I believe that SpaceX has the resources and institutional knowledge to make the BFR booster. That seems like an issue of scale, and they already have the engine.Where I have serious questions is in regard to the BFS second stage. This vehicle appears to be considerably more ambitious than even the space shuttle, which required an 11-year development effort by tens of thousands of people. Moreover, while SpaceX has some experience with the Dragon capsules, that is a relatively simple vehicle compared to the enormous BFS. I certainly wish them well.
Linked video is good, I hadn't seen the collision before.For an article about "Inside the eight desperate weeks...", it sure doesn't say much about what happened during those 8 weeks. What did they change? What did they fix? We are left to infer that they tweaked the shutdown timing vs the firing of the first and second stage separation.
Here’s a comment from Eric Berger under the article talking about BFR/BFS.QuoteI believe that SpaceX has the resources and institutional knowledge to make the BFR booster. That seems like an issue of scale, and they already have the engine.Where I have serious questions is in regard to the BFS second stage. This vehicle appears to be considerably more ambitious than even the space shuttle, which required an 11-year development effort by tens of thousands of people. Moreover, while SpaceX has some experience with the Dragon capsules, that is a relatively simple vehicle compared to the enormous BFS. I certainly wish them well.
Quote from: Star One on 09/21/2018 08:18 pmHere’s a comment from Eric Berger under the article talking about BFR/BFS.QuoteI believe that SpaceX has the resources and institutional knowledge to make the BFR booster. That seems like an issue of scale, and they already have the engine.Where I have serious questions is in regard to the BFS second stage. This vehicle appears to be considerably more ambitious than even the space shuttle, which required an 11-year development effort by tens of thousands of people. Moreover, while SpaceX has some experience with the Dragon capsules, that is a relatively simple vehicle compared to the enormous BFS. I certainly wish them well.I think Eric Berger is off-base here. BFS is not more ambitious than the space shuttle. It's a far simpler design than shuttle. The basic architecture of being the second stage of a two-stage vehicle just gives it enormous advantages. Shuttle was saddled with a poor architecture that meant it was pushing the edge of what was possible with little margin to spare. BFS not only has an easier job to do than shuttle, it gets the advantage of forty years of technological improvement.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/21/2018 10:42 pmQuote from: Star One on 09/21/2018 08:18 pmHere’s a comment from Eric Berger under the article talking about BFR/BFS.QuoteI believe that SpaceX has the resources and institutional knowledge to make the BFR booster. That seems like an issue of scale, and they already have the engine.Where I have serious questions is in regard to the BFS second stage. This vehicle appears to be considerably more ambitious than even the space shuttle, which required an 11-year development effort by tens of thousands of people. Moreover, while SpaceX has some experience with the Dragon capsules, that is a relatively simple vehicle compared to the enormous BFS. I certainly wish them well.I think Eric Berger is off-base here. BFS is not more ambitious than the space shuttle. It's a far simpler design than shuttle. The basic architecture of being the second stage of a two-stage vehicle just gives it enormous advantages. Shuttle was saddled with a poor architecture that meant it was pushing the edge of what was possible with little margin to spare. BFS not only has an easier job to do than shuttle, it gets the advantage of forty years of technological improvement.Isn’t the quote that it’s easier to do something the second time?
I think Eric Berger is off-base here. BFS is not more ambitious than the space shuttle.
It's a far simpler design than shuttle.
The basic architecture of being the second stage of a two-stage vehicle just gives it enormous advantages. Shuttle was saddled with a poor architecture that meant it was pushing the edge of what was possible with little margin to spare.
BFS not only has an easier job to do than shuttle, it gets the advantage of forty years of technological improvement.
Try this:
Quote from: ChrisWilson68It's a far simpler design than shuttle. When you actually start thinking about what it has to do you realize it needs basically the same systems as Shuttle, but for a) A lot longer and b) For a lot more people.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/21/2018 10:42 pmI think Eric Berger is off-base here. BFS is not more ambitious than the space shuttle. What an interesting definition of "easier" you use. A few things BFS is designed to do that Shuttle wasn't would include.