Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)  (Read 622026 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38471
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23226
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1140 on: 10/04/2021 07:51 pm »
None of the US providers (exclusive of Taurus) in the last 40 years.  ADTA doesn’t count nor does PSLV or Naro
« Last Edit: 10/04/2021 07:52 pm by Jim »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9109
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1141 on: 07/03/2022 04:09 am »
People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.

Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...

Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.

SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.

Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.

But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.

FH flies to 2035 without F9? Yikes...

I sure hope they can replace FH with Starship much earlier than this. Flying FH without F9, at a much lower flight rate is not only a waste of SpaceX's resources, it'll also have significant negative impact on its reliability.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9022
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 61242
  • Likes Given: 1386
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1142 on: 07/03/2022 04:50 am »
People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.

Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...

Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.

SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.

Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.

But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.

FH flies to 2035 without F9? Yikes...

I sure hope they can replace FH with Starship much earlier than this. Flying FH without F9, at a much lower flight rate is not only a waste of SpaceX's resources, it'll also have significant negative impact on its reliability.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8072
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6537
  • Likes Given: 2781
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1143 on: 07/03/2022 05:18 am »

 The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship  vendor to force them to sustain the FH.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9497
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10998
  • Likes Given: 12653
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1144 on: 07/03/2022 06:02 am »

 The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship  vendor to force them to sustain the FH.

No, it doesn't make the accounting easier, and I don't know why you think negotiations with SpaceX would be "awkward".

SpaceX is a private company, and they can decide if they want to pursue a market or not. If SpaceX did not want to provide launch services, and the U.S. Government needed them to, then political options would be available.

But this whole line of questioning requires the belief that SpaceX would want to ignore the U.S. Government marketspace, and from what we have seen they want to actually increase the services they provide to the U.S. Government.

If the U.S. Government prefers to use the Falcon Heavy longer than SpaceX was planning, I'm sure SpaceX would be open to a solution both can live with.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2022 11:04 pm by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 456
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1145 on: 07/03/2022 03:37 pm »
They could also just get NASA to modify the contracts. If memory serves me correctly, they've done this before.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • Liked: 1750
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1146 on: 07/03/2022 06:27 pm »
In addition to launching Starlinks, I suspect another reason to get Starship going is because FH is a labor intensive platform that they'd rather not have to maintain any long than they have to. 

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8072
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6537
  • Likes Given: 2781
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1147 on: 07/03/2022 06:58 pm »

If the U.S. Government prefers to use the Falcon Heavy longer than SpaceX was planning, I'm sure SpaceX would be open to a solution both can live with.
If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38471
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23226
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1148 on: 07/03/2022 07:03 pm »

If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.

Not really.  So what if SpaceX charges more for FH?   The government can not do that price pressuring.   Hence, there is no point to a second company.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1149 on: 07/03/2022 08:43 pm »

If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.

Not really. FH and F9 will just be phased out. F9 and FH have certifications for certain types of launches and until Starship gets the required certifications for those launches it won't matter. Starship will be unable to launch those payloads. Those launches will either go on F9, FH or an competitor. (Vulcan). The commercial market will use Starship as they feel comfortable switching this will happen more quickly.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • Liked: 1750
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1150 on: 07/03/2022 10:21 pm »
Quote
Vulcan
Dude, where's your engines?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9497
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10998
  • Likes Given: 12653
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1151 on: 07/03/2022 11:15 pm »
In addition to launching Starlinks, I suspect another reason to get Starship going is because FH is a labor intensive platform that they'd rather not have to maintain any long than they have to.

We don't have to guess about this, Elon Musk built Starship to colonize Mars. As it turns out, since you need inexpensive transportation to/thru space in order to afford to do that, Starship will also have the ability to provide launch services for payloads going anywhere in space. But the main reason has always been colonizing Mars, which has driven all the specs for Starship.

As to "labor intensive", this is a pejorative phrase that has no real meaning in this case, especially since Falcon 9/H boosters are the world leaders in cost-effective launch today. When Starship becomes operational they will drop to 2nd place, but will still be a better value than anything else flying today.

And once Starship becomes operational, I don't think it will take long for payload customers to start mapping out their migration path from other launchers, so SpaceX won't have to guess about how long Falcon 9/H will need to stay operational. In other words, I don't see the drama in this that others do...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40455
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26480
  • Likes Given: 12507
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1152 on: 07/08/2022 04:30 am »
None of the US providers (exclusive of Taurus) in the last 40 years.  ADTA doesn’t count nor does PSLV or Naro
Astra?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12603
  • IRAS fan
  • Currently not in The Netherlands
  • Liked: 20825
  • Likes Given: 14280
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1153 on: 07/08/2022 09:30 am »

 The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship  vendor to force them to sustain the FH.

No, it doesn't make the accounting easier, and I don't know why you think negotiations with SpaceX would be "awkward".

SpaceX is a private company, and they can decide if they want to pursue a market or not. If SpaceX did not want to provide launch services, and the U.S. Government needed them to, then political options would be available.

But this whole line of questioning requires the belief that SpaceX would want to ignore the U.S. Government marketspace, and from what we have seen they want to actually increase the services they provide to the U.S. Government.

If the U.S. Government prefers to use the Falcon Heavy longer than SpaceX was planning, I'm sure SpaceX would be open to a solution both can live with.

Emphasis mine.

That solution would be: move to Starship anyway, against much reduced prices.

Similar to how they moved several payloads from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9.  The official public statement was: "If customers want us to continue flying Falcon 1, than we will oblige them, at a cost". The company internal stance was: "Get rid of Falcon 1 ASAP: all balls are on F9 now".

Also: some people here are expressing concern that there would be no alternative to Falcon Heavy. Well, I will remind them that for some time, there won't be an alternative to Falcon Heavy anyway: Delta IV Heavy leaves the stage in 2024 and Vulcan Centaur Heavy (single stick, six uprated SRBs) becomes DoD certified circa 2026 at the latest. Vulcan Centaur capacity exceeds that of Delta IV Heavy, and will be more than adequate to serve as a second heavy lifter, next to Falcon Heavy.

So, there won't be much of a redundancy gap. Approximately 3 years at most. And once Starship is certified for DoD launches, Falcon Heavy will leave the stage sooner rather than later. The year 2035 I mentioned is a "No Later Than" SpaceX internal target date to retire Falcon Heavy. Same for the 2030 date I mentioned for Falcon 9. If SpaceX can get away with retiring both circa 2030, in favour of Starship, than they will.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12603
  • IRAS fan
  • Currently not in The Netherlands
  • Liked: 20825
  • Likes Given: 14280
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1154 on: 07/08/2022 09:38 am »
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?

The government won't have redundant suppliers for heavy lift anyway, for a period of approximately 3 years. That is the period between Delta IV Heavy retirement and Vulcan Centaur Heavy flying its first government mission. During that time the only heavy lifter available to the government will be Falcon Heavy.

And that should be no issue either to the US government. Between late 2005 (Titan IV retirement) and early 2018 (Falcon Heavy first flight) the US government had available just ONE heavy lifter: Delta IV Heavy. So, for a period of almost 13 years there was NO heavy lifter redundancy whatsoever. Clearly not a problem to DoD, NRO and NASA. Otherwise they would have made sure that triple-core Atlas V Heavy would have become a reality.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12603
  • IRAS fan
  • Currently not in The Netherlands
  • Liked: 20825
  • Likes Given: 14280
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1155 on: 07/08/2022 09:44 am »
People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.

Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...

Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.

SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.

Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.

But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.

FH flies to 2035 without F9? Yikes...

I sure hope they can replace FH with Starship much earlier than this. Flying FH without F9, at a much lower flight rate is not only a waste of SpaceX's resources, it'll also have significant negative impact on its reliability.
Emphasis mine.

Those are all factors readily understood by both SpaceX AND its government customers. If the US government REALLY wants to continue flying FH beyond the F9 retirement data, they will simply cough up the additional funds to keep that antiquated vehicle flying safely and reliably.
But SpaceX itself is fully aiming to never let it get that far. Their strategy is to entice the government customers to move to Starship sooner rather than later. So, don't be surprised to find that 9 years from now, both FH and F9 are retired.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12603
  • IRAS fan
  • Currently not in The Netherlands
  • Liked: 20825
  • Likes Given: 14280
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1156 on: 07/08/2022 09:49 am »
Quote
Vulcan
Dude, where's your engines?

That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1814
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1157 on: 07/08/2022 12:03 pm »
Quote
Vulcan
Dude, where's your engines?

That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
Posters will stop using that meme when a pair of flight capable engines is installed on the Vulcan.  :-*

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8072
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6537
  • Likes Given: 2781
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1158 on: 07/08/2022 01:03 pm »
Quote
Vulcan
Dude, where's your engines?

That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
I agree, BE-4 schedule slips are getting really stale. Since BO clearly will be delivering reliable engines in series production "real soon now", we will no longer be annoyed by this meme "real soon now" and this is a self-correcting problem.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5323
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1676
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1159 on: 07/08/2022 07:05 pm »
FH flight schedule suffers from a common problem that is related to heavy single sat payloads. And that is the complexity and size of those payloads creates a significant amount of schedule un-reliability for the sat readiness to fly. FH is ready to do multiple flights this year but will likely be a small part of the originally scheduled flights for which SpaceX has built hardware needed to support those flights.

As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1
OSZAR »