Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/12/2018 07:31 pmIf 787 is what passes as a huge technological improvement, then sure, I can see why BFR looks like an absurdly big step.Incremental improvements aside (which admittedly have led to significant safety and efficiency improvements), airliner tech has been pretty stagnant for almost half a century, and few in the industry will admit it. Such people are not good judges about what could happen with improved rocket tech.the Dreamliner is an amazing step in aviation technology...there is nothing on it that is legacy from previous Boeing designs from the engines to the fly by wire, to the construction and most importantly in the internal systems
If 787 is what passes as a huge technological improvement, then sure, I can see why BFR looks like an absurdly big step.Incremental improvements aside (which admittedly have led to significant safety and efficiency improvements), airliner tech has been pretty stagnant for almost half a century, and few in the industry will admit it. Such people are not good judges about what could happen with improved rocket tech.
in addition it is designed for near complete robotic construction.
the BFR is several steps above the Falcon9 and Crewed Dragon of teh same magnitude as the Dreamliners step above the triple seven...
in my view it will be an engineering miracle of SpaceX does 25 percent of what they are claiming for the BFR...
Quote from: speedevil on 08/12/2018 10:26 amQuoteA P2P capable vehicle - one that actually can do 'cheaper than an economy ticket' on some routes - $1M total per flight _price_, would be utterly revolutionary for Mars, compared with one that can do $5M cost.I'm not sure where you are getting those figures, and certainly a 1-hour flight to the opposite side of Earth is not going to be marketed as "economy". If they do go into this market I think it will be to help fund their Mars colonization plans (directly or indirectly), so they will price it to make a profit.
QuoteA P2P capable vehicle - one that actually can do 'cheaper than an economy ticket' on some routes - $1M total per flight _price_, would be utterly revolutionary for Mars, compared with one that can do $5M cost.I'm not sure where you are getting those figures, and certainly a 1-hour flight to the opposite side of Earth is not going to be marketed as "economy". If they do go into this market I think it will be to help fund their Mars colonization plans (directly or indirectly), so they will price it to make a profit.
A P2P capable vehicle - one that actually can do 'cheaper than an economy ticket' on some routes - $1M total per flight _price_, would be utterly revolutionary for Mars, compared with one that can do $5M cost.
nope...the human interaction on the assembly is right now "minimal"" about half what is on the triple which is about 80 percent more than any other Boeing commercial product...and on the Dreamliner it will grow
I dont think Falcon Heavy is anywhere near that much of BFS...maybe 5 percent.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/12/2018 08:50 pmnope...the human interaction on the assembly is right now "minimal"" about half what is on the triple which is about 80 percent more than any other Boeing commercial product...and on the Dreamliner it will growYes, incremental changes from a historical standpoint. And of course you are only looking at the final assembly labor for the aircraft, but you could go through all of the sub-assemblies and see that pretty much everyone is making reductions in touch labor.I remember as the electronics industry was changing from through-hole technology to surface mount. Now THAT was revolutionary, since surface mount allowed for much smaller components, which lead to automated pick & place machines that sound like machine guns. And that was decades ago.Steering back to the topic at hand, the BFS will benefit from the same composite manufacturing technologies that the 787 benefits from, however the design of the BFS will truly be revolutionary in a number of ways.QuoteI dont think Falcon Heavy is anywhere near that much of BFS...maybe 5 percent.The mass of the fully-loaded Falcon Heavy is 1,420,788 kg, and the estimated mass of the BFR/BFS is 4,400,000 kg - that makes the Falcon Heavy 32% the mass of the BFR/BFS.So while the step up to the BFR/BFS is big, it's not 20X bigger like you are thinking...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/12/2018 05:48 pmQuote from: speedevil on 08/12/2018 10:26 amQuoteA P2P capable vehicle - one that actually can do 'cheaper than an economy ticket' on some routes - $1M total per flight _price_, would be utterly revolutionary for Mars, compared with one that can do $5M cost.I'm not sure where you are getting those figures, and certainly a 1-hour flight to the opposite side of Earth is not going to be marketed as "economy". If they do go into this market I think it will be to help fund their Mars colonization plans (directly or indirectly), so they will price it to make a profit.Elon on instagram.
Shotwell estimated the ticket cost would be somewhere between economy and business class on a plane
I am trying to stay on topic here. I suspect the BFR in its first form will be less revolutionary than most here are hoping for...
the XC99 lesson and technology problems will slowly creep up on him...
and eventually the BFR will turn out to be more a response to BO various rockets than "the mars traveler" or the P2P revolutionary
Mass is not a good indicator of difficulty...sorry
Coastal RonMy "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the start
I find it incredible that somehow BO is assumed to have a superior to SpaceX orbital class product early next decade given that BO has zero experience launching anything orbital. The kinetic energy difference from sub orbital to orbital is huge, so recovery of a suborbital vehicle is nowhere near the difficulty of recovering an orbital vehicle.For SpaceX to recover and reuse a 2nd stage of an orbital vehicle is not a huge step for them given their Dragon and F9 booster experience. BFS LEO isn't doing anything not done by the 1970s design Space Shuttle except powered landing (already done routinely by SpaceX) and most importantly economics. Remains to be seen how much better the economics prove to be.Both companies are developing new engines. SpaceX has more engine development experience and flight experience, plus they started their big engine R&D several years ago.I don't see the extreme skepticism about BFS flying its flight profile. I do see warranted skepticism about timeframe and again most importantly economics. It's the economics goal that a first generation BFR/BFS may fail, not the operational flight profile goal.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 10:10 amCoastal RonMy "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the startThe cargo version is already baselined to be the first to fly, so in that sense it's lost it's "human capabilities", or rather, never had them in the first place.Still, it won't be "just an upper stage". No extant upper stage can dock, transfer fuel, reenter, land, be reused, or return downmass. The cargo version will still do those.
Quote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 02:03 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 10:10 amCoastal RonMy "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the startThe cargo version is already baselined to be the first to fly, so in that sense it's lost it's "human capabilities", or rather, never had them in the first place.Still, it won't be "just an upper stage". No extant upper stage can dock, transfer fuel, reenter, land, be reused, or return downmass. The cargo version will still do those.Just a guess...but I suspect a lot of that capability will not be available for Block 1.
My "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the start
First BO is "moving" and in my view their rocket will "leap" Falcon9 and Heavy in some substantial ways...most important is the high energy upper stages...
Assuming (I know the first three letters but it probably is a good one) that BO is working out the kinks of re usability with their suborbital flights...and the cost numbers are at least competitive...than Musk will have some competition on his hands...both for commercial and I predict government CREWED business.
Second at some point US space policy concerning SLS/Orion will change.
the focus of that change will be spurring private enterprise by some massive (but affordable at the private launch/development price point on dollars already being spent) government effort in crewed flight...
third...the "human" part of BFR is the tall stick to me...its like going from a Bass boat to run on the lake to an ocean liner for long cruises...all in one leap...
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 02:19 pmQuote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 02:03 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 10:10 amCoastal RonMy "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the startThe cargo version is already baselined to be the first to fly, so in that sense it's lost it's "human capabilities", or rather, never had them in the first place.Still, it won't be "just an upper stage". No extant upper stage can dock, transfer fuel, reenter, land, be reused, or return downmass. The cargo version will still do those.Just a guess...but I suspect a lot of that capability will not be available for Block 1. You think they are going to expend the upper stage? Why? BFR with an expendable upper stage has little point. They might as well use Falcon Heavy.I think all of those will be available from the first orbital launch. Perhaps not all used initially (e.g. docking/refueling and downmass), but those features will be designed into the vehicle.
Quote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 02:32 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 02:19 pmQuote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 02:03 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 10:10 amCoastal RonMy "guess" right now is that the upper "stage" will soon lose its human capabilities and evolve into just an upper stage...at least at the startThe cargo version is already baselined to be the first to fly, so in that sense it's lost it's "human capabilities", or rather, never had them in the first place.Still, it won't be "just an upper stage". No extant upper stage can dock, transfer fuel, reenter, land, be reused, or return downmass. The cargo version will still do those.Just a guess...but I suspect a lot of that capability will not be available for Block 1. You think they are going to expend the upper stage? Why? BFR with an expendable upper stage has little point. They might as well use Falcon Heavy.I think all of those will be available from the first orbital launch. Perhaps not all used initially (e.g. docking/refueling and downmass), but those features will be designed into the vehicle.I was careful though imprecise in my words. I suspect that the first "block" of the second stage will be capable of delivering a payload...and recoverable...but not much else. I think those come in subsequent "blocks" the main thing that makes it "a better" launcher is the high energy upper stage
And getting back to "time" being what people are paying for, today the longest airline routes take 17 hours, so in order for a BFR point-to-point service to work there needs to be a large enough population of well off people that value time more than money.