And he said /facility/, which doesn't imply a building necessarily. An earlier (but still very recent) tweet said BFR would be built in existing /factories/, which do imply buildings..
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/07/2017 01:04 amAnd he said /facility/, which doesn't imply a building necessarily. An earlier (but still very recent) tweet said BFR would be built in existing /factories/, which do imply buildings..Agreed the preponderance of info implies Hawthorne. But I think it will have to be someplace larger and more convenient.
Is it possible to use a Zeppelin for short distance transport of the BFR second stage? There are modern cargo lifter in development: Lockheed was planning an air vehicle with 90 metric tons of maximum payload. The first stage, however, might be too heavy to be transported this way, but maybe in parts and components to be integrated at the port...
Quote from: jedsmd on 10/07/2017 01:22 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/07/2017 01:04 amAnd he said /facility/, which doesn't imply a building necessarily. An earlier (but still very recent) tweet said BFR would be built in existing /factories/, which do imply buildings..Agreed the preponderance of info implies Hawthorne. But I think it will have to be someplace larger and more convenient.The Triumph facility is the obvious one. They built 747s there, and there's a straight shot up Prairie Ave. Also, what besides BFR would SpaceX need to acquire a new, huge facility for?
The Triumph facility is the obvious one... what besides BFR would SpaceX need to acquire a new, huge facility for?
They built 747s there...
and there's a straight shot up Prairie Ave.
They built 747s there,
Just a wild idea, but what about flying the BFR stages out of LAX?
Quote from: Brovane on 10/07/2017 05:34 pmJust a wild idea, but what about flying the BFR stages out of LAX? 1) more expensive than shipping BFR / BFS from the L.A. sea port.2) you still have to remove traffic signals, utility poles, etc. to get from Hawthorne to LAX.
No. Just use a barge.Geez, this isn't that hard. We already had this figured out before IAC2017 and it has just been confirmed since then.They're going to make the BFRs at their Hawthorne campus and ship them via barge.
Is it more expensive? Didn't it cost $3M to ship the ET-94 from Louisiana to LA. The AN-225 charters for $30,000 hour.
Quote from: Brovane on 10/08/2017 05:43 amIs it more expensive? Didn't it cost $3M to ship the ET-94 from Louisiana to LA. The AN-225 charters for $30,000 hour. The AN-225 won't work. It has never carried anything close to the size of the BFR booster or BFR spaceship.
Well... It was built for a certain, large spacecraft shuttling, purpose.
When did SpaceX confirm the method of shipping the BFR from Hawthorne to Florida?
folks need to remember that a key SpaceX culture is co-location of R&D with manufacturing.
The current Falcon 9 rocket is something that can be manufactured in California and road transported...But as we go to future rockets that are bigger than that, we would actually do the manufacturing at the launch site, or near the launch site, because otherwise the road transportation logistics become... Essentially you'd either have to put it on a big ship or build it near the launch site. The logical thing is to build it near the launch site. So that is something that would occur where ever this launch site occurs.
SpaceX could just buy a ship to transport the BFR/BFS, enclosed via Panama Canal to the cape, or Boca Chica when it is ready. Once the first few are built, I predict they will manufacture them in Texas.