Author Topic: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)  (Read 107429 times)

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 1241
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #40 on: 09/29/2017 03:52 PM »
Elon mentioned buidling a stock pile of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavys for customers before buulding nothing but BFR. Where could he store all of these stages?
Hopefully not all in the same place. In Florida they could all be taken out by a hurricane. In California they could all be taken out by an earthquake.
Park them in the desert... like the do with new undelivered airliners...  ;)
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 03:53 PM by John Alan »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #41 on: 09/29/2017 03:53 PM »
Here is a little 16 vs 17 Delta V spreadsheet comparison.

NOTE: BFR 2017 stage 2 weight is an estimate for the cargo version. I am 99.999% sure the payload capability listed was for the Cargo variant, while the only weight listed (83,000kg) would be for the spaceship version. In the orginal design the tanker variant weighed significantly less (90t vs. 150t)

It also looks like the Booster stages at a much lower velocity than the original design, and also allows more conservative landing fuel margins.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 03:55 PM by ZachF »

Offline Cheapchips

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #42 on: 09/29/2017 03:55 PM »
I'd really like to see a proper payload bay comparison Vs New Glenn and SLS variants.  It's at least 21 meters long at max length if you can fit Falcon 1s in there.

Offline DanielW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • L-22
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #43 on: 09/29/2017 03:55 PM »
Given a few 10 billion you could assume BFR exists in 10 years and start aggressively building hardware for a really nice lunar outpost. Something even people who don't like camping wouldn't mind visiting.

Buying those flights and hardware now would help guarantee that SpaceX succeeds and by making a base that is on a vision scale to BFR you can create a market that would not exist for more modest excursions. In the long run people will spend more money on the destination than on the transportation.

I hope someone will do this instead of more billionaires competing for launch.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #44 on: 09/29/2017 04:01 PM »
It also looks the the potential dV for the tanker variant is >13.5km/s  :o

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7759
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4051
  • Likes Given: 830
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #45 on: 09/29/2017 04:03 PM »
When comes to moon SpaceX are transport company, somebody else has to own and build base.

While BFR may lower transport costs considerably. It doesn't lower build costs of lunar habitats designed for lunar enviroment.

That's right.  Elon threw that Lunar base slide in there since why get into that fight...  But as far as planning, he listed the first Mars Flights, but didn't list any moon flights, since somebody still has to show real interest in that.  (Beyond words).
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 933
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #46 on: 09/29/2017 04:08 PM »
A friend who works on Falcon 9 in Hawthorne told me last month that they were all "looking forward to moving onto BFR in a couple of years." Evidently, this talk (and Elon's timeline) was also a surprise to the working-level troops at SpaceX.

2017 & 2018, thatís 2 years 😜

An EM hallmark is being unrealistic with schedules.  No reason to change now.

I stayed up to watch the presentation, it wasnít worth it.  Smaller and a delta wing, other than that not much new.

EM has never been a great speaker or presenter but he was really off, even for him last night.  Like something else was on his mind or he got awful news just before going on stage.  I hope that is not the case.

All that said, I still think itís a great booster, when it eventually makes it to the pad.
Excited to be finally into the first Falcon Heavy flow, we are getting so close!

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 680
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #47 on: 09/29/2017 04:08 PM »
One important thing we didn't see was a requirement for $100B in government money to make this vision a reality. This is the true innovation Elon is making. He says, instead, we will create this and others may find it useful. Ultimately there will be govt partners I suspect, just from a wish to avoid the embarrassment of having a future boots and flags mission met by 1000 waiting SpaceX colonizers with a welcome banner.
Colonize Mars!

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4968
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4189
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #48 on: 09/29/2017 04:11 PM »
When comes to moon SpaceX are transport company, somebody else has to own and build base.

While BFR may lower transport costs considerably. It doesn't lower build costs of lunar habitats designed for lunar enviroment.

That's right.  Elon threw that Lunar base slide in there since why get into that fight...  But as far as planning, he listed the first Mars Flights, but didn't list any moon flights, since somebody still has to show real interest in that.  (Beyond words).

Plenty words flying around at this IAC -- at least it seems the either-or (Moon-Mars) discussion is back on the shelf.
Timeline and price tag just dropped considerably, so this all may finally move forward.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4968
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4189
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #49 on: 09/29/2017 04:17 PM »
One important thing we didn't see was a requirement for $100B in government money to make this vision a reality. This is the true innovation Elon is making. He says, instead, we will create this and others may find it useful. Ultimately there will be govt partners I suspect, just from a wish to avoid the embarrassment of having a future boots and flags mission met by 1000 waiting SpaceX colonizers with a welcome banner.

If, when, or as this gets built, government partners will either jump on board or drop out of the BEO fan club (with appropriate hedging that there is no rationale for going BEO).  No agency will choose to be second.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 04:18 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #50 on: 09/29/2017 04:18 PM »
I did like that this architecture is designed around engine performance and chamber pressure that they can likely achieve in the near term. I never liked that the previous design posited theoretical-maximum performance right out of the gate.

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • PPPPPPP
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #51 on: 09/29/2017 04:18 PM »
Pay-as-you-go is a more realistic solution than begging a fickle NASA/Congress for Moon/Mars specific program money. BFR gets SpaceX way more mission/payload potential than ITS. They can now bid for anything.
Watch out for those pesky corners, they have teeth.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #52 on: 09/29/2017 04:22 PM »
When comes to moon SpaceX are transport company, somebody else has to own and build base.

While BFR may lower transport costs considerably. It doesn't lower build costs of lunar habitats designed for lunar enviroment.

That's right.  Elon threw that Lunar base slide in there since why get into that fight...  But as far as planning, he listed the first Mars Flights, but didn't list any moon flights, since somebody still has to show real interest in that.  (Beyond words).

My guess would be the circumlunar mission might be done with BFR possibly using F9 instead of FH. Dragon 2 docks with BFR in LEO therefore avoiding the hassle of getting a launch license to fly people on FH.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #53 on: 09/29/2017 04:24 PM »
The cost estimates are utterly ridiculous as always (point-to-point at the price of an economy ticket), but ultimately a market for tourism might exist for such a vehicle at a much higher, more realistic price point. I suppose the concept of selling joy rides to millionaires isn't inspiring enough for such a presentation. My biggest worry is the safety of the vehicle respectively the passengers, or rather what it means for the viability of the business case.

In any case, I hope NASA will spend a few billions a year on BFR respectively cargo/seats to the Moon or Mars.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 04:24 PM by Oli »

Offline Lemurion

Interesting.

This is Musk's HMS Dreadnought moment. He's got the reusability advantage with Falcon 9 and presumably Falcon Heavy and he's going to throw it all away.

If they come in with the first flights around 2020-2021 they'll be going up against New Glenn's 7 metre fairing with a 9 metre fairing with fulll reusability from the start. When you add in that Musk is aiming at a much higher flight rate, you have to wonder where the economic case for New Glenn is going to come in.

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #55 on: 09/29/2017 04:31 PM »
Interesting.

This is Musk's HMS Dreadnought moment. He's got the reusability advantage with Falcon 9 and presumably Falcon Heavy and he's going to throw it all away.
My hunch...  Dragon 2 will be developed with landing legs and used with F9 to go to future smaller LEO space stations.  FH will be canned.  I can't see F9 being canceled ..fills a nice niche.  YMMV
jb

Offline curtquarquesso

Presentation was focused primarily on the upper stage, and not so much the booster; Did anyone else see any mention of grid fins? Seems the booster has lost its grid fins in the renders we saw last night.

Offline rakaydos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 3

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4968
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4189
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2 (Post Speech)
« Reply #58 on: 09/29/2017 04:42 PM »
Presentation was focused primarily on the upper stage, and not so much the booster; Did anyone else see any mention of grid fins? Seems the booster has lost its grid fins in the renders we saw last night.

They were there (on silver interstage).

At 17:00 in video
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43839.0
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline curtquarquesso

They were there (on silver interstage).
At 17:00 in video
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43839.0
Ah, thank you. Good eye. Very difficult to make out silver against silver.

Tags: