What's the capacity and capability of an Airbus Beluga - in context of the speculative 9 meter ITS? I guess we don't know the final length of the stage yet. Perhaps Elon could lease or even buy one - using it or a similar aircraft to transport the stage to the launch site.
Sooo will this finally be a Falcon X/XX?
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 07/22/2017 08:28 pmSooo will this finally be a Falcon X/XX? It's 9m, and BFR stands for "Big Falcon Rocket" (at least in the safe version), so that would make it a Falcon 9... oh, no, wait. :-) Cheers, Martin Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Quote from: MP99 on 07/23/2017 07:53 amQuote from: IanThePineapple on 07/22/2017 08:28 pmSooo will this finally be a Falcon X/XX? It's 9m, and BFR stands for "Big Falcon Rocket" (at least in the safe version), so that would make it a Falcon 9... oh, no, wait. :-) Cheers, Martin Sent from my Nexus 6 using TapatalkThe mini BFR could also be called either "Falcon 21" or "Falcon 42" depending on the size and number of the Raptor engines.Falcon Heavy isnt called "Falcon 27" because all the engines are not in one core, and should arguably be called Falcon 3x9 but that's a stupid name.Falcon 42 makes it to oblivious it's "42" engines, so that doesn't feel good either, so therefor the original name BFR."Falcon 21" or "mini-BFR" could work.But naming it Falcon 21 would open the door for Falcon 42."Falcon R" (R=Raptor) opens the door for BFRNames are difficult!!! MCT vs ITS... can imagine this is one of the top 10 problems for Elon Musk.
Quote from: Peter.Colin on 07/23/2017 08:13 amQuote from: MP99 on 07/23/2017 07:53 amQuote from: IanThePineapple on 07/22/2017 08:28 pmSooo will this finally be a Falcon X/XX? It's 9m, and BFR stands for "Big Falcon Rocket" (at least in the safe version), so that would make it a Falcon 9... oh, no, wait. :-) Cheers, Martin Sent from my Nexus 6 using TapatalkThe mini BFR could also be called either "Falcon 21" or "Falcon 42" depending on the size and number of the Raptor engines.Falcon Heavy isnt called "Falcon 27" because all the engines are not in one core, and should arguably be called Falcon 3x9 but that's a stupid name.Falcon 42 makes it to oblivious it's "42" engines, so that doesn't feel good either, so therefor the original name BFR."Falcon 21" or "mini-BFR" could work.But naming it Falcon 21 would open the door for Falcon 42."Falcon R" (R=Raptor) opens the door for BFRNames are difficult!!! MCT vs ITS... can imagine this is one of the top 10 problems for Elon Musk. They have had such clumsy names for the Mars vehicle over the years, and so many variations of the Falcon rocket, I think they should keep Falcon for the Merlin family and come up with a new family name for Raptor based rockets. Just start fresh. There will no doubt be multiple generations of the Raptor rocket family, with mini-ITS just being the first.
What about lifting stages in a harness with one of those massive Russian helicopters and taking it down to a barge at the dock?
The IAC presentation last year put the booster at 275 tons empty. Tell me which helicopter you want to use to lift even a third of that.
So; manufacturing of propellant tanks, engines etc at Hawthorne - but shipping and assembly near the launch site? Suppose SpaceX erects a big, new building near LC-39?
There has been much discussion in this thread about how the ITSy could be assembled in Hawthorne and transported to Florida. But in the past SpaceX have said that ITS would be assembled near their launch pad. It seems all the parts could be manufactured in Hawthorne and shipped there. I don't think they have backed off that position.So the question may be what properties lie close to LC39A that could host a compact final assembly building?Edit: grammer
The even larger S-II was trucked on LA area streets regularly.
A flight itinerary??
......But that was for the big big f.rocket. This now is about the smaller version.