Spacex says the rocket is exclusively for Mars, but does anyone here really think they'd say no to Bigelow wanting to use the MCT to send 100 people to a mega space station? There are all sorts of missions that don't involve Mars that are possible,
For me she is saying that the raptor rocket will be designed and produced with the focus on Mars only, and nothing more. They do not want (but she said that they would think of it if an offer was done) to focus out to adapt it to other purposes.She did not said that if someone wanted to use the rocket as it is for another purpose, they would not allow them.i.e. : they will build a Mars rocket, if you can use the Mars rocket to do other things, you can, but they will not use time and money to change the design to other goals.The rocket will not be used only for Mars launches, it will be designed only for Mars launches, that's different.
She did not said that if someone wanted to use the rocket as it is for another purpose, they would not allow them.
The rocket will not be used only for Mars launches, it will be designed only for Mars launches, that's different.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/26/2014 03:59 amLobo seems to be of the belief that SpaceX intends to use a Raptor-based vehicle for launching satellites to GTO, and that this is SpaceX's plan. I have no idea where he gets this stuff from, but Gwynne has specifically said that's not the case.Now *you* are the one putting words in her mouth. She said it would be designed for getting to Mars, but she did not explicitly say that it would never be used for anything else.
Lobo seems to be of the belief that SpaceX intends to use a Raptor-based vehicle for launching satellites to GTO, and that this is SpaceX's plan. I have no idea where he gets this stuff from, but Gwynne has specifically said that's not the case.
Any vehicle with a Raptor engine is a decade away and will only be used for Mars launches. I don't know how Gwynne could have made this more clear. If you haven't already listened to the show, please do.
Quote from: luinil on 03/26/2014 05:13 amQuote from: QuantumG on 03/25/2014 10:40 pmAny vehicle with a Raptor engine is a decade away and will only be used for Mars launches. I don't know how Gwynne could have made this more clear. If you haven't already listened to the show, please do.You said that the mars rocket will be used only for mars launches. It's the point where I'm not following you.Yes the vehicle will not be designed with GTO launches in mind, but that do not equals that it will never be used for GTO launches.It's called context!Oh my god. The irony is killing me. Why should we listen to the interview and not just read people's comments about it? So you get the context. Why should you read the entire thread instead of just reading individual comments? So you can get the context.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/25/2014 10:40 pmAny vehicle with a Raptor engine is a decade away and will only be used for Mars launches. I don't know how Gwynne could have made this more clear. If you haven't already listened to the show, please do.You said that the mars rocket will be used only for mars launches. It's the point where I'm not following you.Yes the vehicle will not be designed with GTO launches in mind, but that do not equals that it will never be used for GTO launches.
Quote from: llanitedave on 03/26/2014 12:55 amA 747 designed for reuse can be used in expendable mode as well. That doesn't normally mean that you're losing performance when you use it as designed.A 747 can fly more cargo considerably further if you give up any planning for refueling or taking off again.
A 747 designed for reuse can be used in expendable mode as well. That doesn't normally mean that you're losing performance when you use it as designed.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/26/2014 05:17 amQuote from: luinil on 03/26/2014 05:13 amQuote from: QuantumG on 03/25/2014 10:40 pmAny vehicle with a Raptor engine is a decade away and will only be used for Mars launches. I don't know how Gwynne could have made this more clear. If you haven't already listened to the show, please do.You said that the mars rocket will be used only for mars launches. It's the point where I'm not following you.Yes the vehicle will not be designed with GTO launches in mind, but that do not equals that it will never be used for GTO launches.It's called context!Oh my god. The irony is killing me. Why should we listen to the interview and not just read people's comments about it? So you get the context. Why should you read the entire thread instead of just reading individual comments? So you can get the context.Here's the actual quote from Shotwell. The context was whether SpaceX would be open to working with another company to create a variant of their rockets optimized for lunar exploration:"We're pretty focused on the path that we've set up, and that is Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, both LOX/RP vehicles, flying regularly for NASA, for the DOD, and for our commercial customers, while we're working on a much larger LOX/methane system to facilitate settlement to Mars."
Quote from: Lars_J on 03/26/2014 04:45 amQuote from: QuantumG on 03/26/2014 03:59 amLobo seems to be of the belief that SpaceX intends to use a Raptor-based vehicle for launching satellites to GTO, and that this is SpaceX's plan. I have no idea where he gets this stuff from, but Gwynne has specifically said that's not the case.Now *you* are the one putting words in her mouth. She said it would be designed for getting to Mars, but she did not explicitly say that it would never be used for anything else.I never said she did. What I said is that Lobo's theory that SpaceX plan to use the Mars rocket for GTO launches is so obviously wrong and that no-one could possibly come away with that impression by listening to the interview so he should go listen to the damn interview.
Quote from: DJPledger on 03/25/2014 07:18 amQuote from: Lobo on 03/24/2014 09:16 pmQuote from: Jcc on 03/23/2014 11:42 amQuote from: manboy on 03/23/2014 04:03 amSince Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?Possibly, and there may be a single core version, too. You would think that a pad that could launch Saturn V, could handle a single core BFR at least, although if the pad is configured for F9/FH the support equipment would be incompatible, and they would not want to stop launching F9/FH there while they retrofit, so better to build new pad. Maybe 39C? Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.A 2-stage BFR with a RTLS booster and reusable upper stage could launch large NRO type payloads to GTO, or dual payload launches to GTO like Ariane 5, and have enough margin to allow for total reusability. Where FH will need to launch at least partially reusable, if not fully reusable, to get those big birds to GTO.A fully reusable 2-stage BFR could be cheaper to operate than a partially expendable FH. So I think there could very well be a business case for BFR-R to go to GTO, or other BLEO trajectories for unmanned commercial and government payloads.She said that the SHLV aka. BFR is for Mars missions so don't expect it to be used for anything else. F9 and FH will take care of the satellite markets although FH will likely expend the center core on the heaviest missions.I am referring to the 10m single core LV, not the tri-core SHLV, which I'm sure is intended for sending the final version of MCT to Mars for colonization. As there's little else such a beast would be used for.
Quote from: Lobo on 03/24/2014 09:16 pmQuote from: Jcc on 03/23/2014 11:42 amQuote from: manboy on 03/23/2014 04:03 amSince Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?Possibly, and there may be a single core version, too. You would think that a pad that could launch Saturn V, could handle a single core BFR at least, although if the pad is configured for F9/FH the support equipment would be incompatible, and they would not want to stop launching F9/FH there while they retrofit, so better to build new pad. Maybe 39C? Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.A 2-stage BFR with a RTLS booster and reusable upper stage could launch large NRO type payloads to GTO, or dual payload launches to GTO like Ariane 5, and have enough margin to allow for total reusability. Where FH will need to launch at least partially reusable, if not fully reusable, to get those big birds to GTO.A fully reusable 2-stage BFR could be cheaper to operate than a partially expendable FH. So I think there could very well be a business case for BFR-R to go to GTO, or other BLEO trajectories for unmanned commercial and government payloads.She said that the SHLV aka. BFR is for Mars missions so don't expect it to be used for anything else. F9 and FH will take care of the satellite markets although FH will likely expend the center core on the heaviest missions.
Quote from: Jcc on 03/23/2014 11:42 amQuote from: manboy on 03/23/2014 04:03 amSince Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?Possibly, and there may be a single core version, too. You would think that a pad that could launch Saturn V, could handle a single core BFR at least, although if the pad is configured for F9/FH the support equipment would be incompatible, and they would not want to stop launching F9/FH there while they retrofit, so better to build new pad. Maybe 39C? Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.A 2-stage BFR with a RTLS booster and reusable upper stage could launch large NRO type payloads to GTO, or dual payload launches to GTO like Ariane 5, and have enough margin to allow for total reusability. Where FH will need to launch at least partially reusable, if not fully reusable, to get those big birds to GTO.A fully reusable 2-stage BFR could be cheaper to operate than a partially expendable FH. So I think there could very well be a business case for BFR-R to go to GTO, or other BLEO trajectories for unmanned commercial and government payloads.
Quote from: manboy on 03/23/2014 04:03 amSince Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?Possibly, and there may be a single core version, too. You would think that a pad that could launch Saturn V, could handle a single core BFR at least, although if the pad is configured for F9/FH the support equipment would be incompatible, and they would not want to stop launching F9/FH there while they retrofit, so better to build new pad. Maybe 39C? Another thought, the BFR will probably never be required to launch anything to GTO, so there is less reason to launch eastward from a site nearest the equator.
Since Gwynne said she believed Pad 39A would be too small for the BFG doesn't that implicitly confirm that it'll be three cores?
But, at no time, did I say that I -know- that the main reason SpaceX is building "FXX-R" is for flying GTO payloads, and I don't give a flying rip what Shotwell said in her interview. So why do you keep saying that I did?
Lobo, I have L2.. post an L2 link and I might have a chance to figure out what you're talking about.
Then why are you commenting on this thread at all?Ya know, I appreciate the wild speculation on this forum as much as anyone else, but that's not what this thread is for. We're trying to discuss what Gywnne said. Imagined scenarios belong elsewhere.