Business, Economics, Space

Falcon 9 Heavy

96 Comments

I’m watching the press conference now. Clark Lindsey is live blogging it.

I’d say that the big news is that it’s got more payload than expected, and will mean previously unthinkable price per pound. It is also big enough to do any conceivable planetary mission one would want, in sufficient numbers. The one question I wish that someone would ask is fairing size.

[Update a while later]

Clark has the press release.

[Update later in the morning]

Apparently I mistitled the post. It’s not a Falcon 9 Heavy, it’s a Falcon Heavy. I’m not sure what this means, other than the upgraded engines. Is is a different upper stage as well? It’s not obvious from the press release. Time to ask SpaceX.

[Update late morning]

Here’s the SpaceX simulation:

96 thoughts on “Falcon 9 Heavy”

  4. Somebody said the single-stick Falcon 9 gets a boost to 16 tons from the Merlin 1D upgrade too!

    So, I guess that means it can handle the Dream Chaser now too?

    ULA must be sweating kittens right now.

  6. A nasty idea – maybe the announcement is as, one poster put it, “to still the thunder” from a bad CCDev2 announcement. Maybe NASA gave all four grants to ATK? 😉

  7. This is a “big” announcement, on many levels. If the Falcon 9 Heavy comes to fruition anywhere near the estimates SpaceX will own the commercial satellite launch market in short order. And they will crack open the manned launch market as well. Once they’ve spent 5 years raking in the revenue from commercial space, then what?

  8. “Once they’ve spent 5 years raking in the revenue from commercial space, then what?”

    If they pull off three-quarters of what they announced today, whatever the hell they want.

  10. I am begining to wonder if they have not been deliberately downplaying the Merlin performance in the past so as to mis-lead the competition?

  12. Somebody is going to have to re-run that prop depot study from the other day because the F9H baseline assumptions just changed.

  13. From 32 tons (the old published estimate) to 53 just like that?

    What’s the “real” estimate for Falcon X? 100 tons? 😛

  14. Supposedly, it is the huge increase in the performance of the Merlin 1D and th ecross-feed that accounts for the huge disparity in estimates.

  15. Pingback: SpaceX Announces Their Falcon Heavy « Tai-Chi Policy

  16. I’ve long believe that simple EELV upgrades were the best path forward for heavier lift. Of course, I only saw those upgrades through the Atlas V/Delta IV prism; I never really thought about Space X.

    Needless to say, I’m quite impressed by this vehicle. With any luck, it’ll put some giant DoD satellite into orbit right around the time Congress starts to whisper that SLS is an irresponsible mess. Falcon Heavy could be both the first nail and the final nail in SLS’s coffin.

  17. Actually what threw us off is the old number was for a Falcon 9 Heavy and the new rocket is named the Falcon Heavy. So it is a different beast entirely. Got me too. As for FX, it’s 150mt, half again larger than the SV.

  20. Inert Mass Fraction of the side boosters is to be 0.033. Unprecedented. That could account for a sizable portion of the additional payload capability.

  21. “Supposedly, it is the huge increase in the performance of the Merlin 1D and th ecross-feed that accounts for the huge disparity in estimates.”

    The trick here is that they’re pumping propellant from the strap-ons into the core, then dumping the empty strap-ons earlier than would normally be done. That’s a really nifty way to gain performance, and should work just fine.

    It would also be absolutely impossible with solid strap on boosters. However, there is no reason why the Delta IV Heavy couldn’t employ the same strategy…

  23. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, ULA does to counter this.

    ACES? X-feed Delta? PhaseII Atlas?

  24. @Carl, not to dent SpaceX’s level of ambition, but keep in mind that it appears greatly magnified in contrast to the distinct lack of ambition that had been permeating the industry.

  25. Somebody said the single-stick Falcon 9 gets a boost to 16 tons from the Merlin 1D upgrade too!

    It doesn’t come free, though. That F9 liftoff mass (mostly propellant load) went up from 330 tons to something like 480 tons to make use of the 40% thrust increase. That means a stretched vehicle – height (fairing version) rose from 55 m to 69 m. It’s gonna be one skinny looking vehicle.

    I think the posted FH computer video actually uses the current stage lengths so it’s not representative.

  26. I think the timing of the announcement is to catch the last Shuttle flight. Rhetorically, the past is over and SpaceX presents a possible future that is brighter than expected.

  27. Two points of primary interest in the press release.

    First the final paragraph:
    “Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars.”

    So Space X has now indorsed the development (in some form at least) of what they (and you) like to call a “super heavy lift rocket” (regardless of orbital refueling).

    Second the rest of the article is primarily devoted to comparing the (hypothetical) performance of the Falcon 9 Heavy to that of the (existing) performance of the Delta IV Heavy. Their primary intent (for the Falcon 9 Heavy)seems to take DOD business away from the EELV Program.

  28. Elon has always endorsed the idea of a large Mars rocket. That doesn’t mean that he wants to pay for it. And did you miss the part about “half the capacity of the Saturn V” and “you could do a manned lunar mission with two launches”?

  29. Spaceflightnow is reporting this(53Tons) is with a Merlin Vac upper engine, not Raptor performance numbers.

    What could it do with a Raptor? How much would it add to the Thru TLI mass? At least 25 Tons?

  32. Dale: No, this is the long-Powerpointed F9H, they’re just changing the name for some reason or other. Configuration is the same, technology is (largely) the same… they just have upgraded the engines and added the cross-fueling ability, making the boosters perform double-duty as giant drop tanks. Which, you have to admit, is a rather cool idea, because it effectively reduces your 1.5-stage’s tank weight.

    Question–obviously, this is under high-G, not micro-G, but does this fuel transfer capability provide any experience or other benefits towards promoting a fuel depot? Also, I wonder if Bigelow would be interested in making something like a BA-1500 sized for the F9H, or if they figure FX/FXH would come out by the time they could redesign the BA-2100.

  33. Rand Simberg Says: April 5th, 2011 at 10:49 am
    “Elon has always endorsed the idea of a large Mars rocket.”

    So Mr. Musk has always endorsed a “super heavy” fine by me, but that seems to just emphasize the point.

    “That doesn’t mean that he wants to pay for it.”

    I am sure he doesn’t (he wants the government to pay – preferably him – for it).

    “And did you miss the part about “half the capacity of the Saturn V” and “you could do a manned lunar mission with two launches”?”

    Neither of those statements are in the version of the press release that I read.

  34. So Mr. Musk has always endorsed a “super heavy” fine by me, but that seems to just emphasize the point.

    He didn’t want to look opposed to developing a government-funded heavi(er) lifter just because he was footing the bill for the half size one.

    Neither of those statements are in the version of the press release that I read.

    He said them in the press conference.

  35. I always thought the numeral 9 in Falcon 9 alluded to the number of engines it sported. They could call it the Falcon 18 Heavy I guess. But dropping the numbers altogether probably just eliminates the confusion either way.

  37. Rand Simberg Says: April 5th, 2011 at 11:20 am
    The press release said:
    “Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars.”

    You say:
    “He didn’t want to look opposed to developing a government-funded heavi(er) lifter just because he was footing the bill for the half size one.”

    He either supports an HLV or he doesn’t, which (according to you) is it (what Space X says or what you say)?

    “He said them in the press conference.”

    Actually the advertised payload of the Saturn 5 was 285,000 lbs. According to the press release the Falcon Heavy would have a payload of 117,000 lbs. (that would be between 17% and 22% less than half of the Saturn 5 payload capacity depending on which total payload you use as a base). I know it is only 51,000 lbs., but little amounts add up. 🙂

    That is why I stuck to the press release; things said at a press conference can get a little free style (even assuming the best of intentions).

  38. Just putting along plugging new numbers back into the “F9 Propellant Depot” pdf from a couple days back.

    F9 Prop Depot PDF:
    M$95/launch
    32,000kg to LEO
    -> $3000/kg to LEO

    Now:
    M$95/launch
    53,000kg to LEO
    $1792/kg to LEO

    Old: ‘payload to 407km = 29t’
    -> eight trips to fill depot
    -> roughly 10% penalty for 200km to 407km

    New: payload to 407km = 48t
    five trips to fill depot. Ish.

  39. Dry mass fraction for the boosters of 3.3% is worth noting. Something like 92-93% propellant fraction is needed for SSTO so this would likely be SSTO capable with significant margin for payload, etc. Using SpaceX hardware a DC-X like reusable SSTO vehicle might almost be possible. Falcon tanks could also be delivered to orbit for use as habitat modules, tanks, etc. This level of performance opens up a number of interesting possible pathways to reusability.

    I suspect that Bigelow will now work on an inflatable habitat module to match. This module would likely have around 1000-1500 m^3 of internal volume compared to ~900m^3 for the ~$100b ISS. Considering the ~$100m launch cost this could infer larger space stations than the ISS for as little as a $1b (assuming an extra launch or two for power systems, consumerables, etc.). For what the US currently spends on the shuttle and ISS one could support a thousand people in space. This gets very interesting.

    With a large capsule to match (or multiple small ones), it might also launch near a hundred people in one go, for ticket prices of only a few million each.

    If only these developments could be extended to smaller reusable vehicles (perhaps based on SpaceX hardware), then costs could come down much further again. A small RLV that could return Merlin engines could also effectively make a SpaceX SSTO HLV reusable, and thereby much cheaper again.

  40. Spacex’s has proven itself to be a very very impressive operation, with any luck we could even see other outfits trying to improve on how they’re doing things and even greater competition, with further efficiency gains.

    Though there has been the suggestion of recovering and refurbishing the Falcon 1st stage, I wonder if in the longer term this is where we’re going, basically VL expendables being to cheap to justify reusable LV’s, or if we’ll see companies like Spacex finding the development of fully reusable LV’s justified over the next few decades.

    Maybe we could see even the $1000/lb cut by a zero with near future reusable systems.

  41. I don’t understand why everyone is so excited about the large payload. I thought everyone here knew we needed cheap lift, not heavy lift. WTF are we going to launch on this thing if we do the right thing and use propellant transfer? Of course, if this kills SLS, then that’s great. But ff it ends up turning SpaceX into just a more efficient SLS then that would be bad news. The good news is that Musk is strongly in favour of reusability. The worrying news is that he also likes big rockets.

  42. MPM wrote:

    I don’t understand why everyone is so excited about the large payload.

    It’s not the payload. It’s the price. $1000 / lb changes things.

    Mike

  43. Dry mass fraction for the boosters of 3.3% is worth noting. Something like 92-93% propellant fraction is needed for SSTO so this would likely be SSTO capable with significant margin for payload, etc.

    I bet the boosters only achieve that mass fraction because they *aren’t* SSTOs.

  44. MPM,

    I get what you’re saying. I disagree that the excitement is just price. IF SpaceX can follow through on this commitment, they are going to be able to puts *lots* of mass in orbit. Commercial mass. The likely result is a significant expansion of the market, which in turn makes funding for things like propellant depots or innovative launch techniques easier to procure.

  45. The main reason I care about depots (or more precisely propellant transfer) is that it could help fund cheap lift. Once we have cheap lift, we’ll have won and there will be no reason to be enthusiastic about depots anymore, just as there is no reason to get excited about terrestrial gas stations. They’re just a very good (and obvious) idea. Everything else can get commercial funding with cheap lift: depots, SEP tugs, NTR transfer stages, ISRU, aerobraking, commercial space stations and surface bases, you name it. If achieving cheap lift turns out to be a lot easier than I imagined then that will greatly influence my thinking on space policy. Let’s hope for the best, but I’m skeptical.

  46. It’s also worth noting that 50 tons is a great spot for lunar missions. If you can do two launches per lunar mission, then just two lunar missions a year would fill Musk’s stated quota of 4 launches a year.

    I also have to echo the enthusiasm about $1800/kg and high launch volumes. That’s a huge difference over anything flying today. This promises to be a huge development, if he can pull it off.

  47. “Dry mass fraction for the boosters of 3.3% is worth noting. Something like 92-93% propellant fraction is needed for SSTO so this would likely be SSTO capable with significant margin for payload, etc.”

    I bet the boosters only achieve that mass fraction because they *aren’t* SSTOs.

    Well they have more than enough thrust and propellant, they perhaps lack ISP (high expansion nozzles) and guidance systems.

  48. 50 tons is quite an excellent payload range for lunar missions. The Apollo CSM and LM together weighed less than that. You could do a quick “flags and footprints” Apollo retread mission with 3 total Falcon Heavy launches: 2 boosters (Saturn IVB replacements) plus capsule & lunar module.

  49. It is significant that $1000/lb can be applied to existing launch markets which are biased towards heavy lift and low flight rates. That could shake things up a lot. Any small low cost launch vehicle kind of has to also create a new market for itself. Small low cost payload development is even further behind than small low cost launch vehicle development.

    Still, hopefully this will significantly inspire and reduce the giggle factor for small reusable launch vehicles. I am greatly encouraged by the performance levels inferred – if only the reentry problem could be better solved I think a good design would fall into place.

    An interesting further development might be to add wings to the boosters and have them glide back. Then it might only be a small leap from there to a Siamese twin system where the second booster went all the way to and flew all the way back from orbit.

  50. I’ve always said I’d be in favor of heavy lift *IF* it gave us lower price per pound. I just didn’t ever expect to see it happen, and now it looks like it might!

    They look to me like they are going the incrimental improvement route, just doing so a lot faster than I’d ever thoguht possible. If they went Lox/LH on the upper stage, that would be another big boost.

    I also wonder… and maybe I’m reading too much into this… but Musk said he’s always been in favor of a SHL rocket. Seems to me he’s in a better position than anyone on the planet to make that happen, and at far less cost than anyone else.

    Hrmmm, would a Falcon heavy with four boosters instead of two, and a larger core stage and upper stage, do the job?

Comments are closed.