossfeed.

[Nibb31]

Reusing the core will be hard, whatever they do.

[Kryten]

That is high but not completely unprecedented. The Saturn V had a payload fraction of 4.7%. And the Space Shuttle had a payload fraction for the total mass sent to orbit of 6%.

Bob Clark

With hydrolox engines in both cases, and extremely efficient SC ones for the shuttle. Falcon has pretty average gas-generator kerolox engines.

[Exoscientist]

With hydrolox engines in both cases, and extremely efficient SC ones for the shuttle. Falcon has pretty average gas-generator kerolox engines.

Actually the Saturn V had relatively poor efficiency kerolox engines for the first stage, with the largest proportion of the mass, and the shuttle had poor efficiency solids, as compared to liquids, also for the largest proportion of the mass.

Bob Clark

[cantab]

Reusing the core will be hard, whatever they do.

Yeah, that was my thinking, that reusing the core doesn't look very practical anyway. But maybe I'm wrong. Ultimately SpaceX aren't likely to be able to re-use everything with the Falcon 9's approach though, at the very least reusing the upper stage looks completely impractical.

[Kryten]

Actually the Saturn V had relatively poor efficiency kerolox engines for the first stage, with the largest proportion of the mass, and the shuttle had poor efficiency solids, as compared to liquids, also for the largest proportion of the mass.

Bob Clark

But both made up for it with large and efficient hydrolox upper stages; the Falcon upper stage is a dinky kerolox thing.

[Exoscientist]

Don't know how realistic it is, but this video showing the three cores being returned to the launch site looks pretty cool:

SpaceX Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation.

To estimate how much the cost to orbit can be reduced, SpaceX has quoted a price of $125 million for the Falcon Heavy. Elon Musk has also said the cost of the F9 is about 3/4ths first stage and 1/4th upper stage. So the cost of the upper stage is 1/3 that of the core stage.

Then to find an estimate for the price of a core on the FH solve for X:

(3 + 1/3)X =$125,000,000, or X = $125,000,000/(3 + 1/3) = $37,500,000. And the cost of the upper stage would 1/3rd of this to be $12,500,000.

On an "Ask Me Anything" Reddit, Elon suggested the Merlin 1D can do 40 reuses:

Elon Musk

reddit AMA - January 2015

http://interviewly.com/i/elon-musk-jan-2015-reddit

Then the cost for the Falcon Heavy using the 3 cores for 40 uses and the upper stage for 1 use would be:

3*37,500,000/40 + 12,500,000 = $15,300,000. And the cost per kilo for the 53,000 kg payload cross-feed version would be 15,300,000/53,000 = $290 per kilo.

The increase in payload for the latest version would reduce this price per kilo, but likely SpaceX will also increase the price with the increased payload capability.

Bob Clark

Edited September 10, 2015 by Exoscientist

[Nibb31]

Don't know how realistic it is, but this video showing the three cores being returned to the launch site looks pretty cool:

Yes, they also made videos that showed recovery of the upper stage, or a Dragon V1 doing a powered landing. CGI renders and powerpoint rockets are easy and SpaceX has a history of changing directions pretty often. Don't take everything that comes out of SpaceX or Musk's tweets for granted.

To estimate how much the cost to orbit can be reduced, SpaceX has quoted a price of $125 million for the Falcon Heavy. Elon Musk has also said the cost of the F9 is about 3/4ths first stage and 1/4th upper stage. So the cost of the upper stage is 1/3 that of the core stage.

Then to find an estimate for the price of a core on the FH solve for X:

(3 + 1/3)X =$125,000,000, or X = $125,000,000/(3 + 1/3) = $37,500,000. And the cost of the upper stage would 1/3rd of this to be $12,500,000.

Launch service price != rocket hardware cost.

There is a lot more to an orbital launch that the cost of the rocket.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Nibb31

[Exoscientist]

Don't know how realistic it is, but this video showing the three cores being returned to the launch site looks pretty cool:

SpaceX Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation.

To estimate how much the cost to orbit can be reduced, SpaceX has quoted a price of $125 million for the Falcon Heavy. Elon Musk has also said the cost of the F9 is about 3/4ths first stage and 1/4th upper stage. So the cost of the upper stage is 1/3 that of the core stage.

Then to find an estimate for the price of a core on the FH solve for X:

(3 + 1/3)X =$125,000,000, or X = $125,000,000/(3 + 1/3) = $37,500,000. And the cost of the upper stage would 1/3rd of this to be $12,500,000.

On an "Ask Me Anything" Reddit, Elon suggested the Merlin 1D can do 40 reuses:

Elon Musk

reddit AMA - January 2015

http://interviewly.com/i/elon-musk-jan-2015-reddit

Then the cost for the Falcon Heavy using the 3 cores for 40 uses and the upper stage for 1 use would be:

3*37,500,000/40 + 12,500,000 = $15,300,000. And the cost per kilo for the 53,000 kg payload cross-feed version would be 15,300,000/53,000 = $290 per kilo.

The increase in payload for the latest version would reduce this price per kilo, but likely SpaceX will also increase the price with the increased payload capability.

Ooops! Forgot to include the fact the reusability will reduce the payload to orbit. But considering the upgrades will increase the payload, the price per kilo might be about the same anyway.

Bob Clark

[sojourner]

Yeah, that was my thinking, that reusing the core doesn't look very practical anyway. But maybe I'm wrong. Ultimately SpaceX aren't likely to be able to re-use everything with the Falcon 9's approach though, at the very least reusing the upper stage looks completely impractical.

SpaceX has already given up on recovery of the second stage on F9/F9H.

[Shpaget]

The animation shows the boosters and the central core landing at the same spot, right next to the launch site. That doesn't sound reasonable. Boosters going back to the launch site, eh, maybe, but the core? By the time central core stages to the upper stage, it should have traveled too far to be going back to the place where boosters landed.

Why would they make such animation.

[SargeRho]

My guess is that the core only returns when the full payload capacity isn't needed.

[magnemoe]

My guess is that the core only returns when the full payload capacity isn't needed.

Yes its payload restricted like on the standard falcon 9

More realistic to land core on barge, wonder if Florida or somewhere in the Caribbean would work if you launch from Texas?

[MinimumSky5]

Yes its payload restricted like on the standard falcon 9

More realistic to land core on barge, wonder if Florida or somewhere in the Caribbean would work if you launch from Texas?

Spacex are building a launchsite in Texas for that very reason.