SpaceX Falcon Heavy

[78stonewobble]

What's the forum's thoughts on Falcon Heavy? Will it fly? Do you think it will it be one of the most popular heavy lift rockets in the future?

Can it fly (is it technically possible)? Probably.

Will it fly (is it practically possible)? Probably not for the forseeable future, beyond tests. There is NO market demand for satellites in that weight category, there is no sightseeing tourism passenger capsule, there is no space hotel to go to, there is no advanced nearly done science missions that require it, there is no asteroid mining, no moon base to support and so on. It will probably only fly often and seriously, if the US/NASA and / or Europe/ESA decides to put something big into space, and that takes time to build.

[AngelLestat]

Don't talk nonsense. The ITU is sure as hell not going to give anybody 50 slots on the Geosync ring, and nobody is going to pump in the extra infrastructure cost to support a system of fifty sats rather than a few. You're making the same mistake a lot of space enthusiasts do; focusing exclusively on launch. Payloads, ground infrastructure, ITU regulations, potential customer base, insurance costs; all these raise issues that are at least as important as launch costs. Assuming changing launch costs alone would fundamentally change the market is a mistake many have made before, to their detriment.

You think that way because you are ignoring all possible uses that might have the space other than for communications.

With these new cost you can launch a lot new sattelites with science objective, or to provide accurate data for agro-industry, or as a new 3D map system from the surface, for space turism (once it start, you need to carry people up and down all the time), for cubesats (with those cost, the cubesat manufacture cost would drop even more, and everybody would launch cubesats, and universities would be able to launch big cubesats to other planets. Then you have space full of stuff, so you need to send specialize craft to deorbit old sattellites, etc, etc, etc..

If you have so many launchs, then cost are lower even more, because you have more oportunities to launch several crafts in a particular orbit, so clients does not have to paid for particular launch oportunities at long term because its provider can not full their farings with extra crafts.

If you dont see a new market with lower launch cost.. then is your lack of vision..

Insurance cost is all related to the manufacturing and launch cost. So if both are reduce by a factor of 100, then the insurance cost is reduced by a factor of 100

Edited January 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

You think that way because you are ignoring all possible uses that might have the space other than for communications.

Because that's the vast majority of the market, current and projected, and always has been.

With these new cost you can launch a lot new sattelites with science objective,

Already has payload cost far higher than launch cost, we did all the science you could do with very cheap sats a long time ago.

or to provide accurate data for agro-industry,

Modern civilian imaging sats average below half a ton; they're small payloads to low-energy orbits at slow rates, they're not going to support a huge increase in launch rates.

for space turism (once it start, you need to carry people up and down all the time)

Surveys of potential participants don't support space tourism as a large-scale activity; even Bigelow's much-lauded 'space hotels' are actually aimed at research funded by state governments.

for cubesats (with those cost, the cubesat manufacture cost would drop even more, and everybody would launch cubesats,

Completely irrelevent. A single Falcon 9 could put up every cubesat ever built with a good amount of room to spare, you're going to need multiple orders of magnitude of growth for them to actually support an LV.

and universities would be able to launch big cubesats to other planets.

Sure, the moment we discover a way around the inverse-square law. Antennae size and solar energy issues would render any independent interplanetary cubesat effectively useless.

Then you have space full of stuff, so you need to send specialize craft to deorbit old sattellites, etc, etc, etc..

Nobodies going to pay for that.

If you dont see a new market with lower launch cost.. then is your lack of vision..

I don't see it because when other people have tried it, it never happened. Are you seriously historically ignorant enough to think Musk is the first guy to try this? Have you even heard of Hannah or Beal?

[Airlock]

Not sure how people are drawing the conclusion that Falcon Heavy will compete with SLS, or be used for the same missions. FH is designed to compete with, and fly as often as, competitor heavy lifters like ULA's Delta IV, Ariane 5, and Angara/Protons. It's primary payloads with be military/commercial sats, maybe a Bigelow module or two in the future.

[Frozen_Heart]

Nobodies going to pay for that.

Eventually somebody will have to pay for it. There won't be a choice.

Space debris is already getting to worrying levels and if we continue just leaving all this spent junk up there then eventually we'll end up with Kessler syndrome.

[AngelLestat]

Yes Kryten, you can keep your lack of vision, you are in negative mode and there is nothing I can said to change that.

Elon Musk is so success, because he knows about business, he has vision and he thinks out of the box.

Now.. I would keep watching and enjoying each step that spacex does towards their goal.

Meanwhile you or others will see with each step how wrong you were.

Have a nice day. Dont forget your words..

[Dkmdlb]

FH is designed to compete with, and fly as often as, competitor heavy lifters like ULA's Delta IV, Ariane 5, and Angara/Protons.

Falcon heavy is supposed to do something like 50 tons to LEO.

Delta heavy does 30.

Ariane 5 does <18.

Proton can do 23.

Angara can do 27.

TL;DR The Falcon Heavy can do twice what pretty much all those others can, so it's not likely it's going to be used as frequently.

*EDIT* - and by the way, the SLS can only do 70 tons to LEO. It's closer to the Falcon Heavy than any of those other rockets.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Dkmdlb
added thoughts

[Frozen_Heart]

Falcon heavy is supposed to do something like 50 tons to LEO.

Delta heavy does 30.

Ariane 5 does <18.

Proton can do 23.

Angara can do 27.

TL;DR The Falcon Heavy can do twice what pretty much all those others can, so it's not likely it's going to be used as frequently.

Those stats are for expendable. As they plan to reuse it then the payload drops rapidly. This will bring it in line to other launchers.

[adsii1970]

Maybe the question to ask is "Do governments want to maintain a government-space agency-monopoly on spaceflight? Although the U.S. gives lip service to the developing space industry, the increase of regulations, nearly oppressive government oversight, and now differing approvals required by differing agencies beg to differ. I read on Space.com about a year ago that for every test flight by a civilian space company (such as Virgin Galactic, SpaceX), the FAA requires a detailed flight plan, NASA requires suborbital and orbital trajectories and mission plan, the EPA wants a complete environmental impact study (to include various materials used, what the environmental hazards could be, the plans to clean up in the event of a disaster, etc.), the DoD wants information, the NTSB wants detailed reports on evacuation procedures of human passengers and pilots, and nearly a dozen other agencies with some report and documentation required BEFORE each launch.

Let's face facts, while we like to say that the federal government (in the case of the U.S.) wants to keep things safe, reduce liability, and manage risk, could there be more to this story? Could the nations of the world realize that there are many of us that are willing to risk everything for the opportunity to settle on the Moon, Mars, and beyond? What would happen to these same nations if those colonies declared independence, much like what happened in North and South America between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Could it be that maybe the spacefaring nations are afraid of an uncontrollable exodus or new sources of unregulated wealth if these companies begin mining asteroids and the Moon? Could it be a little of both?

If the governments of Europe had placed so many restrictions on the early explorers, North and South America would have never been settled by Europeans. If the various governmental bureaucracies existed at the turn of the twentieth century, the Wright brothers would never have made the first flight by powered aircraft.

[Dkmdlb]

SpaceX's website says the expendable will do 58 tons to LEO. I haven't been able to find any info about how much reusability will reduce that, so that's why I rounded down to 50 tons. The expendable Falcon 9 can apparently handle 130% of the payload of the reusable version, and if that carries across to the heavy, then the reusable version will do about 45 tons to LEO.

But the heavy drops the boosters sooner than the F9, and so needs less fuel for boostback, and also shedding that dry weight helps with the delta-v thing, so maybe the expendable version will only be able to do something like 120% of the payload of the reusable version. If that's the case, the reusable version will do like 48 tons to LEO. That's still much higher than the others on that list.

I'm happy to be corrected on my numbers, by the way.

[FishInferno]

Can it fly (is it technically possible)? Probably.

Will it fly (is it practically possible)? Probably not for the forseeable future, beyond tests. There is NO market demand for satellites in that weight category, there is no sightseeing tourism passenger capsule, there is no space hotel to go to, there is no advanced nearly done science missions that require it, there is no asteroid mining, no moon base to support and so on. It will probably only fly often and seriously, if the US/NASA and / or Europe/ESA decides to put something big into space, and that takes time to build.

Look on the SpaceX website. They already have a few Falcon Heavy missions on the launch manifest (besides the demo flight). They are less frequent than that F9, but that make sense.

[Sky_walker]

sattellites and spacecraft are very expensive just because launch cost are expensive..

No, they are not. Satellites and spacecrafts are expensive because satellites / spacecrafts are expensive. Launch itself can be less than 1/3 of initial cost (again: very much depends on a payload, in case of scientific satellites it can easily go below 10%).

Maybe the question to ask is "Do governments want to maintain a government-space agency-monopoly on spaceflight? Although the U.S. gives lip service to the developing space industry, the increase of regulations, nearly oppressive government oversight, and now differing approvals required by differing agencies beg to differ

They are put in place for a good reason. See point above - loosing a rocket is non-issue, loosing payload is a tragedy.

SpaceX's website says the expendable will do 58 tons to LEO.

We'll see what's going to be the reality of largest payloads FH is going to carry. SpaceX got a long history of being too optimistic about their estimations.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Sky_walker

[AngelLestat]

I dont know where you get 58 tons, in all sources (including spacex.com) it said 53 tons (not reusable with crossfeed).

So this mean 40 tons being reusable..

But it does not matter if they launch a payload of 15 or 20 tons. Because if it is reusable then does not matter if they dont use its full capacity.. Their cost will still be some orders of magnitude lower than the competence at that mass.

After that they plan to make a 100 tons - 200 tons launcher (similar in configuration than falcon9 and falcon heavy), the same example will be apply here..

If they need to launch 50, it will be cheaper to use the 100 tons launcher in reusable mode than drop a falcon heavy to the toilet.

No, they are not. Satellites and spacecrafts are expensive because satellites / spacecrafts are expensive. Launch itself can be less than 1/3 of initial cost (again: very much depends on a payload, in case of scientific satellites it can easily go below 10%).

yes they are.

Why spacecraft are expensive?? tell me reasons..

Why you can not use heavier solar cells with lower efficiency instead the best you can find?

Why you can not use a simple phone as computer instead specialize hardware made it for the satellite.

The answer is because the launch cost is expensive, so if you launch something you need to be sure that it would work and it would do it for many years.

But when launch is so common and cheap, everyone would have softwares and techniques of spacecraft manufacture that would reduce all the cost. You dont need to do anymore special hardware, you can buy normal hardware and use software to accomplish what do you want.

Edited January 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Frozen_Heart]

SpaceX's website says the expendable will do 58 tons to LEO. I haven't been able to find any info about how much reusability will reduce that, so that's why I rounded down to 50 tons. The expendable Falcon 9 can apparently handle 130% of the payload of the reusable version, and if that carries across to the heavy, then the reusable version will do about 45 tons to LEO.

But the heavy drops the boosters sooner than the F9, and so needs less fuel for boostback, and also shedding that dry weight helps with the delta-v thing, so maybe the expendable version will only be able to do something like 120% of the payload of the reusable version. If that's the case, the reusable version will do like 48 tons to LEO. That's still much higher than the others on that list.

I'm happy to be corrected on my numbers, by the way.

50 tons is way too optimistic. If all 3 cores are reusable the Falcon heavy GTO payload is more likely to be around 25 tons and even that may be much higher than reality. I wouldn't be surprised if it was only 10 tons.

[Dkmdlb]

The SpaceX website says 53,000 kg.

screenshot

Edited January 28, 2015 by Dkmdlb

[Kryten]

But when launch is so common and cheap, everyone would have softwares and techniques of spacecraft manufacture that would reduce all the cost. You dont need to do anymore special hardware, you can buy normal hardware and use software to accomplish what do you want.

For the last time, the vast majority of satellites are put into a limited number of orbital slots, and are limited further by limitations on frequencies. The orbital slots and frequency allocations go for enormous amounts of money; and the operators still make vast profits, because the sats have thousands of transponders and can support tens of thousands of customers. Trying to fly cheap satellites would be throwing money away.

[Frozen_Heart]

The SpaceX website says 53,000 kg.

screenshot

Those stats are for fully expendable. There aren't currently payloads of that size.

It makes much more sense to go reusable which moves the payload into the range with the most demand while also getting the rocket back.

[AngelLestat]

50 tons is way too optimistic. If all 3 cores are reusable the Falcon heavy GTO payload is more likely to be around 25 tons and even that may be much higher than reality. I wouldn't be surprised if it was only 10 tons.

You should play with KSP RSS and try the Falcon Heavy in reusable way.. Even that numbers would not be all the same.

You will notice a key fact. You dont need much extra fuel to make the side boosters go back, the center core booster to complete the orbit speed after decouple, and the second stage to re entry.

That is only the 3% to 10% of the fuels remaning depending each stage.

And you can accomplish that with just an small reduction of 30% in the payload.

For the last time, the vast majority of satellites are put into a limited number of orbital slots, and are limited further by limitations on frequencies. The orbital slots and frequency allocations go for enormous amounts of money; and the operators still make vast profits, because the sats have thousands of transponders and can support tens of thousands of customers. Trying to fly cheap satellites would be throwing money away.

For the last time, can you go out from the box?

Not all the things that you launch into space are comunication sattellites!

Less if the cost is so low to attract new markets.

If there are 100 people in the world that owns a bugatti veyron, it does not mean that number would stay the same if cost drop a tenth.

I will made a prediction:

Knowing how Elon Musk think, I am sure that after he accomplish the full reusable program, he would make a new company that would develope and sale "spacecraft components, as kits" to allow anyone and even bigger companies to make cheap spacecrafts.

And he will sell all that stuff at manufacture cost (without profit)

Because he is the only one that can launch them due cost.

He already did some things like this one, he allow the use of any of their patents on electric cars to their competitors, he made a new lithium battery factory.

Those are actions that only clever people do. Toyota copy his strategy with their hydrogen car.

[Frozen_Heart]

And you can accomplish that with just an small reduction of 30% in the payload.

Reduction of 30% payload per stage (very roughly), not altogether. 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49. That's pretty much a 50% reduction which means ~25 tons max.

[Nibb31]

You should play with KSP RSS and try the Falcon Heavy in reusable way.. Even that numbers would not be all the same.

You will notice a key fact. You dont need much extra fuel to make the side boosters go back, the center core booster to complete the orbit speed after decouple, and the second stage to re entry.

That is only the 3% to 10% of the fuels remaning depending each stage.

And you can accomplish that with just an small reduction of 30% in the payload.*

Is your KSP Falcon modeled to the exact same weight ratios and engine performance as in real life? Does it get damaged by reentry heat? Are you flying your payloads to GTO or high inclination orbits?

For the last time, can you go out from the box?

Not all the things that you launch into space are comunication sattellites!

Less if the cost is so low to attract new markets.

If you reduce the cost by 20%, which is what reusing the first stage of a Falcon 9 might achieve optimistically, then the price goes from 60 to 50 million dollars. That is not going to spawn new markets.

The launch cost is typically less that 25% of a satellite project. The satellite itself is approximately 50%. The rest is ground systems and operations. So the saving for the customer is 20% of 25%. That's nice for the operator's bottom line, but it's not revolutionary.

If there are 100 people in the world that owns a bugatti veyron, it does not mean that number would stay the same if cost drop a tenth.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Take 10% off the price of a $1 million dollar supercar, and you're not going to sell 10% more cars just because they are now $900.000. (In this particular case, you might even sell less.)

Even if you reduce the launch cost from $60 to $6 million (which is completely unrealistic), you are not going to launch 10 times more satellites, because the market is not expandable that way.

SpaceX is a great illustration actually. In 2014, their launch prices are practically 50% lower than the competition, which is a great achievement. The only effect is that it is drawing existing customers from the traditional launch providers, but it isn't doubling the number of launches per year.

There are a couple of projects of constellations for broadband orbital internet, with hundreds of small satellites, but those will be launched in clusters, so the actual number of launchesmight be around 10 or 20, which isn't that huge. It will keep launch providers busy for a few years, but it's not a game changer.

[Kryten]

For the last time, can you go out from the box?

Not all the things that you launch into space are comunication sattellites!

It's as close as makes no difference. Excluding transport to ISS (which is based on NASA demands, and obviously not going to change due to price, commercial non-GSO launches in the past ten years averaged less than six a year, much of that small vehicles. GSO averages over 14, and much larger rocket classes.

[Frozen_Heart]

SpaceX is a great illustration actually. In 2014, their launch prices are practically 50% lower than the competition, which is a great achievement. The only effect is that it is drawing existing customers from the traditional launch providers, but it isn't doubling the number of launches per year.

I think that the market could potentially expand but having low prices for a single year isn't going to do that. It will take 20 to 30 years of consistently low prices to have any hope of that. Partially because it takes so long to design new payloads.

[J.Random]

Weird video. Reentry heating for side boosters? OK, that's an "artist impression". But still, mechanical decoupling system for side boosters? Central booster returning to launchpad? I guess we'll wait and see if it actually works.

[Rakaydos]

Weird video. Reentry heating for side boosters? OK, that's an "artist impression". But still, mechanical decoupling system for side boosters? Central booster returning to launchpad? I guess we'll wait and see if it actually works.

As far as the central core returning to pad, I would assume there's a step being left out- landing on the automated barge, being refueled, and launching again back to the pad.

[magnemoe]

Yes, and those savings have already been applied. SpaceX is about as lean as it can be, which makes trimming more overhead off even harder.

Yes, also SpaceX is behind on launches as in they have an backlog, just for this reason reusing stages will speed up the launch rate.

They don't have an huge production line to trim down to because they will be building fewer rockets.