Author Topic: Pivot to BFR  (Read 34388 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Pivot to BFR
« on: 09/30/2017 08:25 pm »
In his latest IAC presentation, Elon Musk announced that SpaceX's full focus would be completely repurposed toward the planned BFR, with the resulting discontinuation of the successfully proven Falcon9R and the imminent FalconHeavy.
Presumably, SpaceX will devote enough further resources to Falcon9R to be able to fulfill its existing launch manifest commitments on schedule, but after that the BFR is supposed to be the one and only product offering to sustain SpaceX's business model (at least until they eventually come up with an even bigger BFR.)


What are the justifications for such a radical pivot? What is driving it?
What will it take to pull off such a radical pivot maneuver successfully?
Are there any past historical precedents that can be referenced for comparison?
Is this the best way forward, or are we likely to see some compromises in what pans out? If so, in what ways?
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 08:26 pm by sanman »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #1 on: 09/30/2017 08:27 pm »
Cost of the manufacturing line and all the technician and engineer talent involved in keeping it running. They free up like thousands of employees for BFR this way.
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 sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #2 on: 09/30/2017 08:36 pm »
So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?

And so the proven F9R is being abandoned for a BFR that hasn't even flown yet. Alas, poor F9R, we hardly knew ye.

What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

Once BFR becomes the new workhorse, then of course it's a whole new world, a whole new ballgame. At that point, the F9R and FH become footnotes in history. But it's a big If to get to that point.

« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 08:38 pm by sanman »

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #3 on: 09/30/2017 08:57 pm »
I think they'll make the F9 upper stage reusable and stockpile 20 or so block 5 F9s and FHs, shut down the factory, and keep reflying/refurbishing the stockpiled rockets until 2030 if they have to while charging current expendable prices, pocketing the savings of reusability to fund BFR development. A fully reusable F9 can't launch GTO missions, so FH will have to do all of them (probably being repriced at $62 million), and F9 will do Starlink constellation, Dragon and other LEO missions.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 09:01 pm by 2552 »

Offline NotOnImpact

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Texas
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #4 on: 09/30/2017 09:00 pm »
What are the justifications for such a radical pivot? What is driving it?
What is driving it is Elon's desire to get to Mars.  I imagine that he doesn't find the prospect of waiting around for the government to fund his plan very compelling -- and he knows the criticism he will take with any appearance of taking additional government money.  Total and complete re-usability requires a large rocket and this in turn drives down launch cost.  A launch cost even lower than the F9 has the potential to increase profits to pay for developing and perfecting the hardware that will be used to get to Mars.

What will it take to pull off such a radical pivot maneuver successfully?
Well, they did go from a single engine rocket to returning a stage in 9 years with many first-evers sprinkled in between.  So I think it takes a company with the vision and the drive of SpaceX.

Are there any past historical precedents that can be referenced for comparison?
Only the moon landing.  And that pales by comparison amazingly.

Is this the best way forward, or are we likely to see some compromises in what pans out? If so, in what ways?

What makes this a compelling plan is that it is not single purposed.  That is what made the Saturn V go into retirement - it was a built for a single purpose.  And being multi-purposed it has the potential that development costs would be shared across all implementations.  There could be 10 or 15 configurations of the ship (err.. second stage?) that all take advantage of a single first stage booster.   The ship itself is designed to land at many different speeds and many different atmosphere densities.

Usually, when a design tries to solve every problem, it ends up not being the best design for any individual case.  So in this sense, this is the compromise.  The compromise of designing a rocket that is not the best Mars transport, but has the potential to both fund and implement Mars transportation.

Online darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8739
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #5 on: 09/30/2017 09:07 pm »
First they aren't going to shut down Falcon production right now, before BFR is designed.  Second, remember: Falcon is a RE-USABLE rocket.  Even if the Block 5 is only good for 10 flights apiece (and they believe it will do more), having a stock of them can allow a lot of missions.  When (and if) re-usability becomes routine, they would have to curtail a lot of production anyway and lay off a lot of valuable people.  It's like ending production of airliner Model As and starting production of airliner Model Bs, even though Model As will be flying for years.  You'll still make necessary parts to support the product, but your big assembly line will have moved on.

SpaceXs competitors won't be standing still.  Neither will SpaceX. 
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #6 on: 09/30/2017 09:14 pm »
I think something of the Direct/Jupiter mindset might be at play here. Why have a big and little rocket when a medium sized rocket can do both and save money.

I believe the IPT was also based on the (optimistic) idea they could use the larger NASA workshops to make it. BFR is the largest design they can fit into their existing facilities.

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #7 on: 09/30/2017 09:23 pm »
The challenge here is making sure fairing reusability works out and they leave enough capacity for building falcon upper stages to meet the flight rate for falcon that they need to fund the whole operation. Assuming an average profit of $20 million per falcon flight they would only need to fly 25 times a year to get $500 million a year to fund the $2.5 billion R&D for BFR over 5 years. Can they still build 25 upper stages a year when a big chunk of the staff and floor space is building BFR and BFS? This also requires a 100% uptake on reusable boosters and an end to expendable launches unless they expended some of the older block 3/4 cores still on hand. It also means they won't be flying Falcon 100 times per year to build out the constellation and the constellation will require the cargo BFS for full deployment.

Not impossible in my mind, but it's going to be a challenge for sure.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #8 on: 09/30/2017 09:29 pm »
So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?
...
There's going to be some overlap. There is no way they can build enough F9s in the next 6-9 months and then change over and start building BFR.

I think they will start building BFR in new manufacturing space in late 2018, and slowly overtake F9 manufacturing space until F9 manufacture stops in late 2020.

F9 won't officially retire until BFR has been flying for 4 or 5 years, which will be no sooner than 2025. It likely has hundreds of launches to go.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #9 on: 09/30/2017 09:34 pm »
Somehow I think there is a connection between the tremendous need for capital to build BFR and the fortuitous new venture capital fund exclusively to raise capital for SpaceX:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43472.msg1708410#top

Like Elon has been talking to investors and convinced them this is a good place to put their money?


Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #10 on: 09/30/2017 09:57 pm »
I think they need investors for the satellite constellations. They need to convince them that BFR will help with cost efficiency in deployment, so part of that money can go into BFR development.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #11 on: 09/30/2017 10:07 pm »
I think they need investors for the satellite constellations. They need to convince them that BFR will help with cost efficiency in deployment, so part of that money can go into BFR development.

Yes, but in the general case, imagine saying we are going to build the worlds biggest rocket and make it fully reusable, so that the operational cost is lower than the smallest orbital rocket, and fly it so often that it beats everyone else in reliability and safety. Crazy? That's what they said about landing and reusing the F9 S1.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #12 on: 09/30/2017 10:14 pm »
I don’t know where SpaceX is in its F9 production ramp up, but they were targeting a rate somewhere between 30-40 cores per year by 2018. Block 5 which is the final optimized reusability version is supposed to be just coming out now.

So if SpaceX starts Block 5 now and produces them for a year they should have more than 30 Block 5’s that can be used gas and go for a dozen launches each and more with refurb. That’s more than 300 core/flights worth if they terminate F9 production by the end of 2018.

Plus they have a collection of recovered older version cores, some of which will be reflown a few times and which can be scrapped for parts otherwise.

The only other issue is S2’s which require either ongoing production, a large stockpile or reusability (unknown).

300 core/flights seems more than enough to cover the transition to all BFR if the S2 requirements can be met. 2018 SpaceX has about 30 flights with a couple FHs. They can keep up that pace for 5 years after exlusively using flight proven cores without using half their capacity.

There’s no special point they have to transition, so at whatever point they project having enough F9 hardware to cover the transition to BFR (with a few years of overlap) they plan to terminate F9 and switch most production to BFR.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 11:16 pm by Ludus »

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #13 on: 09/30/2017 11:48 pm »
I do not see them closing F9/FH shop any time soon.

First, BFR will be later than SpaceX says it will be. Years later. Anyone thinking that THIS time SpaceX will do something on time simply deludes himself.

Second, there will be period when F9/FH and BFR will fly at same time. In fact, even beginning of windup period (when F9/FH are slowly phased out) may start way, way later than beginning of BFR flights.

So I see F9/FH serving them well for a decade at least.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #14 on: 10/01/2017 12:19 am »
I do not see them closing F9/FH shop any time soon.

First, BFR will be later than SpaceX says it will be. Years later. Anyone thinking that THIS time SpaceX will do something on time simply deludes himself.

Second, there will be period when F9/FH and BFR will fly at same time. In fact, even beginning of windup period (when F9/FH are slowly phased out) may start way, way later than beginning of BFR flights.

So I see F9/FH serving them well for a decade at least.

That would still fit with terminating production by the end of 2018. At a dozen flights per core they could still fly them heavily for the next 5 years and likely have a tail of flights still happening in 10 years. Genuine rapid reusability if Block 5 really achieves it, creates situations the industry isn’t used to.

Once they terminated production of F9, it might still be the only system they fly for several years even while most of their production resources are devoted to building BFR. Certainly there would also be a period of years they fly both systems, all even if they do a hard shut down of F9 production within a year. Of course there’s no big difference if they let that slip to 2 years and don’t completely shut it down until late 2019.

This actually solves what would otherwise be a problem. How many fully reusable F9 cores do they need laying around? They’ve been ramping up their capacity to build them at the same time they polish rapid reusability. If they don’t stop producing them and pivot their resources to building something else, what do they do?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Pivot to BFR
« Reply #15 on: 10/01/2017 12:37 am »
Historical precedent?
Of course the Space Shuttle has to come to mind here which was built on the same idea: a reusable LEO launch vehicle big enough to replace them all and cheap enough to make it viable.

Of course we know how that turned out and the key for SpaceX to succeed will be that reuse actually delivers on the cost savings they hope for, unlike with the Shuttle which did not.
One thing SpaceX has done better is that they have an incremental approach to reuse. They’ve tried this before and optimized it and also started with a non-manned version so they don’t have to build something extraordinarily reliable that has to work the first time to build the technology.
So I’d give them more confidence than STS had but of course it’s still a huge risk. BFR is so large that even a small error is the cost assumptions can make it completely not viable for the markets they are currently targeting with F9 and FH, especially since by the time they are flying BFR they will likely have competition in the „re-usable“ market.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 12:38 am by pippin »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #16 on: 10/01/2017 01:24 am »
Historical precedent?
Of course the Space Shuttle has to come to mind here which was built on the same idea: a reusable LEO launch vehicle big enough to replace them all and cheap enough to make it viable.

Of course we know how that turned out and the key for SpaceX to succeed will be that reuse actually delivers on the cost savings they hope for, unlike with the Shuttle which did not.
One thing SpaceX has done better is that they have an incremental approach to reuse. They’ve tried this before and optimized it and also started with a non-manned version so they don’t have to build something extraordinarily reliable that has to work the first time to build the technology.
So I’d give them more confidence than STS had but of course it’s still a huge risk. BFR is so large that even a small error is the cost assumptions can make it completely not viable for the markets they are currently targeting with F9 and FH, especially since by the time they are flying BFR they will likely have competition in the „re-usable“ market.

There is no precedent nor competition for a fully reusable LV. That's both a potential significant risk, and a likely significant advantage.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #17 on: 10/01/2017 01:50 am »
So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?
Elon spoke of already ordering new equipment to manufacture the BFR. Suggests they're going to build a new production line rather than converting the existing one, which they'll probably mothball. This will give them the option of re-starting it, should that prove necessary.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #18 on: 10/01/2017 02:04 am »
Elon spoke of already ordering new equipment to manufacture the BFR. Suggests they're going to build a new production line rather than converting the existing one, which they'll probably mothball. This will give them the option of re-starting it, should that prove necessary.

So then is the decision to scale down BFR (12m to 9m, etc) based more on reducing production costs, when it's going to be an all-new production line anyway?

Will SpaceX be forced to expand in a significant way at least temporarily, in order to cope with the demands of this transition or spike in workload? It seems like the aspirational 2022 date indicates a period of intense activity ahead.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #19 on: 10/01/2017 02:09 am »
So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?

The Falcon 9 and BFR/ITS production lines will be completely different. The Falcon 9 is built from aluminum and 3.7m in diameter, whereas the BFR and ITS are built out of composites and are 9m in diameter. Even a different size paint shop.

As a complete guess, I wouldn't be surprised if they move the Falcon 9 production tooling to MacGregor - just in case they need to build new ones.

Quote
What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

Flying the Falcon Heavy for 4-5 years could be worthwhile. Musk thinks it's worthwhile, so we'll have to see if it turns out that way...
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 Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #20 on: 10/01/2017 02:55 am »
So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?

The Falcon 9 and BFR/ITS production lines will be completely different. The Falcon 9 is built from aluminum and 3.7m in diameter, whereas the BFR and ITS are built out of composites and are 9m in diameter. Even a different size paint shop.

As a complete guess, I wouldn't be surprised if they move the Falcon 9 production tooling to MacGregor - just in case they need to build new ones.

Quote
What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

Flying the Falcon Heavy for 4-5 years could be worthwhile. Musk thinks it's worthwhile, so we'll have to see if it turns out that way...

That all makes sense. I’d expect there is quite a bit in common for production of Raptor vs Merlin.

Offline groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #21 on: 10/01/2017 03:39 am »
The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway. R&D, process improvements, tooling have to have been a substantial portion of the running costs over the last few years.

But all those things are winding down or about to wind down for F9, FH, and Dragon. And with re-use starting to grow, their total production material and labor costs will be flat or declining in almost all those things.

No one outside the company knows the exact details of their finances but they have clearly not been losing lots of money these past few years while they have been doing all that R&D, tooling, and production ramp up on their existing products. So just shift all those people, tooling $$, etc over to BFR and continue to spend exactly like before.

In one way of looking at it, F9 suddenly gets much more "profitable" because it has "much less overhead." All of that profit funds BFR development. But in a lot of ways it is much simpler than that: keep all the people and budgets that were running the company near break even before, and shift most of it to BFR now that Falcon doesn't need it so much.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #22 on: 10/01/2017 05:22 am »
What will it take to pull off such a radical pivot maneuver successfully?
Are there any past historical precedents that can be referenced for comparison?
Is this the best way forward, or are we likely to see some compromises in what pans out? If so, in what ways?

SpaceX themselves have done several pivots like this, for example the move from F9 v1.0 to v1.1 is basically the introduction of a whole new launch vehicle. I remember there were some skepticism about that move too, some people think SpaceX should just fly v1.0 for a while instead of switching to a new vehicle. NASA LSP was also concerned about their Jason-3 contract and insists SpaceX keeps the v1.0 tooling around until v1.1 flies successfully.

In retrospect the switch to v1.1 is critical to their success, it opens up the GTO market to them and move them that much closer to 1st stage reuse. Of course it didn't quite get them to where they want to be in terms of capability and reuse, thus the need for v1.2 and its blocks. I fully expect the same will happen with BFR, they won't get everything out of it in the first try, there will be iterations. But as long as they can get the first version flying it would open up NASA BLEO funding to them, this would give them more cushions to continue the work.

Quote
And so the proven F9R is being abandoned for a BFR that hasn't even flown yet. Alas, poor F9R, we hardly knew ye.

F9 revenue is what is supporting BFR, so it's not abandoned at all, it's the critical piece of the pivot. In fact one way this pivot may fail is they mess up F9's reliability.

Quote
What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

They need FH to compete for DoD launches, they already lost missions to ULA because F9's direct GEO injection capability is too low. The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 05:33 am by su27k »

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #23 on: 10/01/2017 08:52 am »
The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #24 on: 10/01/2017 09:19 am »


The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

With an A380 worth of pressurized space, that could actually be fun (instead of just exciting beyond words)!
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #25 on: 10/01/2017 09:40 am »
There's probably enough room on the BFS, and enough fuel to enter Lunar orbit for a while (rather than merely free return), to build a replica Apollo command module at 1:1 scale and have the ultimate Apollo 8 recreation for the rich enthusiast.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 09:41 am by biosehnsucht »

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #26 on: 10/01/2017 09:48 am »
There's probably enough room on the BFS, and enough fuel to enter Lunar orbit for a while (rather than merely free return), to build a replica Apollo command module at 1:1 scale and have the ultimate Apollo 8 recreation for the rich enthusiast.

Certainly enough with refueling in LEO.

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #27 on: 10/01/2017 10:48 am »
I still don't see an F9 S2 being fully reusable in the foreseeable future, other than as a scaled down BFT S2 technology demonstrator.

Even with a fleet of 20 F9 S1 cores flying ten times each - and assuming something like 50% reuse of S2s, that's still 100ish new S2s required, so the production line will have to run.

And if the production line is still running, why not bypass stockpiling 20 S1s (and having them sit around unused for a long time between flights, needing expensive buildings and expensive care & maintenance) - and build a couple a year as required?

Those (entirely imaginary) figures, of course, leave out the prospect of flying some stages in expendable mode (might or might not be necessary depending on engine upgrades) and the inevitable unexpected loss of failed landings (see BulgariaSat for a near-miss).

Then there's the fundamental question of whether an F9 core can indeed launch ten times or more? So far, we've seen two cores fly twice, a third one flying shortly - but nothing more in prospect for several months.

Granted, we've not seen Block 5 fly (which is meant to be really reusable), but until one of those cores has perhaps 5 flights under its belt (without others falling by the wayside after a couple of flights), it's surely not possible to talk of shutting down the production line and trashing the equipment?

What I could imagine is SpaceX starting to build BFRs elsewhere (IIRC they're in the process of acquiring more space at Hawthorne) and - once they've got BFR flying, starting to shut down F9 production (particularly of S2s) and ultimately discontinue use.

That - of course - doesn't even consider that they need a launch pad or two to fly BFR from...

As a rough prediction/guess, I doubt we'll see the F9 production line shut down for about a decade; and the first BFR won't fly for 6-8 years.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #28 on: 10/01/2017 12:29 pm »
I think they'll make the F9 upper stage reusable ...

According to Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX will not make the F9 second stage reusable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/72vluq/gwynne_shotwell_speaking_at_mit_road_to_mars/

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #29 on: 10/01/2017 12:51 pm »
The Pivot to BFR production is very logical. What else should they do with all the manufacturing capacity? If F9 B5 is reusable 100 times with 10 refurbishings in between, they dont need many. If they continue to churn out 10 per year, where should all these stages go? They would have to lay off plenty of talented people, not a good prospect. Moving all of them over to BFR production is a wise move. I didnt expect them to shut down F9 completely before it stops flying but thats how they will do it. again, airplanes do not stop flying just because no new ones of one particular model are produced any more. Its just so unexpected because things like that dont happen in rocket business usually. But it does not look so crazy when seen from the airplane perspective.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #30 on: 10/01/2017 03:52 pm »
The Pivot to BFR production is very logical. What else should they do with all the manufacturing capacity? If F9 B5 is reusable 100 times with 10 refurbishings in between, they dont need many. If they continue to churn out 10 per year, where should all these stages go? They would have to lay off plenty of talented people, not a good prospect. Moving all of them over to BFR production is a wise move. I didnt expect them to shut down F9 completely before it stops flying but thats how they will do it. again, airplanes do not stop flying just because no new ones of one particular model are produced any more. Its just so unexpected because things like that dont happen in rocket business usually. But it does not look so crazy when seen from the airplane perspective.

They’ve been ramping up production rates toward over 30 cores per year at the same time as redesigning F9 to Block 5 with a dozen rapid reuses. If they don’t pivot to building BFR while still flying F9 they’re in a crisis of overcapacity. Both this pivot and creating internal launch demand with the Starlink Constellation are their answer to this crisis caused by succeeding at rapid reuse.

Offline ceauke

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Brussels, Belggium
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #31 on: 10/01/2017 06:31 pm »
The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway.

This is why I found this part of the announcement underwhelming. I thought they solved the funding issue with something new rather than coming to the conclusion that tweaking the 'natural' process of product lifecycle. Surely they knew this a year ago already.
A devil's advocate may phrase this as "we got nothing new, so we'll finish the anticipated needed production - and then put all eggs in one basket"
Without other sources of funding F9s were always going to have to fund it all.

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #32 on: 10/01/2017 06:39 pm »
The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway.

This is why I found this part of the announcement underwhelming. I thought they solved the funding issue with something new rather than coming to the conclusion that tweaking the 'natural' process of product lifecycle. Surely they knew this a year ago already.
A devil's advocate may phrase this as "we got nothing new, so we'll finish the anticipated needed production - and then put all eggs in one basket"
Without other sources of funding F9s were always going to have to fund it all.

The realization was that they need nothing ELSE but natural processes and concentration of resources to fund it without any magic. I would not have thought it possible. I am still in doubt about BFS docking to ISS and taking over D2s role in the CCtCAP contract. I dont think the design fulfils the requirement and I dont think ISS can technically handle a docked BFS. But maybe I am wrong on this and it might work. I am also a bit in doubt that they can quickly launch BFR from Vandenberg. The would need a completely new pad there. This will take a long time. So for Vandenberg launches and for ISS resuply/crew launches I dont see BFR taking over F9 business within the next 10 years. But they dont need to.

On all other launches BFR is a solid replacement for F9, hence I think the plan is good. It just takes a lot of balls to make the decision to shut down F9 production. Thats all.

Offline stcks

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #33 on: 10/01/2017 06:54 pm »
I am also a bit in doubt that they can quickly launch BFR from Vandenberg. The would need a completely new pad there. This will take a long time. So for Vandenberg launches and for ISS resuply/crew launches I dont see BFR taking over F9 business within the next 10 years. But they dont need to.

I think it should be possible, with on-orbit refueling, to launch from the cape and change inclination into polar orbit. Someone can verify.

Offline Rogerstigers

Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #34 on: 10/01/2017 07:56 pm »
I discuss this in my article here:

Fly Me To The Moon (and Other Things)

Quote
SpaceX is a large company filled with very talented engineers, technicians, and scientists. They have done amazing things with the Falcon and Dragon programs. However, having them split among multiple vehicles and programs is not the most effective way of building a large, ambitious system like the BFR. So SpaceX is planning on retiring the Falcon and Dragon programs and dedicating the staff from those programs on BFR development — just not right way.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #35 on: 10/01/2017 09:03 pm »
The hardest asset to acquire is experience personnel. The resource Musk was talking about is the F9 production line personnel not tooling, money or even floor space.

By swapping some experienced personnel from the F9 line onto a limited BFR production by replacing them on the F9 line with new hires, spaceX will be able to get the BFR line started rolling slowly. Once the BFR line needs to ramp up which should immediately follow a successful BFR demo flight The F9 line will ramp down and the BFR line will ramp up as more and more personnel transition. In order to do this both lines have to be fairly close (can be separate buildings but in same city) because relocation costs of a few thousand employees is very expensive.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #36 on: 10/01/2017 09:27 pm »
The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.

They cannot just move it 5 years forward. The customer would be gone and they would get zero profits from the non-existent flight.

The profits from the lunar flyby on FH/D2 is exactly on of those things that is FUNDING the development of the BFR/BFS. And they need the money NOW to do the development, not "maybe after 5 years". They will have plenty of income WHEN the BFR/BFS is ready, but they need the money to DEVELOP IT

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #37 on: 10/01/2017 09:38 pm »


The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.

They cannot just move it 5 years forward. The customer would be gone and they would get zero profits from the non-existent flight.

The profits from the lunar flyby on FH/D2 is exactly on of those things that is FUNDING the development of the BFR/BFS. And they need the money NOW to do the development, not "maybe after 5 years". They will have plenty of income WHEN the BFR/BFS is ready, but they need the money to DEVELOP IT

If I was the lunar customer and I got to choose between flying around the moon in a cramped capsule or a veritable space cruise ship, I would wait 3 more years and pick the cruise ship.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Maestro19

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
SpaceX look set to commodify access to LEO, in BFR-sized chunks.

In LEO-GTO space, I think there's a logical progression to implementation of related enabling technologies -
- space tugs e.g. to GTO and back
- debris-collection systems
- on-orbit servicing & disposal systems
- bigger & better ion drives
- activity hubs at ISS or new locations

.. all of which will be implemented without concern for operation in atmospheric regimes.

I hope we'll see lots of development in these areas over the next several years.

Offline inonepiece

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #39 on: 10/01/2017 09:53 pm »
If I was the lunar customer and I got to choose between flying around the moon in a cramped capsule or a veritable space cruise ship, I would wait 3 more years and pick the cruise ship.
We don't know how old those specific customers are and how they feel about waiting 3 years.

Offline inonepiece

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #40 on: 10/01/2017 10:10 pm »
The ship itself is designed to land at many different speeds and many different atmosphere densities.
Ship... This does feel like the first "real space ship".

Yes, I know, there are many steps along the way, in the past and the future, yes any of them could be described that way.

But those words have meaning to us, the unwashed general public.  This ship, I can see flying me to space, or the other side of the world, or even the moon, and flying the first plucky few to Mars.  That freedom seems like what was meant by those words in the 20th century.  And this ship I can just now see existing.

Now seems like a time to reflect on that.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #41 on: 10/01/2017 10:31 pm »

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.


More like 2019 at the earliest. Also we have no idea what kind of latitude is in the contract as far as performance. Considering both Dragon and FH haven't even flown yet, I bet there is quit a bit.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 10:57 pm by Negan »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #42 on: 10/02/2017 06:25 am »


The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.

They cannot just move it 5 years forward. The customer would be gone and they would get zero profits from the non-existent flight.

The profits from the lunar flyby on FH/D2 is exactly on of those things that is FUNDING the development of the BFR/BFS. And they need the money NOW to do the development, not "maybe after 5 years". They will have plenty of income WHEN the BFR/BFS is ready, but they need the money to DEVELOP IT

If I was the lunar customer and I got to choose between flying around the moon in a cramped capsule or a veritable space cruise ship, I would wait 3 more years and pick the cruise ship.

Except it won't be 3 years, it would be at least 5 years. First BFR would be unmanned cargo version, it would take some additional time to build the manned version.

Also for SpaceX, being the first to send humans beyond LEO is a huge PR win, they would be insane to delay this.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #43 on: 10/02/2017 07:51 am »
I think they need investors for the satellite constellations. They need to convince them that BFR will help with cost efficiency in deployment, so part of that money can go into BFR development.

Yes, but in the general case, imagine saying we are going to build the worlds biggest rocket and make it fully reusable, so that the operational cost is lower than the smallest orbital rocket, and fly it so often that it beats everyone else in reliability and safety. Crazy? That's what they said about landing and reusing the F9 S1.

Once you have a rocket that can send payloads to the Moon and Mars, when almost nobody else can do this, then why waste your efforts competing against others on the low-end in sending payloads to LEO, when you can be like Google and tower over them all with your unique infrastructure that almost nobody else can compete with?

I'm wondering why Musk doesn't get with Bigelow, to have them offer up a BA5000 (5000m^3) space hab module to NASA for the Deep Space Gateway, which only SpaceX could then deliver to lunar orbit for them.

Anyway, with Musk stacking his poker chips and anteing up with this big pivot, then will other competitors now be forced to react by revising their plans? Will they now have to "Go Bigger, or Go Home"?
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 07:59 am by sanman »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #44 on: 10/02/2017 08:02 am »
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. Whatever ULA manage to cook up to replace their Atlas / Delta rockets
4. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
5. Russia, China, Japan, India with expendables
6. The smallsat launchers which are popping up like weeds

So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

I imagine there would be quite the logjam with pad access and six or seven different comsat customers wanting access to their payloads.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 08:08 am by Lampyridae »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 290
  • Likes Given: 381
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #45 on: 10/02/2017 08:08 am »
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
4. Everyone else with expendables

all of these are notional vehicles not yet developed. Hence, I'd include Reaction Engines' Skylon in the list.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #46 on: 10/02/2017 08:10 am »
... and it's not like Blue Origin is moving any faster than Reaction Engines :P
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #47 on: 10/02/2017 08:40 am »
So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

I guess I'm just now realizing that's maybe why he mentioned that 9-year anniversary at the top of his speech -- because he was framing this Pivot to BFR in similar terms -- ie. the Make It Or Break It Moment Of Truth.

Fortune favors the bold -- and so do the rest of us, too.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 09:00 am by sanman »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #48 on: 10/02/2017 10:07 am »
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
4. Everyone else with expendables

all of these are notional vehicles not yet developed. Hence, I'd include Reaction Engines' Skylon in the list.

I edited the list a bit. I guess there's also Stratolauncher which I forgot about. Skylon is unlikely to fly as is, but something using SABRE technology is a definite possibility.

Offline neoforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #49 on: 10/02/2017 02:47 pm »
So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

I guess I'm just now realizing that's maybe why he mentioned that 9-year anniversary at the top of his speech -- because he was framing this Pivot to BFR in similar terms -- ie. the Make It Or Break It Moment Of Truth.

Fortune favors the bold -- and so do the rest of us, too.

Yup, the man is a gambler. Been obvious in all of his business ventures he is not afraid to fail. For the folks here, in the space enthusiasts community, this is a win/win. If Musk and SpaceX succeed, we have a future of rockets that we could barely even dream of 10 years ago. If they fail, we still (hopefully) have New Glenn coming with capabilities, while not as big as BFR, have the same long term potential path with New Armstrong.

I want Musk to succeed, but I do feel as if Blue Origin gives us a hedge bet if SpaceX "long shot" gamble fails.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #50 on: 10/02/2017 02:56 pm »
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
Partially reusable, only the first stage is going to land.

Quote
4. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes.
Current plans are not reusable at all.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #51 on: 10/02/2017 03:48 pm »
The recover the engines plan only works when your engines cost >2/3 of the booster. But what if like in F9 case the engines are <50% or close to 30% of the cost of the booster. The recovery of just the engines saves close to 0 vs keeping the vehicle simpler and expendable.

So the basic advice to the future booster builders out there, just make the engines a lot cheaper. You will save/reduce costs just as much as trying to do engine recovery of expensive engines.

For Vulcan with BE-4s the engines are likely to be ~30% the cost of the booster. But with AR-1s the engines are likely to be ~50% the cost of the booster. Recovering the engines in the AR-1 case makes economic sense but not in the BE-4 case.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #52 on: 10/02/2017 04:21 pm »
Except it won't be 3 years, it would be at least 5 years. First BFR would be unmanned cargo version, it would take some additional time to build the manned version.

They might be able dock Dragon with the cargo version and use it instead of a FH. The big unknown with FH is what it will take to get the launch license for this mission. What will the FAA require? Many here think it will require a test mission first so the choice might be between two FH Flights or one F9 and one BFR flight (this could be a test flight out of many that will be done).
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 08:56 pm by Negan »

Offline groknull

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • U.S. West Coast
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #53 on: 10/02/2017 10:16 pm »

[ nested quotes snipped ]

Yup, the man is a gambler. Been obvious in all of his business ventures he is not afraid to fail. For the folks here, in the space enthusiasts community, this is a win/win. If Musk and SpaceX succeed, we have a future of rockets that we could barely even dream of 10 years ago. If they fail, we still (hopefully) have New Glenn coming with capabilities, while not as big as BFR, have the same long term potential path with New Armstrong.

I want Musk to succeed, but I do feel as if Blue Origin gives us a hedge bet if SpaceX "long shot" gamble fails.

If SpaceX goes belly up, several thousand young, energetic, adventurous and (now) experienced space enthusiasts will be looking for what to do next*.

In addition to talent available to legacy** aerospace and existing NewSpace companies, several hundred startups would also appear.

* very different from "looking for a new job"
** slightly less offensive than OldSpace, but still belittles the enormous contribution of those companies, employees and individuals

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #54 on: 10/02/2017 10:24 pm »
Elon has been thinking about this BFR for two years, and in the meantime his team has been struggling with Falcon Heavy.  How long ago was it clear to him that Falcon Heavy required something like a new vehicle design?

With a dozen successful landings in a row now, SpaceX can claim to be good at first stage recovery.  Perhaps not first stage reuse yet.  Their expectation of reuse of the next booster they design substantially changes the economics of that booster.  SpaceX will want to concentrate on reducing the operating cost, even if incurring increased capital cost per vehicle.  SpaceX will also want to reduce the number of vehicles they develop.

Elon must have wanted to cancel Falcon Heavy in favor of a BFR first stage for at least a year if not 18 months.  I'm astonished that he hasn't cancelled Falcon Heavy long ago, in favor of a BFR first stage with an adaptor that carries an existing Falcon upper stage.  Yes, it's overkill for that upper stage but it doesn't matter.  It will get the job done and get SpaceX building what they want to build.

None of the existing Falcon Heavy manifest actually needs a Heavy.  Three of the four can get by with a falcon expendable, which is not a problem -- SpaceX has a bunch of Block 4 cores they should use up.  The Air Force STP-2 mission doesn't even require a Heavy and could use a normal Falcon 9, although I suspect they might just postpone to use the flight to shake down a BFR-based launch.

Once they have BFR + FUS working, they'll have gobs of extra performance (even vs any 20+ tonne payloads) to try upper stage recovery.  That leads to a fork which I dislike.
  * The option Elon will want is to design the BFS.
  * The option I'd like to see is far more boring: a Raptor upper stage very similar to what was in the SpaceX video years ago.  Full 9 m diameter, huge seperately recoverable fairing, heat shield on the top (end-on re-entry), and gas/gas methalox thrusters for precision landing.  Optimize this thing for delivery to 1100 km circular orbit with multiple restarts.


Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #55 on: 10/02/2017 10:38 pm »
"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

That's not what "Blue Ocean Strategy" is. From Wikipedia:

Quote
...Kim & Mauborgne argue that companies can succeed by creating "blue oceans" of uncontested market space, as opposed to "red oceans" where competitors fight for dominance...

Musk/SpaceX already have a "Blue Ocean" of uncontested market space with the Falcon 9 expendable, and were already cementing their market position with reusability.

The BFR/ITS does not change their "Blue Ocean" market space position, since they don't have competition that is forcing them to change their behavior. Maybe that will change if Blue Origin starts winning significant orders away from them, but otherwise no one else is positioned to compete head-to-head with SpaceX for the current commercial launch marketplace.

Quote
This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

Definitely a big gamble to disrupt your own products. I see the Falcon 1 evolution to Falcon 9 as just becoming more knowledgeable about how many customers there really were for "small-sat" vs "large-sat".
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 envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #56 on: 10/02/2017 10:41 pm »
STP-2 requires a number of inclination and altitude changes with multiple payloads, I rather doubt F9 could do it - even expendable. And F9 definitely can't throw Dragon 2 around the Moon. And it can't compete for most DoD direct to GSO missions.

Also, the F9 upper stage is woefully undersized for BFR; you would end up wasting almost all of the booster's potential while getting about the same payload as FH. Classic LEGO rocket.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #57 on: 10/02/2017 10:57 pm »
Musk/SpaceX already have a "Blue Ocean" of uncontested market space with the Falcon 9 expendable, and were already cementing their market position with reusability.

The BFR/ITS does not change their "Blue Ocean" market space position, since they don't have competition that is forcing them to change their behavior. Maybe that will change if Blue Origin starts winning significant orders away from them, but otherwise no one else is positioned to compete head-to-head with SpaceX for the current commercial launch marketplace.

I think Blue has a big part to play in how SpaceX decided fund BFR. Blues business model shows that another company can be a real competitor and if SpaceX does not respond to New Glenn then SpaceXs competitive advantage is going to go away, and with it hopes of using those profits to fund the next generation of vehicles

A fully reusable BFR keeps this advantage but time is short to develop it before their profits gets nibbled away. To wait until revenues fall is too late.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #58 on: 10/02/2017 11:17 pm »
Blue's business model is being a hobby project for a billionaire.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #59 on: 10/02/2017 11:32 pm »
Definitely a big gamble to disrupt your own products. I see the Falcon 1 evolution to Falcon 9 as just becoming more knowledgeable about how many customers there really were for "small-sat" vs "large-sat".

Well, that's the thing - the ROI for F9R is now supposed to be achieved through BFR and not primarily through F9R itself. So F9R will simply end up as a stepping stone to to the "greater good" of BFR.

(Until another 5 years from now, when BFR could get ousted by an even Bigger BFR, if the pattern holds up)  ;D

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #60 on: 10/02/2017 11:36 pm »
I believe that SpaceX can ‘pivot’ to BFR, with the following caveats.


1) That FH Flys successfully
2) The improve on reuse turn around time and costs
3) That no one takes the 2022 date seriously.

They’ll get Raptor certified
The BFR is ‘just’ twice the size of the FH with only 4 engines more
The BFR is a single body booster, easier than FH

How much time and money, those are the big questions.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Online Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1142
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #61 on: 10/03/2017 12:05 am »
Blue's business model is being a hobby project for a billionaire.
I suspect he has every intention of turning Blue into a profitable business.  Now that his factory is getting close to completion, I think you will see Blue Origin starting to move faster.  And I do believe his plans are pushing Elon Musk to move faster to stay ahead.  Five years from now, hopefully SpacesX and Blue Origin will be slugging it out for dominance of he launch market.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #62 on: 10/03/2017 12:53 am »
...
Are there any past historical precedents that can be referenced for comparison?
Is this the best way forward, or are we likely to see some compromises in what pans out? If so, in what ways?

The US Navy made such a pivot with its submarine force.  After experimenting with reactor-powered subs, termed Fleet Nuclear Submarines, basically a WWII diesel sub with a reactor and steam propulsion plant, and testing the Albacore hull design, they stopped all diesel sub production and completely went nuclear with the Scorpion class attack subs, and soon the GW class boomers.  One individual with vision lead that transition, H.G Rickover.

At that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #63 on: 10/03/2017 01:40 am »
A man who knows Sub history! I like that  :) (got dozens of books about submarines).
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #64 on: 10/03/2017 01:45 am »

At that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.

which is not true

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #65 on: 10/03/2017 02:02 am »
The US Navy made such a pivot with its submarine force.  After experimenting with reactor-powered subs, termed Fleet Nuclear Submarines, basically a WWII diesel sub with a reactor and steam propulsion plant, and testing the Albacore hull design, they stopped all diesel sub production and completely went nuclear with the Scorpion class attack subs, and soon the GW class boomers.  One individual with vision lead that transition, H.G Rickover.

Skipjack-class. Scorpion was a Skipjack-class submarine.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 02:02 am by Oberon_Command »

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #66 on: 10/03/2017 02:04 am »

At that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.

which is not true

Agreed...  :o
The German 212 class is known to be a good modern non nuclear sub...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
Quote
In 2013, while on the way to participate in naval exercises in U.S. waters, the German Navy's U-32 established a new record for non-nuclear submarines with 18 days in submerged transit without snorkelling.[16] It also got through all the defences of a U.S. carrier strike group, unseen, and shot green simulation torpedos at the carrier.[17]
Assuming it's 20 knot top speed is all you want out of a sub...  ;)

Anyway... Pivot to BFR... Topic... :-X
« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 02:09 am by John Alan »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #67 on: 10/03/2017 02:20 am »
Will SpaceX have to upsize their organization significantly - even if only temporarily - in order to be able execute this pivot to BFR? Or is Musk hoping to be able to avoid that altogether by drawing down F9 production?

Isn't it safer to just borrow more and upsize temporarily, in order to meet the demands and challenges of this transition more reliably? It's not like SpaceX is still living back in the Falcon-1 days.

« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 02:22 am by sanman »

Offline ranger84

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #68 on: 10/03/2017 02:28 am »
Overall I think this pivot is exciting, but what worries me is I don't see NASA allowing astronauts to fly on something that can only land propulsively and I heard no mention of A LAS. I can see a lot of new exciting things BFR can do but I don't see how it can replace the Dragon2 in the commercial crew missions anytime soon, unless NASA changes dramatically.

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #69 on: 10/03/2017 02:52 am »
STP-2 requires a number of inclination and altitude changes with multiple payloads, I rather doubt F9 could do it - even expendable. And F9 definitely can't throw Dragon 2 around the Moon. And it can't compete for most DoD direct to GSO missions.

Also, the F9 upper stage is woefully undersized for BFR; you would end up wasting almost all of the booster's potential while getting about the same payload as FH. Classic LEGO rocket.

SpaceX piggybacked the first stage re-entry and landing tests on the back of a bunch of paid customer flights.  That was genius.  They managed to convince their customers to accept a switch to a higher performance vehicle, thinner margins on the engines, big legs on the booster than could have deployed during launch, subcooled propellants that did eventually burn one customer's payload.  This was a great sales job and a fabulous way to get a bunch of data that would otherwise cost billions of dollars (really out of reach).

SpaceX can kill itself if some of these gambles go wrong.  Alternatively, it can manage risk and get to the same goal with more certainty.

You can look at Falcon Heavy as a complicated way to boost a F9 upper stage to a higher energy separation.  BFR is less complex way to do the same thing -- yes, 31 vs 27 engines, but one rather than three separations, one rather than three landings, and a far simpler load path from engines to separation.  It doesn't matter that the upper stage wastes lots of the BFR potential.  BFR will cost less to operate that the two boosters and core of the Falcon Heavy.

Once the design team can transition away from BFR, they can move on to designing something that takes better advantage of it.  In the meantime the ops folks will get years of experience with BFR on someone else's dime.  They will get experience with upper stage re-entry, on someone else's dime.  SpaceX can slap horribly mass-inefficient gas/gas methalox tankage and thrusters on the upper stage to practice upper stage landings, and their customers will pay for the bulk of it.

Consider each stage of the Falcon 9 as a separate vehicle.  There is a huge amount of engineering work in each of these things, and this work is amortized over a puny number of instances.  That makes the amortized engineering in each vehicle the dominant fraction of the cost.

Rocket interfaces are far more complex than LEGO interfaces.  Interface commonality is even more work.  I'm suggesting that an adaptor that lets a BFR boost a F9US may require substantially less engineering than a new Raptor based upper stage.  And, it decouples the schedule for BFR from the BFS schedule, and lets SpaceX retire the F9 booster before retiring Dragon.

So if it's possible to put an adaptor on the BFR that allows it to lift a Falcon 9 upper stage, that may be a good idea.  It really comes down to whether the F9US can be used as is, or if it will need substantial engineering to make it work up there.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #70 on: 10/03/2017 02:57 am »
Overall I think this pivot is exciting, but what worries me is I don't see NASA allowing astronauts to fly on something that can only land propulsively and I heard no mention of A LAS. I can see a lot of new exciting things BFR can do but I don't see how it can replace the Dragon2 in the commercial crew missions anytime soon, unless NASA changes dramatically.

Propulsive landing is going to take a while to get comfortable with, but we are many years away from NASA having to be concerned with that option - and they would still have the Boeing Dreamliner to rely upon.
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 DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #71 on: 10/03/2017 03:43 am »
Dragon 2 propulsive landing was cancelled because it was too much work to qualify the system and prove that it can work safely. I guess he proposed DragonFly program was not enough?

The BFS however can hold a lot more fuel and can fly around and simulate the final stages of descent and landing many times. We'll get to see it perform plenty of aerial acrobatics and this should satisfy crew safety requirements for landing.

Lacking an abort system could be a problem. Regulations might force them to add something before they can legally fly passengers.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 09:33 am by DreamyPickle »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #72 on: 10/03/2017 04:17 am »
Lacking an abort system could be a problem. Regulations might force them to add something before they can legally fly passengers.

Commercial airliners have never had "abort" systems for the passengers, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.

The first people flying on point-to-point rockets like this will also be OK with signing a "informed consent" form.
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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #73 on: 10/03/2017 06:52 am »
Dragon 2 was cancelled because it was too much work to qualify the system and prove that it can work safely. I guess he proposed DragonFly program was not enough?

The BFS however can hold a lot more fuel and can fly around and simulate the final stages of descent and landing many times. We'll get to see it perform plenty of aerial acrobatics and this should satisfy crew safety requirements for landing.

Lacking an abort system could be a problem. Regulations might force them to add something before they can legally fly passengers.
Dragon 2 cancelled?! Are you saying that SpaceX will no longer have a Commercial Crew Astronaut vehicle for ISS? I don't think that's going to happen.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #74 on: 10/03/2017 09:34 am »
Dragon 2 cancelled?! Are you saying that SpaceX will no longer have a Commercial Crew Astronaut vehicle for ISS? I don't think that's going to happen.
Sorry, I just meant the propulsive landing part.

Offline DOCinCT

Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #75 on: 10/03/2017 08:50 pm »
Will SpaceX have to upsize their organization significantly - even if only temporarily - in order to be able execute this pivot to BFR? Or is Musk hoping to be able to avoid that altogether by drawing down F9 production?

Isn't it safer to just borrow more and upsize temporarily, in order to meet the demands and challenges of this transition more reliably? It's not like SpaceX is still living back in the Falcon-1 days.
I would think some production staff will move from Merlin to Raptor assembly lines, since the skill sets are similar.  One would assume the manufacture of the engine assemblies, plumbing etc. is the same skill set as well.
The carbon fiber production staff, assuming there is staff, would have to be greatly expanded, most likely from new hires (with retraining the tank assembly people when Falcon production ramps down). 

Offline hamerad

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #76 on: 10/04/2017 04:23 am »
Wouldn't it be possible if they do run into issues with BFR to slow instead of just halt F9 production by reducing number of F9 in production from 5 to 1?

This would still give them the benefit of shifting staff onto BFR with the added safety net of having a few more F9 around to keep up with demand.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #77 on: 10/04/2017 09:29 am »
I think this is way overrated. The switch will be gradual.

Very soon they switch much of their development capability to BFR.

Early next year the F9 first stage production facility will start building block 5. End of next year they know exactly how much effort they need for servicing them and how many flights they can do with only servicing. They will also have a good understanding if they would be able to do a major refurbishment to continue flying a core beyond 10 or 12 uses. At that time they can determine how many first stages they need in stock and can probably terminate production of first stages, mothballing the production line.

They will keep producing second stages in a separate production facility as long as they are needed.

In parallel they phase out production of SL Merlin and introduce Raptor.

By that time they will know with high confidence when they will be able to fly BFR. At no time there is a major risk. Worst case they have to reactivate F9 production.

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #78 on: 10/04/2017 10:59 am »
Suppose for a moment that you are Gywnne Shotwell.  It's late 2018, you've recovered a few F9 Block 5 boosters, and the Raptor team hasn't had a RUD on the test stand in six months.  Fairing capture and reuse are just starting.
 You are certain that the BFR that you build will be reused at least ten times. 

How big a BFR do you want to build?

Does it really matter if it has 31 or 42 Raptors? You already have the 12 meter tooling -- you built that when you built the test tank.  Fuel is still a small part of your launch costs, and you don't have to fill the BFR tanks completely when you launch.  There is pretty much no difference in moving a 9 vs 12 meter rocket, neither one is going down a California freeway.

I think they should build the full-size BFR.  They can leave off some engines and partially fill the tanks if they want to save a few bucks.  The launch cradle, recovery cradle, vertical integration cranes, setbacks for noise and safety, these can all be sized for the full BFR.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #79 on: 10/04/2017 11:08 am »
<snip>
Does it really matter if it has 31 or 42 Raptors? You already have the 12 meter tooling -- you built that when you built the test tank.  Fuel is still a small part of your launch costs, and you don't have to fill the BFR tanks completely when you launch. 
You don't have the tooling - test tooling capable of laying up one 12m tank is not going to be capable of holding, transporting, moving, outfitting multiple 12m BFR stages.
(well, unless they've managed to make it not leak over months, and they were insane and spent at least a large slice of a billion, and have a building we don't know of)

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #80 on: 10/04/2017 11:24 am »
Suppose for a moment that you are Gywnne Shotwell.  It's late 2018...

There is pretty much no difference in moving a 9 vs 12 meter rocket...

Except you have a facility that can produce 9m rockets. You don't have on that can produce 12m ones.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #81 on: 10/04/2017 11:30 am »
There is pretty much no difference in moving a 9 vs 12 meter rocket, neither one is going down a California freeway.
Except there is an Elon tweet where he explicitly said 9 meters fits into existing facilities. This almost certainly means that they also decided on a transportation path to a barge. They might even have preliminary agreements with city hall and such.

The F9 diameter was chosen a long time ago based on the maximum that could be trucked across the country. This new 9 meter diameter is also based on logistical concerns and will not change for a very long time. The 12 meter ITS is dead.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #82 on: 10/04/2017 04:35 pm »
Suppose for a moment that you are Gywnne Shotwell.  It's late 2018, you've recovered a few F9 Block 5 boosters, and the Raptor team hasn't had a RUD on the test stand in six months.  Fairing capture and reuse are just starting.
 You are certain that the BFR that you build will be reused at least ten times. 

How big a BFR do you want to build?

Does it really matter if it has 31 or 42 Raptors? You already have the 12 meter tooling -- you built that when you built the test tank.  Fuel is still a small part of your launch costs, and you don't have to fill the BFR tanks completely when you launch.  There is pretty much no difference in moving a 9 vs 12 meter rocket, neither one is going down a California freeway.

Very badly wrong:

1) They have a 170 tonne engine. Not 300 tonne engine. 42 of those 170 tonne engines don't have enough thrust for 12-meter core.

2) They do not have 12-meter tooling in hawthorne. They say that 9 meters is biggest that their factory can build.

somewhere they've had mold for ONE of the six tanks required. That's very different than having "tooling for 12 meters".

Quote
I think they should build the full-size BFR.  They can leave off some engines and partially fill the tanks if they want to save a few bucks.  The launch cradle, recovery cradle, vertical integration cranes, setbacks for noise and safety, these can all be sized for the full BFR.

BFR/BFS works because of very good mass fraction. Oversized tanks would ruin this mass fraction as they would weight twice as much.

So you propose building a rocket that they cannot build, and even if they could build, would have worse performance and higher cost than what they are building.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 07:47 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #83 on: 10/04/2017 04:51 pm »

At that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.

which is not true

Pretty close to it Jim.

     There are some Fuel Cell based subs coming on line, and some countries still use diesel boats, but, even with the best sound suppression available, the diesel boats are still pretty noisy.

      Overall, nuke boats have pretty much made all non-nuke subs obsolete.

My God!  It's full of universes!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48171
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81659
  • Likes Given: 36933
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #84 on: 10/12/2017 12:26 pm »
Some interesting statements by SpaceX Senior Director Tom Ochinero:

Quote
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR

by Peter B. de Selding | Oct 12, 2017

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #85 on: 10/12/2017 12:59 pm »
I understand that they don't want to spook existing/prospective customers into fretting that F9R won't be available - but then how do they intend to reap the benefits of repurposing all those staff onto BFR?

The answer to this might be seen in the "production hell" and missed targets happening at Tesla right now. SpaceX may simply fall short of their ambitious target by a wide margin. Oh well, at least there's no stock price for them to worry about.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #86 on: 10/12/2017 01:07 pm »
I understand that they don't want to spook existing/prospective customers into fretting that F9R won't be available - but then how do they intend to reap the benefits of repurposing all those staff onto BFR?

The answer to this might be seen in the "production hell" and missed targets happening at Tesla right now. SpaceX may simply fall short of their ambitious target by a wide margin. Oh well, at least there's no stock price for them to worry about.

The answer is F9 reuse. Once a significant majority of Falcon launches are on used boosters, they can slow production to a crawl an move most of those resources to the BFR factory.. Right now they can't make and test Falcon boosters fast enough.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #87 on: 10/12/2017 01:08 pm »
I'm really interested to watch this transition occur over the next several years. I expect the transition will be incremental and based on hitting early development milestones. If those milestones take longer (e.g. raptor development), then the whole transition will be stretched out.

I'm optimistic about BFR and at the same time expect we'll still be seeing F9 and FH flights in 2025 even if BFR flies before then.

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #88 on: 10/12/2017 01:44 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing? Use it to replace any Falcon Heavy missions. Could stretch the 2nd stage if it made sense. Something like 15 engines would be needed to match Falcon Heavy performance.
Booster could be full length if thrust-to-weight is acceptable, or shorter if needed, to keep it reasonable.
     Could keep the development focused on a near term achievable goal, while still testing various new technologies. Would test methane GSE, autogenous pressurization, mount landing, carbon fiber tanks and transport of 9 meter vehicles. Could potentially load propellants at standard vs sub-cooled to start.
     This would make the transition smoother, allowing transition to full focus on the BFR after the booster is in service.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #89 on: 10/12/2017 01:47 pm »
The answer is F9 reuse. Once a significant majority of Falcon launches are on used boosters, they can slow production to a crawl an move most of those resources to the BFR factory.. Right now they can't make and test Falcon boosters fast enough.

If this pivot maneuver works, I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will be able to pull this same kind of maneuver all over again down the road, pivoting in the same way from BFR to EvenBiggerBFR (12m or whatever)

There'll always be a bigger rocket in the back of the imagination...
« Last Edit: 10/12/2017 01:48 pm by sanman »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #90 on: 10/12/2017 01:55 pm »
The answer is F9 reuse. Once a significant majority of Falcon launches are on used boosters, they can slow production to a crawl an move most of those resources to the BFR factory.. Right now they can't make and test Falcon boosters fast enough.

If this pivot maneuver works, I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will be able to pull this same kind of maneuver all over again down the road, pivoting in the same way from BFR to EvenBiggerBFR (12m or whatever)

There'll always be a bigger rocket in the back of the imagination...

If BFR works as well as expected, there will be a lot of companies and countries building similar systems, and there will be a lot more money readily available to build a new, bigger system. Once both the business case and technical viability are proven, it gets far easier.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #91 on: 10/12/2017 02:36 pm »
If this pivot maneuver works, I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will be able to pull this same kind of maneuver all over again down the road, pivoting in the same way from BFR to EvenBiggerBFR (12m or whatever)

There'll always be a bigger rocket in the back of the imagination...

Yes, probably, but the change won't be as dramatic as from partly expendable to fully reuseable. That is the big shift with BFR, not the 9m 12m whatever.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2017 03:34 pm by nacnud »

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #92 on: 10/12/2017 02:42 pm »
If the rockets are going to be built at the launch site, why not make them wider and shorter?

The thermal losses on the tanks would be reduced with a decrease in surface area.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #93 on: 10/12/2017 03:20 pm »
Maybe for the follow on but they are stuck at 9m for the BFR

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #94 on: 10/12/2017 03:32 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?

Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #95 on: 10/12/2017 03:41 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?

Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.

They are going to build the upper stage first, per Elon's schedule from last year. And they are going to test it first. I imagine the testing will involve suborbital flights and EDL tryouts, to make sure they can get it back. Then on to an all-up test launch.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #96 on: 10/12/2017 05:06 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?

Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.

They are going to build the upper stage first, per Elon's schedule from last year. And they are going to test it first. I imagine the testing will involve suborbital flights and EDL tryouts, to make sure they can get it back. Then on to an all-up test launch.

A side benefit is that they need just a couple Raptors for the first test flights.  Get some engine flight data.  Implement some ECOs.  Add extra up-reved SL Raptors.  Fly again. 
Note that an upper stage can't take off even a quarter fueled with just two sea level Raptors.
They get to test out the flight profile of high tech stage 2 without amassing dozens of out of revision Raptors that testing the 1st stage core first could lead to. 
I think they will also most likely first fly stage one itself with less than 31 engines a few times.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #97 on: 10/12/2017 05:21 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?

Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.

They are going to build the upper stage first, per Elon's schedule from last year. And they are going to test it first. I imagine the testing will involve suborbital flights and EDL tryouts, to make sure they can get it back. Then on to an all-up test launch.

A side benefit is that they need just a couple Raptors for the first test flights.  Get some engine flight data.  Implement some ECOs.  Add extra up-reved SL Raptors.  Fly again. 
Note that an upper stage can't take off even a quarter fueled with just two sea level Raptors.
They get to test out the flight profile of high tech stage 2 without amassing dozens of out of revision Raptors that testing the 1st stage core first could lead to. 
I think they will also most likely first fly stage one itself with less than 31 engines a few times.

Quarter-fueled is enough to get to around Mach 8 and several hundred km apogee. Good enough for hypersonic entry testing.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #98 on: 10/12/2017 06:52 pm »
     What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?

Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.

They are going to build the upper stage first, per Elon's schedule from last year. And they are going to test it first. I imagine the testing will involve suborbital flights and EDL tryouts, to make sure they can get it back. Then on to an all-up test launch.

A side benefit is that they need just a couple Raptors for the first test flights.  Get some engine flight data.  Implement some ECOs.  Add extra up-reved SL Raptors.  Fly again. 
Note that an upper stage can't take off even a quarter fueled with just two sea level Raptors.
They get to test out the flight profile of high tech stage 2 without amassing dozens of out of revision Raptors that testing the 1st stage core first could lead to. 
I think they will also most likely first fly stage one itself with less than 31 engines a few times.

Quarter-fueled is enough to get to around Mach 8 and several hundred km apogee. Good enough for hypersonic entry testing.

Yes.
I also think they may fly with additional SL Raptors replacing a couple Rvacs for some later higher energy test flights
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline rsdavis9

Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #99 on: 10/12/2017 07:49 pm »
The hardest asset to acquire is experience personnel. The resource Musk was talking about is the F9 production line personnel not tooling, money or even floor space.

By swapping some experienced personnel from the F9 line onto a limited BFR production by replacing them on the F9 line with new hires, spaceX will be able to get the BFR line started rolling slowly. Once the BFR line needs to ramp up which should immediately follow a successful BFR demo flight The F9 line will ramp down and the BFR line will ramp up as more and more personnel transition. In order to do this both lines have to be fairly close (can be separate buildings but in same city) because relocation costs of a few thousand employees is very expensive.

I would suggest that we already have almost all the R+D people transitioned to BFR. They should have finished the block 5. There will be some left for dragon 2...
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #100 on: 10/12/2017 09:00 pm »
The hardest asset to acquire is experience personnel. The resource Musk was talking about is the F9 production line personnel not tooling, money or even floor space.

By swapping some experienced personnel from the F9 line onto a limited BFR production by replacing them on the F9 line with new hires, spaceX will be able to get the BFR line started rolling slowly. Once the BFR line needs to ramp up which should immediately follow a successful BFR demo flight The F9 line will ramp down and the BFR line will ramp up as more and more personnel transition. In order to do this both lines have to be fairly close (can be separate buildings but in same city) because relocation costs of a few thousand employees is very expensive.

I would suggest that we already have almost all the R+D people transitioned to BFR. They should have finished the block 5. There will be some left for dragon 2...

I don't think so. Block 5, FH, and Dragon 2 are still in development and are highest priority right now. In 6 months, that will change.

Offline Aussie_Space_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #101 on: 10/13/2017 12:00 am »
Some really interesting snippets here including on Falcon Heavy. Don't know if any of it is new to us though.

Quotes from the article,
"SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFR

Speaking at the APSCC 2017 conference here, SpaceX Senior Director Tom Ochinero also said the company was nearing the point where its launch prices would be set irrespective of whether a given launch used a previously flown first stage."

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 12:10 am by Aussie_Space_Nut »

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #102 on: 10/13/2017 02:58 am »
Over on reddit a poster who talked with a SpaceX recruiter reports that they were told 10% of engineers at SpaceX are now working on BFR and that number will increase as Block V development becomes complete.

10% of engineers is much higher than I expected and this point.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #103 on: 10/13/2017 05:18 am »
Over on reddit a poster who talked with a SpaceX recruiter reports that they were told 10% of engineers at SpaceX are now working on BFR and that number will increase as Block V development becomes complete.

10% of engineers is much higher than I expected and this point.

Well, Musk did say he wanted development of BFR to start soon - didn't he say 6 months?
So I guess this would be the pre-development work going on.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #104 on: 10/13/2017 09:25 am »
Over on reddit a poster who talked with a SpaceX recruiter reports that they were told 10% of engineers at SpaceX are now working on BFR and that number will increase as Block V development becomes complete.

10% of engineers is much higher than I expected and this point.

Well, Musk did say he wanted development of BFR to start soon - didn't he say 6 months?
So I guess this would be the pre-development work going on.

Wasn't it construction start in 6 months? Which would imply a LOT of development is already in place, especially since they have already ordered tooling.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Pivot to BFR
« Reply #105 on: 10/13/2017 09:40 am »
Wasn't it construction start in 6 months? Which would imply a LOT of development is already in place, especially since they have already ordered tooling.

Okay, that's right - so doesn't 10% of engineers sound a little low for that, rather than too high, given the timeline of 6 months? Hopefully Block 5 development will be winding down soon, to help them shift their focus.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0