SpaceX's next Falcon Heavy launch could expend (destroy) the first stage center core, while landing the two side boosters on separate drone ships. This configuration could carry almost as much mass as a launch using a fully expendable Falcon Heavy:
Hot on the heels of the revelation that SpaceX's next Falcon Heavy launch is on schedule and will carry a small satellite copassenger, a US Space Force official has effectively confirmed that it will feature the first dual rocket landing of its kind.
[...] USSF-44 was the second operational launch contract won by Falcon Heavy and will send a ~3.7 metric ton (~8200 lb) satellite and an unknown number of secondary spacecraft directly to geostationary orbit (GEO) – a first for SpaceX. As far as Earth-centric orbits go, a direct-to-GEO launch is uniquely complicated and energy-intensive for the rockets that must perform them. As a result, it's long been suspected that Falcon Heavy's first GEO launch would also coincide with another first for SpaceX rocket recovery, an educated guess that has now been (partially) confirmed by the USSF.
[...] Thanks to the apparent challenges of center core recovery and the simple fact that Falcon Heavy doesn't launch nearly as much as Falcon 9, none of the three custom, highly-complex boosters have survived to be reused or inspected intact. Until the center core recovery problem can be fixed, SpaceX will thus likely have to assume that it must build a new center booster for every future Falcon Heavy launch, even if a given mission permits a landing attempt.
Thankfully, there are some circumstantial benefits to be derived if SpaceX, for example, doesn't even try to recover a Falcon Heavy center core. Speaking back in 2018, CEO Elon Musk revealed that Falcon Heavy could launch in a partially-reusable configuration – intentionally expending the center core and recovering both side boosters on two separate drone ships – with only a 10% cut to performance.
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
Falcon Heavy's payload to low Earth orbit when fully expended is 63.8 (metric) tons, or 26.7 tons to geostationary transfer orbit.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @08:31AM
There's always a first time for anything, especially frist posts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @02:37PM (1 child)
seems to be a thing in the space industry, that is "expendable".
it seems you can build the best, fastest, most lofty and powerfull rocket that relands over and over again like a charm and it will not be long that a customer will show up that wants to shot a "expendable" into a super special orbit with a weight that excedes the limit when the rocket needs to reland. the only way to satisfy this customer is by making the rocket itself "expendable" ... sheesh.
there will come a day (?) when money has accumulated to the top to a most silly degree and the "expendable" they're going to finance and launch will require half the earth as reactif mass 'O_o
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 05 2020, @01:01PM
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already partially expendable in the first place. It's just that tweaking the flight plan can optimize max payload and cost.
Starship will be able to lift more than just about any customer (today) would require while remaining fully reusable. There are no 100+ ton communications satellites right now.
Launching a partially reusable rocket doesn't lower the price by an order of magnitude. Fully reusable would. The difference between fully reusable and expendable is too vast, so customers will always go for fully reusable and could choose to launch modular satellites/spacecraft if they need to launch something more than 100-150 tons. If they need to get a full payload into a higher orbit, they can choose Starship + in-orbit refueling. Later on, there could be wider/taller [businessinsider.com] versions of Starship with higher payload capacity than the 150 ton target for full reusability.
If for some reason a customer still wants to launch a Starship in an expendable mode.... the cost to build one will probably be very low anyway, compared to other rockets (including Falcon 9).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]