I'm pretty doubtful that raw $/kg is very important. The total profit from the satellite is the real issue, so the satellite configuration vs the total launch cost for a given configuration seems more likely to be heavily worked and is likely quite discontinuous. Things like the trade off between the active payload (electronics, antennas, etc.) and fuel for station keeping/boost combined with the trade off of mass vs cost of capability. There's a total launch cost discontinuity switching from F9 to FH and several more depending on what's recoverable, but if one of these puts the total profit number up due to a better satellite configuration regime, that would be very attractive I'd think.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yeah, 'absolute mass' as a standalone metric isn't super useful, but obviously maximizing payload mass is <ahem> massively important to a commercial operator because their sole reason for existing is to make profit. Any of those operators would tell you an obvious method of measuring is $/kg per revenue generating payload.
That said, the current metric of choice in space circles is actually Data/Dollar...which of course is really just a function of $/kg of payload (implicit in Data/Dollar is all program capex/opex, not just the on orbit asset, if we're being concise). The previous metric was usually more along the lines of transponders/dollar or transponders/kg, but again--as I hope is clear--all these metrics are basically all variations on the same theme. The more revenue generating gizmos you cram into the top of a rocket, the more money you're going to make.
This is no more evident than the seemingly counterintuitive dual-propulsion design we see in bigger GEO satellites, where they have both a chemical propulsion subsystem and a completely separate [much more mass efficient] electric propulsion subsystem. The latter of course adds quite a bit of cost to the asset, but overall it decreases the propulsion mass (hardware + propellants), explicitly so mass can be shifted to the payload. As you say, someone is basically paying the same price for the rocket regardless how much mass it launches (that's not quite true but its close enough), and in a similar fashion to the exercise I described in my last post, adding the EP system decreases the total $/kg of the revenue generating payload. Win.
And yes, you're absolutely right in noting the need to earmark mass for on-orbit and decommissioning propulsion (actually commissioning too--sometimes commercial satellites do initial testing in a different orbit than their service slot in the GEO arc), which is exactly why those EP systems are added. They're kind of terrible at orbit raising, which prefers high thrust, but are a very mass efficient way to perform on-orbit stationkeeping maneuvers that do just fine with the very low thrust from an EP system.
After Data/Dollar, ROI (more typically IRR, but I digress) is usually more important to a satellite operator than total profit. One of the biggest reasons for this is the inherent risk with an on-orbit asset: The longer the thing is up there the higher the risk of component failure, which of course can lead to a reduction in service, which of course means a reduction in revenue. This is typically a pretty well understood curve; statistically you know how many cells and strings are going to crap out on a solar array by EOL, for instance. Another factor in ROI over total profit is technology advancement. As the years pass The Jones' are going to put up something bigger and better than your satellite, and especially as space transitions more and more to raw data, its going to be increasingly easier for your customers to jump ship to someone with better data rates.
All valid and helpful points!
It seems to then circle (orbit?) back to previous posts comments. Assuming a fixed end of life date due to obsolescence, and a $ per data metric, direct to orbit gets the satellite on station sooner, thus effectively increasing useful life and total revenue.
I'm guessing it all boils down to a big spreadsheet of tradeoffs based on the individual company's criteria...
Like most things in life, it depends. For a satellite that would otherwise orbit raise using EP, there's definitely time savings, where direct inject shortens the schedule from months to days.
The big BUT is that, near as makes no difference, direct inject takes the same amount of time to get on station as a satellite with onboard chemical orbit raising. So, no benefit from direct inject there.
"The Falcon Heavy's second mission, which will launch the Saudi Arabian communications satellite Arabsat-6A to geostationary orbit, is scheduled for January 2019."
www.space.com
"Viasat confirms SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy will launch next-gen broadband satellite from pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center some time between 2020 and 2022, joining Arianespace and United Launch Alliance in a three-way split for Viasat’s new launch contracts."
www.spaceflightnow.com
www.space.com
"Viasat confirms SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy will launch next-gen broadband satellite from pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center some time between 2020 and 2022, joining Arianespace and United Launch Alliance in a three-way split for Viasat’s new launch contracts."
www.spaceflightnow.com
Its a loaded question, but the first answer is no.
The second answer is yes, if its too big for any other rocket.
No, its a standard Lockheed A2100. Gunter thinks it is 6000kg. That's on the bigger side of geocom, but its nowhere near being notable.
Nobody is building monster FH only satellites--that would be straight crazy right now. Every geocom that's being built and being bid can ride in the industry standard heavy launcher envelope to GTO...which right now is pretty much the F9 expendable performance. (Ariane 5 has way more capacity than f9, but spreads that capacity over two geocom satellites because, again, nobody wants to build a for-profit satellite that can only ride on one rocket).
Based on Gunter's assessment of 6000kg separated mass and 3250kg dry mass, that suggests this spacecraft is going into GTO, which suggests this FH launch will be 3x core recovery.
Arabsat 6A
In many cases a direct-to-GEO will be favorable. Take this example:
You already have a satellite designed to last 20 years, that will launch on a Falcon 9 (maxed out), spend 6 months in transfer orbit (GTO) and spend half it's fuel tank on circulation. F9 launch costs 60M$. Sattelite costs 500M$.
Typically you would want your satellite to pay itself down in 15 years. Means it will cost you 33.3M$ each year to operate for 15 years, then you get the revenue.
Say you put that same satellite on a FH and max it out by delivering your sat directly to GEO. You'll pay 30M$ more for the launch. You'll be in your final orbit from day 1 and can start operating it immediately, adding 0.5 year of additional revenue (16.6M$).
So at this point only 13.4M$ more expensive than the more fuel-efficient F9 GTO option. Also your sat will start its operational life with full tanks, potentially increasing its operational life to 30-40 years, which could make sense if the technology on that sat is relevant that long.
If your sat costs 1000M$ instead of 500M$, choosing the FH GEO over F9 GTO would actually be cash positive, even when much less fuel-efficient. Before taking longer lifespan into account.
You already have a satellite designed to last 20 years, that will launch on a Falcon 9 (maxed out), spend 6 months in transfer orbit (GTO) and spend half it's fuel tank on circulation. F9 launch costs 60M$. Sattelite costs 500M$.
Typically you would want your satellite to pay itself down in 15 years. Means it will cost you 33.3M$ each year to operate for 15 years, then you get the revenue.
Say you put that same satellite on a FH and max it out by delivering your sat directly to GEO. You'll pay 30M$ more for the launch. You'll be in your final orbit from day 1 and can start operating it immediately, adding 0.5 year of additional revenue (16.6M$).
So at this point only 13.4M$ more expensive than the more fuel-efficient F9 GTO option. Also your sat will start its operational life with full tanks, potentially increasing its operational life to 30-40 years, which could make sense if the technology on that sat is relevant that long.
If your sat costs 1000M$ instead of 500M$, choosing the FH GEO over F9 GTO would actually be cash positive, even when much less fuel-efficient. Before taking longer lifespan into account.
I agree that there's eventually going to be a case for direct inject; that example is very unlikely.
The industry standard design requirements of 15 years isn't just arbitrary, its where things like cap/opex, degradation and failures, and technology advancement all kind of converge to a maximized value. Space is a pretty hash place, and it costs money to design and build something to last longer. There's diminishing value in that, especially when the alternative is to put your upfront Capex into something like more revenue generating payload instead. Things like customer retention become a problem when you're running on redundant/backup units--you're going to have to reduce your rate to maintain customers, and even then not everyone wants a link that could go down any second if that redundant unit fails.
To make a Tesla analogy, if Elon told us that our cars would last 15 years, how many of us would have spent more money to buy the same exact car, except we were told it would probably last 20 years? Especially if there was a 15 year car at the higher price, but with more bells/whistles/performance/whatever.
Electric orbit raising, as noted upthread, is an obvious candidate for direct inject. There are VERY few of them out there right now (like, probably less than a handful), but I could see a situation where they're built to ride within a typical heavy envelope while maintaining direct inject as the primary launch solution. That way if FH craps out they can still get the asset on orbit.
Also, just for some alignment, a maxed out F9 costs 90M, and geocodes are typically in the 100-200M range. Occasionally they go deep into the 200's, VERY infrequently do they push into the 300's. And, at the risk of repeating the above paragraph, there are very few all-EP solutions out there [and those that are have a business plan built around the months long circularization] so direct inject isn't getting most of the satellites on station any faster.
MacGreiner
5YJ
I expect it will follow the last FH scenario and have the center core land on OCISLY and the boosters do an RTLS. I'm pretty sure that will be the standard process until a payload demands something different. I would further expect costs to increase based on the complexity involved in recovering the boosters. In the coming years, I think the biggest possibility, other than a triple RTLS, is a launch where the center core is expended and a double ASDS landing for a substantial payload.
I'm not expecting anything strange in recoveries to happen because the dynamics of FH changed pretty dramatically with the improvements to the F9. The customers that signed up for FH originally had the specifications for a much weaker rocket than what is launching today. Even this upcoming FH is about 20% better than the one launched last year. This will be a triple B5 core rocket. The last FH was a Block 3 center core with two Block 2 side boosters.
Both side boosters have been photographed and are now at the Cape. The center core could be there too but it is much harder to tell that it is different. The side boosters already have their nose cones.
e-FTW
New electron smell
An informative read on:
- Taiwan’s NSO confirming a Q2 date for STP-2 carrying their Formosat-7
- How this may not happen in Q2 for a few reasons
- Or it might, because why not achieve the impossible!
Seems to be moved to March, but couldn't find any other source for this...
Launch Schedule – Spaceflight Now
Launch Schedule – Spaceflight Now
e-FTW
New electron smell
Wish they could come up with an date for the launch, would love to travel overseas and watch it after we where there and saw the test launch last year.
Sean Wagner
Member
I remember "gunning it" across the Eastern seabord for the launch of STS-95, the Space Shuttle Discovery, with John Glenn aboard, being ever the optimist regarding delays and scrubs. There were roughly half a million spectators for the event, if I remember correctly. It was breathtaking.
Edit: there's something mesmerizing about big formidable rockets soaring heavenwards, defying gravity by means of brute chemical reactions. Especially when a couple of humankinds' hardier specimens are riding the pillars of flame.
I'm getting goosebumps all over again.
Edit: there's something mesmerizing about big formidable rockets soaring heavenwards, defying gravity by means of brute chemical reactions. Especially when a couple of humankinds' hardier specimens are riding the pillars of flame.
I'm getting goosebumps all over again.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
