Falcon Heavy to be officially launched?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:26:05 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

Agreed. But that begs the question... what do they plan to do with it
today (well, in 2014?) Its grossly oversized for any existing payload.
Even for two-at-a-time, it's oversized.

You miss the point. Falcon Heavy costs much less to launch than Delta
IV Heavy.

For now. I'm sure it will cost less, I'm less sure about the "much
less". I'm glad Falcon Heavy is on the horizon... the extra lift
should be a terrific replacement for the doomed SLS at NASA. But I'll
believe the $100 million per flight price tag when I see it.

Even if, initially, payloads don't take advantage of all of
Falcon Heavy's performance, the launch will still cost less and save
money for SpaceX's customers.

Until they realize they can charge a lot more for the Falcon Heavy,
and the price heads north. Probably the day after NASA cancels SLS or
whatever name Ares is going under these days. Certainly by the time
DoD cancels one of its EELVs.

If you could buy a first class ticket on a passenger airliner for less
than a coach ticket, would you turn it down simply because the airliner
is "wasting" capacity by having unnecessarily roomy seats in first
class?

Nope. But that's never happened before. Business doesn't work that
way, it increases its prices to what the market will bear. The best we
can realistically hope for is a little cheaper price. So far all we
have are press releases from SpaceX saying they'll be charging less.
But remember this press release?

"El Segundo, CA – September 8, 2005 – SpaceX today announced its new
launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(EELV) class vehicle. With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing,
Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg)
to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs
(25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater
than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9
is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and
$35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and
third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient
vehicle in its class worldwide. "

Falcon 9 today is neither EELV class nor $27 million per flight. The
price is now well north of $50 million. Really not that much cheaper
than Delta II, its nearest class competitor.

And Falcon 1 was from all evidence unprofitable and is at
cancellation's door.

Your philosophy is "if you build it, they will come", mine is "I'll
believe it when I see it."

Brian

On 04/11/2011 06:03 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:26:05 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

If you could buy a first class ticket on a passenger airliner for less
than a coach ticket, would you turn it down simply because the airliner
is "wasting" capacity by having unnecessarily roomy seats in first
class?

Nope. But that's never happened before. Business doesn't work that
way, it increases its prices to what the market will bear. The best we
can realistically hope for is a little cheaper price.

What the market will bear depends on which market SpaceX is shooting
for. If they're content with killing SLS and getting in on the ULA EELV
action, they'll price the Heavy just below the EELV and make a healthy
profit margin.

But if they want to capture the international commercial market,
undercutting EELV won't be good enough. They'll need to undercut Proton,
Ariane, and Long March. In that context, it's important to note that
Proton and Long March are both low-cost LVs but priced at what the
market will bear, and therefore both have a fair amount of room to drop
prices to compete with SpaceX. (Their current prices are designed not
just to maximize profits but to reduce their exposure to Western
anti-dumping regulations; with SpaceX providing a low-cost option in the
West, ILS and Long March would have a much stronger argument against any
complaints of dumping.)

A price war between SpaceX, ILS, and Long March would be interesting.

In article , jrfrank@ibm-
pc.borg says...

On 04/11/2011 06:03 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

Nope. But that's never happened before. Business doesn't work that
way, it increases its prices to what the market will bear. The best we
can realistically hope for is a little cheaper price.

What the market will bear depends on which market SpaceX is shooting
for. If they're content with killing SLS and getting in on the ULA EELV
action, they'll price the Heavy just below the EELV and make a healthy
profit margin.

But if they want to capture the international commercial market,
undercutting EELV won't be good enough. They'll need to undercut Proton,
Ariane, and Long March. In that context, it's important to note that
Proton and Long March are both low-cost LVs but priced at what the
market will bear, and therefore both have a fair amount of room to drop
prices to compete with SpaceX. (Their current prices are designed not
just to maximize profits but to reduce their exposure to Western
anti-dumping regulations; with SpaceX providing a low-cost option in the
West, ILS and Long March would have a much stronger argument against any
complaints of dumping.)

A price war between SpaceX, ILS, and Long March would be interesting.

If SpaceX lives up to Musk's "vision for the future", they're in this to
open up space to new markets. That means keeping prices as low as
possible while remaining profitable, not prices designed to maximize
profits at the expense of minimizing their share of the existing launch
market. Even if SpaceX has an IPO, ever expanding market share (even if
it means lower profit margins) might just keep the stockholders happy
enough that prices remain low.

It's a pretty big gamble, especially if future stockholders don't see
much profit in such an approach and SpaceX's stock tanks to the point
where they can be bought out. The worst case scenario to me would be
SpaceX being bought out by one of the dinospace companies who would most
definitely price all Falcons in order to maximize profits.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:


If SpaceX lives up to Musk's "vision for the future", they're in this to
open up space to new markets. That means keeping prices as low as
possible while remaining profitable, not prices designed to maximize
profits at the expense of minimizing their share of the existing launch
market. Even if SpaceX has an IPO, ever expanding market share (even if
it means lower profit margins) might just keep the stockholders happy
enough that prices remain low.

What stock holders? I thought Musk was the sole owner.

On 04/12/2011 09:05 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:


If SpaceX lives up to Musk's "vision for the future", they're in this to
open up space to new markets. That means keeping prices as low as
possible while remaining profitable, not prices designed to maximize
profits at the expense of minimizing their share of the existing launch
market. Even if SpaceX has an IPO, ever expanding market share (even if
it means lower profit margins) might just keep the stockholders happy
enough that prices remain low.

What stock holders? I thought Musk was the sole owner.


Re-read Jeff's post. He conditioned it on "Even if SpaceX has an IPO..."

In article om,
says...

On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:


If SpaceX lives up to Musk's "vision for the future", they're in this to
open up space to new markets. That means keeping prices as low as
possible while remaining profitable, not prices designed to maximize
profits at the expense of minimizing their share of the existing launch
market. Even if SpaceX has an IPO, ever expanding market share (even if
it means lower profit margins) might just keep the stockholders happy
enough that prices remain low.

What stock holders? I thought Musk was the sole owner.

That's why I said "if SpaceX has an IPO". It's widely rumored in the
space news media that SpaceX is considering an IPO.

There is a discussion of just this topic he
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...topic=21951.15

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Am 07.04.2011 03:58, schrieb Jorge R. Frank:
On 04/06/2011 01:26 PM, markus baur wrote:
Am 06.04.2011 19:29, schrieb Jeff Findley:
In t,
says...

does anyone here have good data on the specifications of falcon 9?

i am looking specifically for empty mass / fuel mass for both stages ..

Since SpaceX is a private company, short of signing a nondisclosure
agreement and talking to the SpaceX engineers, the best information
you're going to find is on their website.

FALCON HEAVY OVERVIEW
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

read that already before posting here .. 8-)

And so you just decided to post the question here, huh?

You do realize that's kinda like wanting to have sex with Denise
Richards, going to http://www.deniserichards.com/, looking for a "Have
Sex With Denise Richards" link, and, failing to find one, decide to post
on alt.fan.denise-richards asking for advice on how to have sex with
Denise Richards?

You do realize that, don't you?

The space fanboi crowd is going to have a harder time adjusting to the
Commercial Spaceflight Era than most of them realize. Data NASA used to
release for free is considered quite proprietary by commercial space
companies.

actually not - i was posting the question here because there are some
people occasionally posting here who are very well informed ... and
might have come across this information in some obscure corner - or even
only in dead tree form ...

sooner or later this information will be out there -

so while i did not give good odds, it was a bet impossible to loose ..

servus

markus

In sci.space.shuttle message ,
Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:22:25, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article id,
says...

In sci.space.shuttle message ,
Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:35:46, Jeff Findley
posted:


Not the same thing at all. Cross-fed propellants needs three sets of
valves for the core stage engines. One between the core engines and the
core tanks, one between the core engines and the left booster, and one
between the core engines and the right booster.

The tricky bit is the transition between having the core engines fed by
the booster tanks and having the core engines fed by the core tanks.
Pressure transients in the lines could be an issue. You *really* don't
want your turbopumps to suck gas, because if they do they overspeed and
go *boom*. That's one of the most violent failure modes of a liquid
turbopump fed rocket engine.


In principle, all that is needed is the standard fuel feeds for each of
the three F9 units, plus pumps and plumbing in the outer two F9s to keep
the central F9's tanks topped up. If the transferred propellant is
piped in at the top, valves are only needed to maintain any
pressurisation in the central F9 after separation (and perhaps for
floating the outer F9s).

This should have been injected on 2011-04-07 Fri, but my ISP was ill.

I doubt SpaceX would go this route. The reason is that the turbopumps
required to keep the core stage topped off would need to be just as
powerful as the pumps on the core stage engines. In other words, if you
used the same turbopumps as in the main engines, you'd be replicating 8
to 10 sets of turbopumps. The mass of those turbopumps have got to be
much greater than the valves needed for the system I've described.

Plus there would be efficiency issues. Turbopumps such as these burn
fuel and oxidizer to run, so where would you dump the "exhaust" from the
combustion side of the pumps? On the SSME's the exhaust from the
combustion side of the pumps is dumped back into the engine to be
burned. This is much more efficient than dumping the exhaust overboard.

The pumps which feed the engines need to deliver at more than engine
chamber pressure, which is 982 PSI in Imperial according to http://en.w
ikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine%29. The inter-tank cross-
feed pumps need to deliver at a much lower pressure, though similar
volume; pressure = height of tank times density of fuel times g - less
than one atmosphere per 30 feet.

Take some of the exhaust from the booster engine pump drivers, which
ought to be just hot steam and carbon dioxide, and pipe it into the tops
of the booster fuel tanks to raise the pressure just enough to push the
RP1 through to the central tanks. Run a little through a pipe through
the LOX tank to generate pressure in that.

An alternative would be to move the outer booster tanks up by a tank-
length and use gravity cross-feed, which is probably as silly an idea in
practice as it would be in appearance.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7)

In article id,
says...
Take some of the exhaust from the booster engine pump drivers, which
ought to be just hot steam and carbon dioxide, and pipe it into the tops
of the booster fuel tanks to raise the pressure just enough to push the
RP1 through to the central tanks. Run a little through a pipe through
the LOX tank to generate pressure in that.

This may make some sense. Actually, it really doesn't matter how you
pressurize the booster tanks, as long as the pressure is higher in them,
propellant would flow from the booster tanks to the core tanks, given an
appropriately sized fuel transfer pipe between the two.

My only question would be just how big the pipes need to be for a
"reasonable" booster tank pressure, given the high flow rate
requirement. This should be a fairly easy calculation to do, but it's
been 20 years since I had my propulsion class and my notes from that
class aren't exactly handy. ;-)

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011