I thought on the BFR thread it was calculated that the BFR could inject 20 tons to GTO without refueling and while still being fully reusable. If so it seems to easily meet the above requirements.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 10/08/2017 09:24 pmI thought on the BFR thread it was calculated that the BFR could inject 20 tons to GTO without refueling and while still being fully reusable. If so it seems to easily meet the above requirements.Yes for GTO it should be OK, I would be more worried about direct GEO and MEO if there is fine print somewhere saying that they are time-sensitive. You can send the tankers first to gain time if this is the case, but the approach maneuvers and the refueling will still take time.
Quote from: philw1776 on 10/08/2017 06:36 pmAir Force RFP possible source of BFR funding...http://www.teslarati.com/us-air-force-rfp-super-heavy-lift-rockets-spacex-bfr/"The payload requirements necessitate heavy lift or even super-heavy lift launch vehicles capable of placing anywhere from 5,000 to 37,500 pounds into a variety of Earth orbits, ranging from low Earth orbit (~500 mi) to direct transfer geostationary orbits (~19,200 mi)."" the RFP’s explicit goal of facilitating the creation of “at least three…prototypes as early as possible”. These four vehicles are SpaceX’s BFR, Blue Origin’s New Glenn, ULA’s Vulcan, and Orbital-ATK’s NGL, all of which already have tentative inaugural launch dates clustered from 2019 to 2022. Perhaps even more telling, all four vehicles can be expected to utilize several rocket propulsion systems (rocket engines) already funded by the Air Force, namely SpaceX’s Raptor, Blue Origin’s BE-4 and BE-3U, and Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1."BFR is oversized for the tonnage. Need to see all the specs to determine if viable.Schedule a big factor. Since Raptor has been test fired more than other contending engines, SpaceX could be in good shape.I posted a summary of the RFP in the RFP thread thereBasically the Air force allows two proposals per company, but will only select one per company at most. If SpaceX submits the BFR (which they will most likely do since they want to retire F9), then it has to:- be ready for 2021- do vertical integration - be based at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg- inject 9t to GTO- inject 7t to GEO (and maybe there is a catch about the time for injection, preventing the use of refuelling and forcing to expend the booster, the ship or both)- inject 5.5t to 18 000km MEO
Air Force RFP possible source of BFR funding...http://www.teslarati.com/us-air-force-rfp-super-heavy-lift-rockets-spacex-bfr/"The payload requirements necessitate heavy lift or even super-heavy lift launch vehicles capable of placing anywhere from 5,000 to 37,500 pounds into a variety of Earth orbits, ranging from low Earth orbit (~500 mi) to direct transfer geostationary orbits (~19,200 mi)."" the RFP’s explicit goal of facilitating the creation of “at least three…prototypes as early as possible”. These four vehicles are SpaceX’s BFR, Blue Origin’s New Glenn, ULA’s Vulcan, and Orbital-ATK’s NGL, all of which already have tentative inaugural launch dates clustered from 2019 to 2022. Perhaps even more telling, all four vehicles can be expected to utilize several rocket propulsion systems (rocket engines) already funded by the Air Force, namely SpaceX’s Raptor, Blue Origin’s BE-4 and BE-3U, and Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1."BFR is oversized for the tonnage. Need to see all the specs to determine if viable.Schedule a big factor. Since Raptor has been test fired more than other contending engines, SpaceX could be in good shape.
...Yet another SpaceX possibility would be a Raptor upper stage...
I had some discussions with Adam Jonas about how to value Tesla back in 2012-13 and he is one of the more informed analysts on the street about all things Elon.Whenever he makes a public suggestion that Tesla take some action to raise capital it's often followed by Elon doing just that. Elon presumably still plans on keeping SpaceX private, but this report is both an invitation for an IPO, and a demonstration of the hype that would accompany it.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/morgan-stanley-sees-spacex-value-growing-to-more-than-50-billion.html
The satellite constellation (although it could provide necessary orbital infrastructure) isn't so central to Mars except as a cash cow and to provide sufficient demand for BFR. If it's successful, it might make sense to spin it out as a separate company to make money for Mars.I kind of suspect Elon Musk has something else in mind, though.
“None of it is intended for dynastic wealth creation,” he said. “The reason that it’s important to me personally is that there’s some pretty big things that I want to do.”“I want to contribute as much as possible to humanity becoming a multi-planet species,” he said, alluding to a goal he has talked about often, including having people live on Mars. “That obviously requires a certain amount of capital.”
Nothing really new, but here we go:Quote“None of it is intended for dynastic wealth creation,” he said. “The reason that it’s important to me personally is that there’s some pretty big things that I want to do.”“I want to contribute as much as possible to humanity becoming a multi-planet species,” he said, alluding to a goal he has talked about often, including having people live on Mars. “That obviously requires a certain amount of capital.”from Tesla’s Elon Musk May Have Boldest Pay Plan in Corporate History
Quote from: jpo234 on 01/23/2018 04:14 pmNothing really new, but here we go:Quote“None of it is intended for dynastic wealth creation,” he said. “The reason that it’s important to me personally is that there’s some pretty big things that I want to do.”“I want to contribute as much as possible to humanity becoming a multi-planet species,” he said, alluding to a goal he has talked about often, including having people live on Mars. “That obviously requires a certain amount of capital.”from Tesla’s Elon Musk May Have Boldest Pay Plan in Corporate HistoryThis could basically double his holdings over next ten years... sufficient to fund a respectable Mars program by itself. Starlink is cited as the revenue source for Mars, but I think this company is also part of the picture.https://seekingalpha.com/article/4139394-tesla-elon-musks-compensation-implies-massively-lower-profitability?auth_param=1epou2:1d6er2g:ee52b1cba97f2d3fb22c6440cdff0e32&dr=1
Quote from: philw1776 on 10/08/2017 10:36 pm...Yet another SpaceX possibility would be a Raptor upper stage...Not going to happen. It has been said implicitly by both Elon and Gwynn within the last two weeks. It’s dead now, if it in fact ever was alive.Edit:typo
2021 is an ambitious timeline, but this RFP seems like the best way for SpaceX to get money upfront for BFR.
Based on BFR's known specs, it sounds like it could clobber the USAF's performance requirements, if it can be made to work as desired.
But Musk has previously stated that he didn't want to take SpaceX public because that would put the company in the hands of interests who would only have a myopic view of quarterly earnings, causing the agenda for a multiplanetary humanity to be derailed.
The general idea for funding the BFR seems to be out of profits and cash flow of SpaceX itself. <snip>The bottom line is, Elon doesn't need any outside money to build BFR / BFS. It will all be funded organically, as long as SpaceX continues on its current trajectory.
if we can do that, then all the resources that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon can be applied to this system.
Quote from: Lumina on 01/23/2018 09:10 pmThe general idea for funding the BFR seems to be out of profits and cash flow of SpaceX itself. <snip>The bottom line is, Elon doesn't need any outside money to build BFR / BFS. It will all be funded organically, as long as SpaceX continues on its current trajectory.I really don't understand where this comes from given the rather vague statements about funding, or the implication that it's a one-one trade vs spending stuff on Mars.Quoteif we can do that, then all the resources that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon can be applied to this system. (Elon, IAC) doesn't say outside funding won't exist.It might be only funded organically, if that is the absolute only way to do it.I note for example the 2019(?) development milestone for the air force that they may get money from for BFR if they can also launch large satellites.Adding in funding can make development faster, reduce significantly costs of launching stuff to Mars as well as make 2022 plausible.The thinking that Starlink funding of BFR/S is somehow 'non-organic' - when their CEO is a Trinity and his aim is to get to Mars with lots of stuff is odd.Any and all revenue that can be safely used to boost the prospects of all three companies and get to that ultimate goal most efficiently and fastest seems logical - indeed almost mandated by that goal.From Starlink paying upfront for blocks of launches to give immediate development money, to Tesla offering Starlink receivers as part of their USP, ...'Tired of slow internet when you travel? Take your internet with you!' for example.If you can decrease cost of BFS by mass production, either enabled by 'excess' funding allowing you to build ten, not five vehicles, or P2P investments, or ... - you directly reduce the cost of stuff on Mars inherent in having to deliver it with a $400M vehicle every 2 years or so.Yes, you can get moderately low costs if you assume the vehicle is reused indefinitely, but even going out to 20 reuses it's still going to be a dominant cost unless you can change the paradigm and make BFR cheap (aged out P2P, for example).