Author Topic: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread  (Read 169747 times)

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4193
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1364
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #580 on: 05/05/2017 02:45 PM »
The ITS development timeline presented at IAC showed Spaceship tests starting about 6 months before Booster tests, and finishing first.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2017 02:47 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 781
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #581 on: 05/05/2017 03:33 PM »
I would shift everything on that graph by two years to realign the red dragon flight (and add in a tiny bit of reality)
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline MP99

Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #582 on: 05/06/2017 11:32 AM »


IIRC, Elon said that the Spaceship would be able to reach LEO but not have enough fuel to get back again.

Maybe they could strap an external tank on the side to give an extra prop load?

Would probably need to also add some FH-type boosters on the side to lift the extra weight and balance out the thrust.

:-)

Cheers, Martin

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3604
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #583 on: 05/07/2017 12:21 AM »


IIRC, Elon said that the Spaceship would be able to reach LEO but not have enough fuel to get back again.

Maybe they could strap an external tank on the side to give an extra prop load?

Would probably need to also add some FH-type boosters on the side to lift the extra weight and balance out the thrust.

:-)

Cheers, Martin

Naaah... no one would build such a chimera. ;)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #584 on: 05/07/2017 12:58 AM »
I would shift everything on that graph by two years to realign the red dragon flight (and add in a tiny bit of reality)

That is a good factor to consider; however even if the Red Dragon is critical for gathering reentry and retropropulsion data it and ITS are different beasts.  The Raptor engine would be more critical for instance, the orbital testing done around Earth would still be applicable, and the fact both the Falcon and ITS boosters would be doing powered, non-parachute descents another way of getting work done independently of R.D.

Look at how long Boca Chica is taking. Look how long rebuilding LC40 is taking. Ground facilities are a big, costly, and difficult part of LV development.

The ITS spaceship needs a launch pad that can handle the thrust of seven Raptors. The booster has 42, and the cradle system. So just the pad for the booster is a monumental project, whereas the ship's pad is going to be comparatively straightforward.

In other words, developing a launch pad that can handle a blank-ton of heat...which as you point out isn't to be underestimated.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #585 on: 05/22/2017 02:15 AM »
ITS update now delayed to 'a few months':

Quote
@elonmusk Eta on the ITS/BFR/MCT architecture changes?

https://twitter.com/RITSPEX/status/866470494203203584

Quote
Almost there. Probably in a few months.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866471370418339840

Sign of real progress being made? Or maybe the long pole is finding a better name...

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #586 on: 05/22/2017 07:42 AM »
The name of ITS is now back to BFR? (this is from the 2016 section of the new gallery)
« Last Edit: 05/22/2017 07:44 AM by jpo234 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Liked: 965
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #587 on: 05/22/2017 01:20 PM »
ITS update now delayed to 'a few months':

Quote
@elonmusk Eta on the ITS/BFR/MCT architecture changes?

https://twitter.com/RITSPEX/status/866470494203203584

Quote
Almost there. Probably in a few months.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866471370418339840

Sign of real progress being made? Or maybe the long pole is finding a better name...

The timeline is not just pacing real time, it's accelerating to the right :D

Online Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #588 on: 05/22/2017 01:28 PM »
Sign of real progress being made? Or maybe the long pole is finding a better name...

Maybe they just have better things to do? ITS was unveiled in September 2016. How about waiting a year before the update? It's not like ITS is coming any time soon, anyway.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26451
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6371
  • Likes Given: 4636
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #589 on: 05/22/2017 02:58 PM »
Sign of real progress being made? Or maybe the long pole is finding a better name...

Maybe they just have better things to do? ITS was unveiled in September 2016. How about waiting a year before the update? It's not like ITS is coming any time soon, anyway.
I think the opposite is true. Musk said they found ways for ITS to be more economical (for development), meaning they're probably going to fly earlier, since they won't be waiting on external funding or for the constellation to be in full deployment.

My guess: they want some new hardware to show off before another unveiling.
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

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4193
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1364
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #590 on: 05/22/2017 03:29 PM »
ISTM more economical = being involved with "CommX"'s rollout. Mass constellation dispensing, and not just SpaceX's, could be a cash cow.
DM

Online Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #591 on: 05/22/2017 03:41 PM »
I think the opposite is true. Musk said they found ways for ITS to be more economical (for development), meaning they're probably going to fly earlier, since they won't be waiting on external funding or for the constellation to be in full deployment.
My guess: they want some new hardware to show off before another unveiling.

Do you have the quote for that? I remember him saying that they are working on it, not that they actually found a way already, but I can't find the exact quote.

Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #592 on: 05/22/2017 04:41 PM »
I think the opposite is true. Musk said they found ways for ITS to be more economical (for development), meaning they're probably going to fly earlier, since they won't be waiting on external funding or for the constellation to be in full deployment.
My guess: they want some new hardware to show off before another unveiling.

Do you have the quote for that? I remember him saying that they are working on it, not that they actually found a way already, but I can't find the exact quote.

It's from the SES-10 press conference:

Quote
RM: Just one follow-up, The time frame has kind of shifted since Guadalajara, I was wondering if if you guys had any updated time frame of when you think that first mission will be launched - If I'm correct, the first one is uncrewed, correct?

E: Yeah the first ones will be uncrewed. I don't want to steal thunder from that announcement. I'm pretty excited about the updated strategy since Guadalajara, it makes a lot more sense, it's  - we have to not just get it done technically, but figure out how to get this done without going bankrupt. So it's like, our goal is to get people on Mars before we're dead, and the company is dead. So like, neither one can die. Ideally, because we don't want to take so long that we're dead by when that happens, and we don't want to kill the company in the process. So we have to figure out not just solve the technical issues, but the economic issues. And I think the new approach is going to be able to do that. Hopefully.
https://github.com/robbak/SES10-post-launch-conference/blob/master/SES10-press-transcript.txt

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #593 on: 05/22/2017 05:41 PM »
The easiest and most accurate prediction I made here and on reddit on pre-reveal BFR threads was that the BFR to be revealed at IAC September 2016 would be revised considerably before flight.  I believe this to be accurate.  And similar to predicting "Sun to rise in East tomorrow", I say that the BFR update sometime later this year will be somewhat different from real orbital flight BFRs.

Until engine testing is well along and until tooling $ is spent for airframe, etc., I expect that this innovative stretching state of the art transportation system's configuration will continue to evolve.
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26451
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6371
  • Likes Given: 4636
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #594 on: 05/22/2017 05:42 PM »
The easiest and most accurate prediction I made here and on reddit on pre-reveal BFR threads was that the BFR to be revealed at IAC September 2016 would be revised considerably before flight.  I believe this to be accurate.  And similar to predicting "Sun to rise in East tomorrow", I say that the BFR update sometime later this year will be somewhat different from real orbital flight BFRs.

Until engine testing is well along and until tooling $ is spent for airframe, etc., I expect that this innovative stretching state of the art transportation system's configuration will continue to evolve.
It's possible that part of the delay in the current announcement is to get some hardware to show off.
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 DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 289
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 1847
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #595 on: 05/22/2017 05:49 PM »
ITS update now delayed to 'a few months':

Quote
@elonmusk Eta on the ITS/BFR/MCT architecture changes?

https://twitter.com/RITSPEX/status/866470494203203584

Quote
Almost there. Probably in a few months.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/866471370418339840

Sign of real progress being made? Or maybe the long pole is finding a better name...
The timeline is not just pacing real time, it's accelerating to the right :D
Perhaps SpaceX may be making major changes to the ITS system which is the reason for repeatedly delaying the ITS update announcement. Perhaps EM now says that 42 engines on the booster is too many and that Raptor can be scaled comfortably through a wide range of sizes due to a large percentage of it being additive manufactured. Larger Raptor for ITS booster can cut down no. of engines on ITS booster by at least half while keeping or maybe even increasing capability. Keep the 3.5MN vac. Raptor for the ITS ship. 9 is the right no. for the ITS ship.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26451
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6371
  • Likes Given: 4636
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #596 on: 05/22/2017 05:55 PM »
Might be a good question to ask in L2.
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 Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2717
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #597 on: 05/22/2017 05:56 PM »
It's obviously not impossible that they will decide to build two different sizes of methalox engine. But there are already extensive discussions on here explaining why scaling an engine is essentially the same as designing and qualifying a new engine. This is in part because certain things scale linearly, squared, cubed, etc.

I wish people would stop treating 3D printing as if it makes all things possible.

Waiting for joy and raptor

Online Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #598 on: 05/22/2017 06:05 PM »
I think the opposite is true. Musk said they found ways for ITS to be more economical (for development), meaning they're probably going to fly earlier, since they won't be waiting on external funding or for the constellation to be in full deployment.
My guess: they want some new hardware to show off before another unveiling.

Do you have the quote for that? I remember him saying that they are working on it, not that they actually found a way already, but I can't find the exact quote.

It's from the SES-10 press conference:

Quote
RM: Just one follow-up, The time frame has kind of shifted since Guadalajara, I was wondering if if you guys had any updated time frame of when you think that first mission will be launched - If I'm correct, the first one is uncrewed, correct?

E: Yeah the first ones will be uncrewed. I don't want to steal thunder from that announcement. I'm pretty excited about the updated strategy since Guadalajara, it makes a lot more sense, it's  - we have to not just get it done technically, but figure out how to get this done without going bankrupt. So it's like, our goal is to get people on Mars before we're dead, and the company is dead. So like, neither one can die. Ideally, because we don't want to take so long that we're dead by when that happens, and we don't want to kill the company in the process. So we have to figure out not just solve the technical issues, but the economic issues. And I think the new approach is going to be able to do that. Hopefully.
https://github.com/robbak/SES10-post-launch-conference/blob/master/SES10-press-transcript.txt

It says nowhere that this "updated strategy" actually involves using ITS. It could be just "build the CommX constellation first, and use the money from that to finance ITS".

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26451
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6371
  • Likes Given: 4636
Re: ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #599 on: 05/22/2017 06:07 PM »
I think the opposite is true. Musk said they found ways for ITS to be more economical (for development), meaning they're probably going to fly earlier, since they won't be waiting on external funding or for the constellation to be in full deployment.
My guess: they want some new hardware to show off before another unveiling.

Do you have the quote for that? I remember him saying that they are working on it, not that they actually found a way already, but I can't find the exact quote.

It's from the SES-10 press conference:

Quote
RM: Just one follow-up, The time frame has kind of shifted since Guadalajara, I was wondering if if you guys had any updated time frame of when you think that first mission will be launched - If I'm correct, the first one is uncrewed, correct?

E: Yeah the first ones will be uncrewed. I don't want to steal thunder from that announcement. I'm pretty excited about the updated strategy since Guadalajara, it makes a lot more sense, it's  - we have to not just get it done technically, but figure out how to get this done without going bankrupt. So it's like, our goal is to get people on Mars before we're dead, and the company is dead. So like, neither one can die. Ideally, because we don't want to take so long that we're dead by when that happens, and we don't want to kill the company in the process. So we have to figure out not just solve the technical issues, but the economic issues. And I think the new approach is going to be able to do that. Hopefully.
https://github.com/robbak/SES10-post-launch-conference/blob/master/SES10-press-transcript.txt

It says nowhere that this "updated strategy" actually involves using ITS. It could be just "build the CommX constellation first, and use the money from that to finance ITS".
I mean sure, but that sounds like a dumb idea and not at all SpaceX-y.
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

Tags: