Falcon Heavy, but then what?

GW Johnson · 2017-09-25 11:41:52

Here’s my take on Musk and his outfit, which is based on his history so far. If he says he’s going to do something, he eventually does it in one form or another. But it takes him a lot longer than he wants (or says) up front, precisely because this stuff is hard.

He said he would build a satellite launcher, and he did. But it took longer than he initially said to “get there from here”. That was Falcon-9 via Falcon-1. Now he has NASA, commercial, and USAF contracts for launch. But it took about factor 1.5-to-2 longer time to accomplish, than initially projected.

He said he was going to reduce the cost of orbital access, and he did. He did it by simplifying and drastically-reducing the size of the logistical support “tail” required to successfully launch reliable rockets. This was part and parcel of getting to Falcon-9 as we know it now, which as I just said in the previous paragraph, took about factor 1.5-to-2 times longer to accomplish than projected initially.

He said he was going to build a manned capsule out of his cargo Dragon, and he did. It is taking about factor 2 longer than he originally said, because NASA is paying for this and they slowed him down (I think to prevent Lockheed and Boeing from being embarrassed in public). NASA also killed the powered landings with crewed Dragon, which would have made recovery and reuse so much less expensive. Again, I think this was to keep Boeing and Lockheed (who were not ready to even try such a thing) from being embarrassed in public.

That essentially killed “Red Dragon”, by the way, unless Musk decides to pay out of his own pocket to make propulsive landings work in his capsule. But with Red Dragon killed for a while, NASA has another excuse (no way to land large payloads) not to go to Mars.

He said he was going to reduce the cost further by reusing rocket stages. He did it by incorporating the changes needed into Falcon-9. It took longer than expected to make it all work acceptably well (that effort is still in progress). By the time it is done for first stages, it will have taken about factor 1.5 to 2 times longer than first projected. See the pattern here?

Objective: if announced, eventually accomplished in one form or another.

Schedule: factor 1.5-to-2 longer than initially projected.

He said he wanted to make a heavy launcher called Falcon-Heavy out of Falcon-9. That booster has yet to fly, but I think might be slated for a November first demo flight. It was supposed to have flown 3 or 4 years ago. Again, something like factor 1.5-to-2 times longer than he wanted. Same pattern!

OK, now he says he wants to build some sort of Mars transportation system to enable setting up bases on Mars. The gigantic ITS/MCT/whatever-name-you-want is a paper concept for that, revealed last year in Guadalajara. So are the Falcon-X and Falcon-XX paper design concepts shown in the graphic shown above, just a bit older. In point of fact, ITS/MCT is just a variation of Falcon-XX shown in the graphic.

However this rocket design finally “gels”, look at the Guadalajara projection: that was the public announcement of intent. He wants flights starting in 2024/2025: about a decade from the announced intent (if you count the preparation time for the meeting as a 2015 start). Now apply the pattern factor of 1.5--2 and get 2027-to-2030 for a good guess when this transportation system might really be ready.

Doing this is biting off a bigger chunk, so I’d bet the factor is closer to 2, with a date near or just past 2030. It’s a bigger chunk to bite off, not only because of the size of the rocket, but also the intent not to throw away second stages anymore. Look closely at the revealed ITS/MCT concept: that second stage is refueled and repurposed into an interplanetary spacecraft. The tankers are repurposed as flyback spacecraft.

There are a lot of different ways to do that, not just what was presented in Guadalajara. I suspect that by the time this is done, the rocket family will look more like Falcon-XX, with a second stage refueled on orbit, and repurposed not as THE interplanetary spacecraft, but as a propulsion stage component of a LARGER assembled-in-orbit spacecraft. By the time this is actually done, the reusable thing that actually lands on Mars will NOT be the entire interplanetary spacecraft. Who knows what the orbit tankers will end up being?

As for the Mars lander, those design requirements are as disparate and incompatible with the design of an interplanetary transport, as are the design requirements for USAF versus USN top fighters (which is why I think the F-35 will be a disappointment). So I would not expect the Mars lander design to end up being what was presented at Guadalajara. It might look more like the conical landers others (including myself) have proposed, but larger, and definitely flown back up for re-use.

As for engine sizes and count, Musk’s bunch has long adopted “more smaller engines” as their fundamental approach to rocket stages. We’re about to find out whether that will still work at 27-count in Falcon-Heavy. It works just fine at 9-count in Falcon-9. If not, they’ll have to embark on yet another, much larger-engine development effort, which will slow things down further. Meanwhile, weight-savings items like the gigantic composite tank are being experimented-with, so we do know they are serious about this Mars thing.

So, I conclude they are doing some of the right things toward this Mars goal. But, they MUST address an unprecedented launch rate combined with an unprecedented booster-reusability effort, to successfully address the satellite launch business backlog first! Without success there, there is no corporate future, so that OBVIOUSLY MUST come first. They have to make available both Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy to make that happen. As near as I can tell, they do have their priorities set correctly.

We can debate Mars rocket designs all day long, but we aren’t who decides this. Success with 27 engines in Falcon-Heavy means success with a similar number of Raptor engines in a Falcon-XX or an ITS/MCT really can be had. THAT is the next wicket gate to watch for!

The wicket gate after that might (or might not !!) be recovering a Falcon second stage from orbit. It’s not a necessary and sufficient condition, while reliably burning 30-ish engines probably is. If you can repurpose the stage on-orbit, it is not so necessary to be able to recover it from orbit. They have not yet tried to answer that question, and I am not surprised, since the launch backlog MUST take priority.

Remember, Spacex is only one organization, and it must show a profit. What they have already done is quite extraordinary. I think what they decide to do, and how to do it, is very well thought-out, and adapted well to unanticipated findings along the way.

Certainly more so than NASA, which now seems bent on starting another money-pit space station project (“Gateway”) way out in cis-lunar space (the only place SLS/Orion really can go). I predict they’ll kill a crew in a solar flare event, if they do build this thing. But, regardless, it will eat up the money needed for a big lunar lander to support a return to the moon, and for any sort of Mars lander (“Why go all that way if you don’t land?”). Looks to me like it’s not a “gateway” to anywhere, just another excuse not to go to Mars (“not enough money”).

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-25 11:44:46)

SpaceNut · 2017-09-25 17:55:24

Nice run down to all the details provided for analysis as always.

Which brings me to why, In space capsules, there’s little room but big improvements

Boeing and SpaceX are relying on the tried-and-true gumdrop-shaped capsule design as the two companies each develop spacecraft under NASA contracts to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station.

One improvement has nothing to do with the capsule but what an astronaut will wear. Boeing’s “Boeing blue” spacesuit is about 40 percent lighter than previous suits, and the gloves were specially designed to let astronauts interact with touch screens.

The CST-100 Starliner capsule is set to make its debut test flight in June 2018, with a crewed test flight two months later.

Now back to Dragon 2 which also departs from the old Apollo escape tower as did Boeings but guess who's did not... ya you guessed it Orion....

While Dragon 2 and Starliner are big steps for man going back on its own power and not as a ride on a Soyuz.....

I am also watching for the Northrup Gruman Dinosaur to do something with the newly acquired ATK Orbital line of products as they should be able to do the same.

GW Johnson · 2017-09-28 11:08:00

It's official. NASA is going for the money-pit Gateway space station in cis-lunar space, and agreed with the Russians to build and operate it. That's the one place SLS/Orion, as it is, can actually reach. The contractors they are bringing on board are the "usual crowd", already funded for "risk reduction studies", as I hear it.

Budget-wise, NASA has demonstrated in recent decades that it can take on only two big front-burner projects at a time, like shuttle and ISS. We still have major ongoing commitments to ISS, and now there will be Gateway. So, there will be no front-burner moon effort, much less a Mars effort.

If anybody goes to Mars in our lifetimes, it will be a private entity that does it. Musk will present the next version of his paper Mars rocket and spaceship at an upcoming meeting, I hear.

GW

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 14:49:14

According to Elon, it's all BFR, all the time.

There will be a warehouse with a few dusty Falcons and Dragons if someone really wants to pay for the more "experienced" tech, but otherwise everything will be on the BFR.

You could launch an entire constellation on that thing. Two, if you are willing to pay the expendable premium. If there is any problem with this formula, its that those customers who only want to launch a single orbiter will have to wait for thirty other customers to sign up to launch.

I wonder if this will increase volume in the satellite manufacturing market. Is there more demand for satellites just waiting for launch costs to fall off a cliff.

Terraformer · 2017-09-29 15:16:31

I wonder if they'll set up a depot, to soak up any excess capacity on the launches? I'm sure an extra 50 tonnes of water in orbit would be able to find a use somewhere.

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 22:14:27

GW Johnson wrote:

It's official. NASA is going for the money-pit Gateway space station in cis-lunar space, and agreed with the Russians to build and operate it. That's the one place SLS/Orion, as it is, can actually reach. The contractors they are bringing on board are the "usual crowd", already funded for "risk reduction studies", as I hear it.
Budget-wise, NASA has demonstrated in recent decades that it can take on only two big front-burner projects at a time, like shuttle and ISS. We still have major ongoing commitments to ISS, and now there will be Gateway. So, there will be no front-burner moon effort, much less a Mars effort.
If anybody goes to Mars in our lifetimes, it will be a private entity that does it. Musk will present the next version of his paper Mars rocket and spaceship at an upcoming meeting, I hear.
GW

If we can land, offload, and lift off with out using precious lunar fluids, is the Gateway even relevant anymore? At least until we can mass drive lunar materials off the surface?

GW Johnson · 2017-09-30 09:43:47

As far as doing anything on the moon is concerned, Gateway has little, if any, technological relevance. Why go there and make your voyage longer, if you can go straight to the moon quicker? Something in orbit around the moon might make sense, until and unless the vehicles make direct landings. If Musk has his way, they will.

Gateway ONLY makes sense to me as (1) corporate welfare for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, and (2) a political tie to the Russians. And (3) as a budgetary excuse not to take on the risk and expense of going to Mars with men. There is no lander that could travel from Gateway to the lunar surface and back, something more demanding than a lander from low lunar orbit to the surface and back. Until there is, of what use is Gateway to doing anything on the moon? I see no use.

Unless they do the solar storm radiation shelter "right", they'll kill a crew on Gateway with lethal radiation exposure. Does anyone see any indication in any of the Boeing or Lockheed-Martin designs they will address that risk? I don't. Adding a little plastic hull lining to Orion won't protect those crews from solar storm radiation, either. It's too thin to serve, and no room or weight allowance (in an already overweight capsule) to add enough to do the job.

Musk's IAC presentation does address the radiation shelter issue, although his earlier Guadalajara presentation did not. If the BFR actually flies the way he projects, those crews may actually be safe enough for any destination outside the Van Allen Belts.

I had assumed the design requirements for a manned interplanetary transport vehicle were different enough from an atmospheric lander to justify separate designs, and basing from orbit at both the moon and Mars. Musk's team obviously doesn't think so. We'll see who's closer to right eventually, but the odds seem to favor them, at least at the BFR scale.

In my separate designs, I put radiation shielding into the orbit-to-orbit transport. I didn't put it into the landers, presuming short trips with them. Although, it might be possible to hide underneath the ascent propellant tankage for shelter, if caught on the ground.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-30 16:33:24)

SpaceNut · 2017-09-30 20:15:23

The Moon, Mars, & around the Earth – Musk updates BFR architecture, plans

BFR vehicle (Big F-word Rocket) was a Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle with a 12 meter booster diameter, a 17 meter spaceship diameter, and a 122 meter stack height powered by 42 (a good number for any science fiction fan) Raptor engines. Under the original BFR design, 42 Raptor engines powered the booster stage, with another nine Raptors on a second stage (the BFR spacecraft that would carry people or propellant… or both).

With his presentation today, Mr. Musk confirmed a smaller, slightly scaled-down version of BFR ...

SpaceNut · 2023-12-26 17:50:28

SpaceX Falcon 9 booster tips over at sea, returns to Port Canaveral as battered wreckage

AA1m42K3.img?w=800&h=415&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

GW Johnson · 2023-12-27 10:51:50

If I interpreted the news article correctly, this booster landed OK, but tipped over during transit in rough seas.

Rough seas are a fairly common thing. This was bound to happen sooner or later.

Real sailors know better than to leave unsecured objects on a ship's deck. All they need to do is figure out a way to lash the thing down. Then rough seas matter a lot less.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-27 11:05:38

According to Google, Falcon Heavy has launched 8 times and achieved 8 successes.

I am getting heavy packet loss in the early afternoon of December 27th. The post below ended up showing up twice.

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
The heaviest payload launched to a geostationary orbit (GEO) was Jupiter 3 (EchoStar-24) with 9,200 kg (20,300 lb) on 29 July 2023. Launches to higher orbits ...
First-stage booster · 2010–2019 · Vandenberg Space Launch...
People also ask
How many Falcon Heavy launches are there?
Falcon Heavy
Size
Launch sites
Kennedy Space Center, LC-39A Vandenberg, SLC-6 (future)
Total launches 8
Success(es) 8
Landings
1 center core landed (lost at sea) / 3 attempted 14 side boosters landed / 14 attempted
Falcon Heavy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Falcon_Heavy
More results
How many SpaceX launches so far in 2023?
What are the upcoming rocket launches 2023?
What are the major launches in 2023?
How many rockets has SpaceX launched so far in 2023?
spaceexplored.com › 2023/12/24 › spacex-launches-2023
3 days ago · List of SpaceX launches in 2023 ; January 10, OneWeb 16, Falcon 9 (B1076.2) ; January 15, USSF-67, Falcon Heavy (B1070, B1064.2, B1065.2) ; January ...
SpaceX 2023 launches at a... · The year of the heavy
Space calendar 2023: Rocket launches and skywatching dates
www.space.com › 32286-space-calendar
Dec 11, 2023 · Dec: A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch the U.S. Space Force's secretive X-37B space plane on its 7th mission to space. Falcon Heavy will ...
Falcon Heavy Launch Schedule - RocketLaunch.Live
www.rocketlaunch.live › filter=falcon-heavy
Live coverage and the most up-to-date schedule of all upcoming Falcon Heavy launches.
SpaceX to just miss goal of 100 Falcon launches in 2023 - SpaceNews
spacenews.com › spacex-to-just-miss-goal-of-100-falcon-launches-in-2023
Dec 19, 2023 · SpaceX ended an 11-day hiatus in launches late Dec. 18, but the gap likely means the company will fall just short of a goal of 100 Falcon ...
List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2023 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_January–June_...
This article lists orbital and suborbital launches during the first half of the year 2023. For all other spaceflight activities, see 2023 in spaceflight.

(th)

kbd512 · 2023-12-27 11:06:28

For some reason, I thought the feet / landing pads on these things were literally welded to the deck by a small robot after they land. This seems like an economic and efficient use of the Boston Dynamics Spot robot, where the robot's presence is absolutely justified to save millions of dollars, despite the fact that it will cost around $100K.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-27 11:08:54

According to Google, Falcon Heavy has launched 8 times and achieved 8 successes.

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
The heaviest payload launched to a geostationary orbit (GEO) was Jupiter 3 (EchoStar-24) with 9,200 kg (20,300 lb) on 29 July 2023. Launches to higher orbits ...
First-stage booster · 2010–2019 · Vandenberg Space Launch...
People also ask
How many Falcon Heavy launches are there?
Falcon Heavy
Size
Launch sites
Kennedy Space Center, LC-39A Vandenberg, SLC-6 (future)
Total launches 8
Success(es) 8
Landings
1 center core landed (lost at sea) / 3 attempted 14 side boosters landed / 14 attempted
Falcon Heavy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Falcon_Heavy
More results
How many SpaceX launches so far in 2023?
What are the upcoming rocket launches 2023?
What are the major launches in 2023?
How many rockets has SpaceX launched so far in 2023?
spaceexplored.com › 2023/12/24 › spacex-launches-2023
3 days ago · List of SpaceX launches in 2023 ; January 10, OneWeb 16, Falcon 9 (B1076.2) ; January 15, USSF-67, Falcon Heavy (B1070, B1064.2, B1065.2) ; January ...
SpaceX 2023 launches at a... · The year of the heavy
Space calendar 2023: Rocket launches and skywatching dates
www.space.com › 32286-space-calendar
Dec 11, 2023 · Dec: A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch the U.S. Space Force's secretive X-37B space plane on its 7th mission to space. Falcon Heavy will ...
Falcon Heavy Launch Schedule - RocketLaunch.Live
www.rocketlaunch.live › filter=falcon-heavy
Live coverage and the most up-to-date schedule of all upcoming Falcon Heavy launches.
SpaceX to just miss goal of 100 Falcon launches in 2023 - SpaceNews
spacenews.com › spacex-to-just-miss-goal-of-100-falcon-launches-in-2023
Dec 19, 2023 · SpaceX ended an 11-day hiatus in launches late Dec. 18, but the gap likely means the company will fall just short of a goal of 100 Falcon ...
List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2023 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_January–June_...
This article lists orbital and suborbital launches during the first half of the year 2023. For all other spaceflight activities, see 2023 in spaceflight.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-09-25 11:41:52

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#27 2017-09-25 17:55:24

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#28 2017-09-28 11:08:00

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#29 2017-09-29 14:49:14

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#30 2017-09-29 15:16:31

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#31 2017-09-29 22:14:27

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#32 2017-09-30 09:43:47

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#33 2017-09-30 20:15:23

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#34 2023-12-26 17:50:28

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#35 2023-12-27 10:51:50

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#36 2023-12-27 11:05:38

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#37 2023-12-27 11:06:28

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#38 2023-12-27 11:08:54

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

Board footer