Author Topic: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4  (Read 504999 times)

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2820 on: 09/22/2016 12:29 AM »

However, Musk has explicitly described the system as BFR + BFS. With BFR being a giant booster, and BFS being the upper-stage cum Mars transport cum Mars lander cum Earth return vehicle.

He may have changed his mind, and we'll hopefully find out soon, but there's nothing announced yet by SpaceX that implies he has.


Musk has never said BFS is an upper stage or that it is a lander or that it is even a monolithic vehicle rather then a vehicle stack.  That's what many people have chosen to interpret it as.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27141
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7109
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2821 on: 09/22/2016 01:22 AM »

However, Musk has explicitly described the system as BFR + BFS. With BFR being a giant booster, and BFS being the upper-stage cum Mars transport cum Mars lander cum Earth return vehicle.

He may have changed his mind, and we'll hopefully find out soon, but there's nothing announced yet by SpaceX that implies he has.


Musk has never said BFS is an upper stage or that it is a lander or that it is even a monolithic vehicle rather then a vehicle stack.  That's what many people have chosen to interpret it as.
He has said "land the whole thing", which is not just "interpretation."
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 Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2822 on: 09/22/2016 02:35 AM »
Yes that is an interpretation, your interpreting 'thing' to refer to the entire space craft that transits between Earth and Mars and not simply the lander at atmospheric entry, every other mars lander to date has been a Matryoshka doll that disassembles during EDL, so Musk may simply be expressing their EDL plan rather then talking about the entire mars bound vehicle.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 476
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2823 on: 09/22/2016 03:50 AM »
Seems obvious to me that he was saying everything to be thrown as Mars was going to land on Mars. Weather that worked out when they dug into the design, we will find that out in a week.

Matthew

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2824 on: 09/22/2016 04:39 AM »
First off the quote is "I think you just land the entire thing." indicating he is far from decided.  The followup question was exactly to get him to clarify what 'thing' was and if it meant the giant reusable rocket then called the MCT, he said  "Maybe." 

So their is absolutely no justification for interpreting this as a set in stone architecture, the monolithic rocket lander is certainly on the table given what Musk says but it's not singled out as the only configuration being considered.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Planetary Scientist
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2825 on: 09/22/2016 05:31 AM »
Musk definetly said (sometimes repeatedly):

1) There's a booster (BFR) and there's a spaceship (BFS). No further elements (e.g. upper stages, transfer habitats etc.) mentioned.

2) "Land the whole thing" in response to a question on the architecture in the vicinity of Mars. Also, approach fully reusable otherwise cannot aford it, sothere will be no matrioshkas.

3) A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date.

So I think the basic architecture is very clear.

Offline Geron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2826 on: 09/22/2016 06:10 AM »
I'm worried because the topic has changed to "Elon musk will discuss technologies and challenges that need to be tackled by governments and companies to create colony on Mars."

The topic used to be "SpaceX mars architecture."

Seems like confidence may have been shaken?

Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2827 on: 09/22/2016 09:21 AM »
I think they are talking about building the colony when they say "architectures in which others can partecipate". They want to provide an apt means of transportation but arguably they've  always known that building a colony can't be done on themselves. It's not only a financial matter: such an endeavor requires fine engineering in almost every field, from the kitchen equipment to the toilets to planning the whole hab architecture. A colony can't be done by a single company, neither SpaceX wants to do that: Elon envisions an international effort to create an environment on Mars in which people from all around the world can come and expand. I reckon this speech will be the beginning of an effort to seek collaboration on that, to spread the word that "building a colony on Mars is not sci-fy anymore, we are providing ITS/BFR to make it possible, are you on board?" And that's why they've chosen IAC and not a webcast from Hawthorne. Anyways we'll see in 5 days.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2035
  • CA
  • Liked: 746
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2828 on: 09/22/2016 03:57 PM »
...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

Offline TheTraveller

Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2829 on: 09/22/2016 06:02 PM »
...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

Was this the video?

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBU9UJfqaRooKnHY8QtQ399qqRwBqU6W3
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline BSenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Rio de Janeiro
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2830 on: 09/22/2016 10:44 PM »
Hi Everyone, this is a concept of a monolithic BFS: http://imgur.com/gallery/fGzkH

And a previous modular concept: http://imgur.com/a/15fO2
 

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2831 on: 09/22/2016 11:17 PM »


Hi Everyone, this is a concept of a monolithic BFS: http://imgur.com/gallery/fGzkH

And a previous modular concept: http://imgur.com/a/15fO2

What are the legs made of?

Offline BSenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Rio de Janeiro
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2832 on: 09/22/2016 11:23 PM »
Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2016 11:24 PM by BSenna »

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2833 on: 09/22/2016 11:30 PM »


...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

Was this the video?

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBU9UJfqaRooKnHY8QtQ399qqRwBqU6W3

This seems like pre or early NSF MCT Team (of which Michel Lamontange is a memeber, iirc) design of a SuperDragon type. IIRC, they settled on the biconic type later. It also does not comply with the "land the whole thing" quote as interpreted around here. Moreover, the SC in this video refuels at Earth, contrary to what Bynaus describes. I don't think it's the video he saw.

I too would like to see the video and the comment

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2834 on: 09/23/2016 12:34 AM »
...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

I remember seeing this, was this it? It looks like Elon's comment about it being the closest guess he's seen so far is above the linked tweet and is actually about a diagram of a Hyperloop track. I don't see a reply from Elon about the MCT diagram.

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2835 on: 09/23/2016 12:37 AM »


Hi Everyone, this is a concept of a monolithic BFS: http://imgur.com/gallery/fGzkH

And a previous modular concept: http://imgur.com/a/15fO2

What are the legs made of?

Apparently the same stuff the surface of Mars seems to be made of, seriously the single monolithic direct vehicle is an absurd interpretation of Musks incredibly vague hints and musings, any actual study of physics involved rules it out.

This particular concept is just too big, its what 15 m diameter and what 200 m tall, heck the lander at the top alone looks like it would mass 200 mt dry, the thrust ranges that Shotwell gave don't allow a vehicle this massive, I don't even think it could take off as their isn't enough thrust density at the base to lift it off the launchpad.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2016 01:32 AM by Impaler »

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2836 on: 09/23/2016 01:28 AM »
Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.
Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Do you know why people find rockets beautiful?


Offline BSenna

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Rio de Janeiro
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2837 on: 09/23/2016 01:58 AM »
Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.
Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Do you know why people find rockets beautiful?

I've done this prevously, I thought a little about the system, but I simply didn't mind to put on the final renderings.

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2838 on: 09/23/2016 02:19 AM »
I'm sorry but you really haven't put much thought into the legs, they far too small, have nothing for foot pads and would immediately sink into the surface.  The spread of the legs combined with the height of the vehicle and a total lack of control authority at landing means it would tip over immediately even on a concrete landing pad.

Furthermore their is no means to get cargo onto or off of the vehicle and no description of the interior at all which is where most of the important layout would actually be. 

I really recommend you work to someone with some engineering knowledge and work to illustrate the designs they come up with because your just making very soft science fiction pictures right now.  Their are lots of folks on the forum that would be happy to collaborate with you.

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2839 on: 09/23/2016 02:34 AM »
Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.
Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Do you know why people find rockets beautiful?

I've done this prevously, I thought a little about the system, but I simply didn't mind to put on the final renderings.
Uh... it's better, but only marginally... I suggest you try to thoughtfully brake some things in your spare time. All kinds of things, of different materials, sizes and shapes. Also, try to be creative with how you apply the force needed to brake a thing - fast, slow, point, area, etc. While you are at it, remember that force has a vector and try to visualize it.


Tags: