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?
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?...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: sanman on 09/30/2017 08:36 pmSo 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.QuoteWhat'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...
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?
And so the proven F9R is being abandoned for a BFR that hasn't even flown yet. Alas, poor F9R, we hardly knew ye.
The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.
Quote from: su27k on 10/01/2017 05:22 amThe 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.
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.
I think they'll make the F9 upper stage reusable ...
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.
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.
Quote from: groundbound on 10/01/2017 03:39 amThe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 10/01/2017 08:52 amQuote from: su27k on 10/01/2017 05:22 amThe 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.
The ship itself is designed to land at many different speeds and many different atmosphere densities.
The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.
Quote from: hkultala on 10/01/2017 09:27 pmQuote from: MikeAtkinson on 10/01/2017 08:52 amQuote from: su27k on 10/01/2017 05:22 amThe 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 ITIf 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.
Quote from: guckyfan on 09/30/2017 09:57 pmI 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.
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes3. 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 GEO4. Everyone else with expendables
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
Quote from: Lampyridae on 10/02/2017 08:02 amWhen you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes3. 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 GEO4. Everyone else with expendablesall of these are notional vehicles not yet developed. Hence, I'd include Reaction Engines' Skylon in the list.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 10/02/2017 08:02 amSo 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.
When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
4. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes.
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.
[ 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.
"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"
...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...
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.
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.
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".
Blue's business model is being a hobby project for a billionaire.
...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?
At that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.
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.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/03/2017 12:53 amAt that pivot, all other subs in the world became obsolete.which is not true
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]
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.
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.
Lacking an abort system could be a problem. Regulations might force them to add something before they can legally fly passengers.
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.
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.
<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.
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...
There is pretty much no difference in moving a 9 vs 12 meter rocket, neither one is going down a California freeway.
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.
SpaceX reassures commercial satellite market: Falcon 9 won’t soon be scrapped for BFRby Peter B. de Selding | Oct 12, 2017
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.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2017 01:07 pmThe 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 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...
What about building a version of the booster first, but use it to launch the existing Falcon 2nd stage and fairing?
Quote from: robert_d 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?Just no. This doesn't make sense on any level.
Quote from: jpo234 on 10/12/2017 03:32 pmQuote from: robert_d 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?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.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2017 03:41 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 10/12/2017 03:32 pmQuote from: robert_d 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?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.
Quote from: philw1776 on 10/12/2017 05:06 pmQuote from: envy887 on 10/12/2017 03:41 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 10/12/2017 03:32 pmQuote from: robert_d 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?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.
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.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/01/2017 09:03 pmThe 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...
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.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 10/13/2017 02:58 amOver 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.