Author Topic: Funding Super Heavy/Starship (BFR) Development (Not funding Mars Colony)  (Read 88052 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #20 on: 09/17/2018 02:47 am »
SLS/Orion is not $25B, the appropriation already run into ~$33B by 2017 if you include money spent during Constellation. By the time of EM-2, it would be $50B easy. So I think $5B estimate for BFR development is a good first order approximation, with the caveat that it use a Dragon 2 scale ECLSS instead of the 100 people version full ECLSS.

As for how to fund it, here's another approximation:
1. SpaceX annual revenue: $1.69B = $450M Commercial Cargo + $300M Commercial Crew + $840M for 14 launches at $60M + $100M additional fee for government launches. (Here we assume 18 launches per year, 4 of them are for Commercial Cargo and Crew)
2. Assume resources spent is proportional to the revenue, then resources spent on Falcon is (840 + 4*60) / 1690 = 64%, resources spent on Dragon is (450 + 300 - 4*60) / 1690 = 30%
3. Further assume resources spent on development and production are evenly divided (not a good assumption, but I don't know a better one), and SpaceX ultimately can put 90% Falcon and Dragon development resource, 50% Falcon production resource and 20% Dragon production resource into BFR. This means ultimately SpaceX can spend ~60% of the company resource on BFR
4. When can they reach the ultimate state: Here I think 2021 is a safe assumption given the most pessimistic estimate have Commercial Crew in operation by 2020, a guess of the ramp up follows:
2017: 5%
2018: 15%
2019: 30%
2020: 45%
2021: 60%
2022: 60%
2023: 60%
5. If you plug in annual revenue of $1.69B, by 2023 SpaceX can put $4.6B into BFR, they'll cross the $5B mark by 2024, that's without any outside investment.


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #21 on: 09/17/2018 02:50 am »
All you are doing is replacing NASA requirements with FAA certification, which if anything is even more strict. You can't fly paying passengers on an experimental license. BFS point to point is no different than a Boeing 787 which is no different than BFS for space access.

FAA does not "certify" spacecraft for commercial use, whether for cargo or people, orbital or suborbital.  These are not "experimental" licenses; an FAA launch license allows you to carry cargo or people for money (although there are additional conditions for people, it is far from the certification for aircraft).

Today the only certification process is DoD's and NASA's for payloads/cargo, and NASA's for people.  NASA's certification applies only to NASA flights.  It is far more strict than the FAA requirements.

That said, BFS P2P will likely motivate the development of a more rigorous FAA certification process--but it does not exist today.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #22 on: 09/17/2018 02:51 am »
Yes, and?

You forgot that the $390m included Falcon 1 dev costs.


Falcon 1 development was a necessary input for the development path taken for Falcon 9. Otherwise, you very well could have had 3 Falcon 1 like failures on Falcon 9, potentially increasing the cost above the $390 million. BFR/BFS doesn't have a similar demonstrator vehicle (or maybe it does).

Everything after included a bunch of NASA design requirements which is part of the reason the price is much higher. BFR doesn't have that.

All you are doing is replacing NASA requirements with FAA certification, which if anything is even more strict. You can't fly paying passengers on an experimental license. BFS point to point is no different than a Boeing 787 which is no different than BFS for space access.
Wow, very wrong.

There are completely different regulations for commercial space travel (speaking in context of this flight around the Moon) than air travel, and in fact, the commercial crew NASA folk will be flying under the same FAA regulations (although with the added ability to pilot the craft and all the extra NASA requirements) as this passenger will. I'm afraid you've got some research to do. I've quoted a small portion, but this is just a taste.

https://spacenews.com/38524nasa-astronauts-to-fly-as-participants-on-commercial-space-taxis-faa/
Quote
Relevant regulations, the FAA added in a footnote, “simply require that space flight participants: (1) be informed of risk; (2) execute a waiver of claims against the U.S. Government; (3) receive training on how to respond to emergency situations; and (4) not carry any weapons onboard.”
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 02:52 am by Robotbeat »
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 ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #23 on: 09/17/2018 03:02 am »
Yes, and?

You forgot that the $390m included Falcon 1 dev costs.


Falcon 1 development was a necessary input for the development path taken for Falcon 9. Otherwise, you very well could have had 3 Falcon 1 like failures on Falcon 9, potentially increasing the cost above the $390 million. BFR/BFS doesn't have a similar demonstrator vehicle (or maybe it does).

Everything after included a bunch of NASA design requirements which is part of the reason the price is much higher. BFR doesn't have that.

All you are doing is replacing NASA requirements with FAA certification, which if anything is even more strict. You can't fly paying passengers on an experimental license. BFS point to point is no different than a Boeing 787 which is no different than BFS for space access.
Wow, very wrong.

There are completely different regulations for commercial space travel (speaking in context of this flight around the Moon) than air travel, and in fact, the commercial crew NASA folk will be flying under the same FAA regulations (although with the added ability to pilot the craft and all the extra NASA requirements) as this passenger will. I'm afraid you've got some research to do. I've quoted a small portion, but this is just a taste.

https://spacenews.com/38524nasa-astronauts-to-fly-as-participants-on-commercial-space-taxis-faa/
Quote
Relevant regulations, the FAA added in a footnote, “simply require that space flight participants: (1) be informed of risk; (2) execute a waiver of claims against the U.S. Government; (3) receive training on how to respond to emergency situations; and (4) not carry any weapons onboard.”

FAA is deferring to NASA on Commercial Crew. IF BFR/BFS does the run around NASA, it runs into the FAA. This hypothetical wild west scenario where anyone that can bolt a pressure vessure to a rocket engine and liquid tank can sell tickets to the public, as long as you make someone sign a piece of paper, is pure fantasy.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #24 on: 09/17/2018 03:07 am »
...
FAA is deferring to NASA on Commercial Crew. IF BFR/BFS does the run around NASA, it runs into the FAA. This hypothetical wild west scenario where anyone that can bolt a pressure vessure to a rocket engine and liquid tank can sell tickets to the public, as long as you make someone sign a piece of paper, is pure fantasy.
Nope, FAA was just deferring to allowing the well-trained NASA astronauts to pilot the vehicle if necessary. Other than that (and in addition to NASA's requirements), NASA's astronauts are regulated the same way this guy would be. He's a "spaceflight participant." And specific regulation was established to make this possible and to reduce the regulatory load on commercial space companies so as not to make commercial human spaceflight impossible.

Based on your false statements about the level of regulations required and your snide (and misplaced) cynicism, you are clearly not familiar with the FAA's regulations on spaceflight participants. It's not hypothetical. Here you go: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3752


...we've been having this discussion for YEARS, decades even; I started around the time of the X-Prize, which was the impetus for many of these regulations. Where've ya been?


(Oh, and hats off to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation for doing a good job of facilitating instead of squashing the commercial space industry... I really think the rest of the FAA could learn from them.)
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 03:13 am by Robotbeat »
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 ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #25 on: 09/17/2018 03:37 am »
...
FAA is deferring to NASA on Commercial Crew. IF BFR/BFS does the run around NASA, it runs into the FAA. This hypothetical wild west scenario where anyone that can bolt a pressure vessure to a rocket engine and liquid tank can sell tickets to the public, as long as you make someone sign a piece of paper, is pure fantasy.
Nope, FAA was just deferring to allowing the well-trained NASA astronauts to pilot the vehicle if necessary. Other than that (and in addition to NASA's requirements), NASA's astronauts are regulated the same way this guy would be. He's a "spaceflight participant." And specific regulation was established to make this possible and to reduce the regulatory load on commercial space companies so as not to make commercial human spaceflight impossible.

Based on your false statements about the level of regulations required and your snide (and misplaced) cynicism, you are clearly not familiar with the FAA's regulations on spaceflight participants. It's not hypothetical. Here you go: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3752


...we've been having this discussion for YEARS, decades even; I started around the time of the X-Prize, which was the impetus for many of these regulations. Where've ya been?


(Oh, and hats off to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation for doing a good job of facilitating instead of squashing the commercial space industry... I really think the rest of the FAA could learn from them.)

I think you can't differentiate how things work in practice and how things are written down letter for letter. If the "informed consent" regime was real, then Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin would have approval to fly passengers into space based on the informed consent regime. They are doing way more test flights than NASA CC. In theory, you should be able to walk up to the FAA and say, yeah, I built this thing in my garage, give me a license. The FAA is supposed to inform you that you have to tell people that they are probably going to die and then you get your papers. That isn't how it is going to work. They are going to be nosey. They are going to ask you what flight testing you have done, what problems you have had. If your response is "what flight tests", you are going to be laughed out of the room.

Quote
All the Virgin Galactic test flying was done under a special experimental permit issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. To reach the point where SpaceShip Two could be cleared for carrying passengers Galactic needed to move from the experimental permit to being awarded an operator’s license.
That required a new 180-day review by the FAA to establish that all the systems were thoroughly tested and fail-safe. But remember, this was uncharted territory for the FAA just as it was for Galactic. Indeed, by submitting to the FAA review Galactic was being asked to set the standards for all who followed… if they could.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/virgin-galactics-flight-path-to-disaster-a-clash-of-high-risk-and-hyperbole

Anyways, whether a certification regime or a licensing regime is in place by the time BFR/BFS comes around is anyone's guess.


Quote
(Oh, and hats off to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation for doing a good job of facilitating instead of squashing the commercial space industry... I really think the rest of the FAA could learn from them.)

I doubt you can consider commercial air travel "squashed", unless your standard is a flying car in every garage.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 04:20 am by ncb1397 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #26 on: 09/17/2018 03:58 am »
Commercial air travel regulations didn't exist when air travel was invented. The regulatory regime was built up at the same time as the technology progressed, so no squashing happened.

The idea is to gradually develop regulations that improve safety without stifling the industry. You're implying that SpaceX will have to spend billions of dollars extra, billions they don't have, to meet the crazily strict air travel specs. Nope, and they don't necessarily have to work with NASA to make that happen, either (although NASA will help them in other ways). Congress passed the law specifically so that wouldn't happen.

But nice to see you can Google and move goalposts.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 04:03 am by Robotbeat »
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 ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #27 on: 09/17/2018 05:13 am »
Commercial air travel regulations didn't exist when air travel was invented. The regulatory regime was built up at the same time as the technology progressed, so no squashing happened.

The idea is to gradually develop regulations that improve safety without stifling the industry.

The U.S. government isn't stifling them, it is protecting the public. Besides, some of these billionaires are worth more to the USG in terms of tax revenue than the spaceflight will generate. One spaceflight is like a couple hundred million in economic activity, while they might run a company with billions in revenue. USG suckled SpaceX since it was a pup and continues to do so. . That being said, that isn't their only or even principle objective or responsibility. Anyways, how much do you think Virgin/BO spent on New Shephard/SpaceShipTwo. That path to commercial passenger flight will be similar for BFR/BFS since they aren't going through NASA, but rather the FAA. Now multiple that by a factor of X...X being some kind of scalar like height/volume/complexity. Remember, SpaceX isn't the same company it was in the 00s. A lot of people back then no longer work there.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 05:25 am by ncb1397 »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #28 on: 09/17/2018 06:48 am »
On the thread topic, funding BFR development:

How fast BFR goes will depend on SpaceX picking up an air force contract this month. The air force has already been funding BFR development through generous contracts to develop the raptor engine. I'm assuming SpaceX probably pitched a bare bones version of cargo BFR as a future launcher for military payloads. NASA won't directly fund it right now, although SpaceX could compete for future heavy lunar lander contracts with BFR.

In the immediate future, Starlink is actually going to compete with BFR for scarce internal resources but once it is up and running, the revenue could be redirected to developing more advanced versions of BFR that can refuel and fly people. Starlink may even end up selling lucrative communications services to the DoD or hosting DoD payloads. The ability of SpaceX to mass manufacture satellites could allow them sell these services to anyone interested in operating constellations of affordable satellites without building a plant themselves. SpaceX could sell the starlink bus and leave payloads up to the customer. All these things could increase revenue  and therefore resources brought to bear on BFR.

There's also the very likely scenario that ISS is extended again to at least 2028 if not 2030. That will require more commercial crew and cargo services. NASA will likely not be comfortable with BFR as a crew vehicle until it has a very high number of flights that prove it reliable, the legacy of two shuttle accidents will still be haunting them. For cargo delivery and return it will be great. There are more annual cargo missions to ISS anyway and this would enable delivery of large external payloads, soft landed cargo return on land, a potential emergency return vehicle and a temporary expansion of the total power and usable volume of the ISS. It would be literally like a whole new module being added and could host NASA payloads that are operated completely within the BFS.

The other line of revenue that could help pay for BFR development we'll learn more about later on Monday, down payments for tourist flights. The BFS and BFR have almost endless potential as tourism platforms from suborbital hops on a BFS to lunar tourism on the full BFR stack.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 06:50 am by Darkseraph »
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #29 on: 09/17/2018 12:53 pm »
Squabbling is boring. Squabbling about FAA regs is at best only tangentially related. Snarky squabbling is doubly boring.

Don't be boring. Be excellent to each other.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #30 on: 09/17/2018 02:57 pm »
SLS/Orion is not $25B, the appropriation already run into ~$33B by 2017 if you include money spent during Constellation. By the time of EM-2, it would be $50B easy. So I think $5B estimate for BFR development is a good first order approximation, with the caveat that it use a Dragon 2 scale ECLSS instead of the 100 people version full ECLSS.

As for how to fund it, here's another approximation:
1. SpaceX annual revenue: $1.69B = $450M Commercial Cargo + $300M Commercial Crew + $840M for 14 launches at $60M + $100M additional fee for government launches. (Here we assume 18 launches per year, 4 of them are for Commercial Cargo and Crew)
2. Assume resources spent is proportional to the revenue, then resources spent on Falcon is (840 + 4*60) / 1690 = 64%, resources spent on Dragon is (450 + 300 - 4*60) / 1690 = 30%
3. Further assume resources spent on development and production are evenly divided (not a good assumption, but I don't know a better one), and SpaceX ultimately can put 90% Falcon and Dragon development resource, 50% Falcon production resource and 20% Dragon production resource into BFR. This means ultimately SpaceX can spend ~60% of the company resource on BFR
4. When can they reach the ultimate state: Here I think 2021 is a safe assumption given the most pessimistic estimate have Commercial Crew in operation by 2020, a guess of the ramp up follows:
2017: 5%
2018: 15%
2019: 30%
2020: 45%
2021: 60%
2022: 60%
2023: 60%
5. If you plug in annual revenue of $1.69B, by 2023 SpaceX can put $4.6B into BFR, they'll cross the $5B mark by 2024, that's without any outside investment.

Interesting approach.  Suggest adding STARLINK %.  The Comsat R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs will be expenses for next few years, then becoming Revenue $$$.  Hopefully.

What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #31 on: 09/17/2018 03:11 pm »
What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
If they are smart, this won't be a public company, but rather limited to a tight circle of investors via private placement., and SpaceX will retain a very large majority of the outstanding shares. Even under these terms they should be able to raise many billions.

And SpaceX are nothing if not smart, so I am not saying anything they have not already figured out.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #32 on: 09/17/2018 03:29 pm »
What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
If they are smart, this won't be a public company, but rather limited to a tight circle of investors via private placement., and SpaceX will retain a very large majority of the outstanding shares. Even under these terms they should be able to raise many billions.

And SpaceX are nothing if not smart, so I am not saying anything they have not already figured out.

This. SpaceX creates the Starlink operating company as a customer and raises sufficient capital for it from major players, sovereign wealth funds, HNW people, big pools of capital. It’s traditional to pay a significant portion of the launch price well in advance and SpaceX can set a launch price that’s both well below market and well above their costs. Starlink can fund the development of BFR even before it’s operational.

Running a global telecom/internet provider isn’t a SpaceX core competency so it makes sense it would have a separate operating entity.

Offline Lemurion

Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #33 on: 09/17/2018 04:07 pm »
What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
If they are smart, this won't be a public company, but rather limited to a tight circle of investors via private placement., and SpaceX will retain a very large majority of the outstanding shares. Even under these terms they should be able to raise many billions.

And SpaceX are nothing if not smart, so I am not saying anything they have not already figured out.

Yeah, after Tesla, I don't think Musk and co. want to deal with a public company ever again if they don't have to.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #34 on: 09/17/2018 04:28 pm »
What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
If they are smart, this won't be a public company, but rather limited to a tight circle of investors via private placement., and SpaceX will retain a very large majority of the outstanding shares. Even under these terms they should be able to raise many billions.

And SpaceX are nothing if not smart, so I am not saying anything they have not already figured out.

Yes.
I should have stated that.  I think Elon has had it with running public companies.  Enough said on that.
I'm extremely confident that Musk could easily raise many billions through private investors.  He's not just good with physics and first principals based engineering but the guy is a whiz at finances too.  As a new products design engineer & MBA I respect both his capabilities.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #35 on: 09/17/2018 06:13 pm »
What I think will happen is a Starlink subsidiary or separate corporation will be formed.  Investors buy shares.  Those investment funds will be used to pay SpaceX for Starlink R&D costs, manufacturing costs and launch costs.  That way SpaceX gets cash IN for the next few years before Starlink operational revenue happens.  This would be a very helpful cash source for BFR development.
If they are smart, this won't be a public company, but rather limited to a tight circle of investors via private placement., and SpaceX will retain a very large majority of the outstanding shares. Even under these terms they should be able to raise many billions.

And SpaceX are nothing if not smart, so I am not saying anything they have not already figured out.

Yes.
I should have stated that.  I think Elon has had it with running public companies.  Enough said on that.
I'm extremely confident that Musk could easily raise many billions through private investors.  He's not just good with physics and first principals based engineering but the guy is a whiz at finances too.  As a new products design engineer & MBA I respect both his capabilities.

Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way, just amplifying.

Brilliant financier as well (ignore the taking Tesla private thing, that was an aberration) ... who thought that you could fund anything useful by selling trinkets (hats and not-a-flamethrowers)?? ... not meaning to go down that rathole, just agreeing with you again.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #36 on: 09/18/2018 04:17 pm »
We now know that only 5% of SpaceX is working on BFR.  Slightly surprised as I thought more of a transition of engineering with Block 5 supposedly done and Crew Dragon design hopefully frozen at this time.

BFR development (whatever that scope entails) guestimated to be ~5B with must be >2B and hopefully under 10B.
B= billion dollars, or $1,000 million dollars.

So roughly averaging a billion $/ year 2019-2023, obviously with more $ in the later years
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #37 on: 09/18/2018 08:49 pm »
We now know that only 5% of SpaceX is working on BFR.  Slightly surprised as I thought more of a transition of engineering with Block 5 supposedly done and Crew Dragon design hopefully frozen at this time.
I was a LOT surprised by this, I was expecting more like at least 20% of the company  a a whole at this point... But I may be out of whack on what percentage of the total company is engineering vs manufacturing vs hr/accounting/support, vs field operations etc. (I kind of thought engineering would be 50% or more focused on BFR/S by now)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #38 on: 09/18/2018 09:00 pm »
We now know that only 5% of SpaceX is working on BFR.  Slightly surprised as I thought more of a transition of engineering with Block 5 supposedly done and Crew Dragon design hopefully frozen at this time.

BFR development (whatever that scope entails) guestimated to be ~5B with must be >2B and hopefully under 10B.
B= billion dollars, or $1,000 million dollars.

So roughly averaging a billion $/ year 2019-2023, obviously with more $ in the later years

I was surprised that it was thatmany people...although pretty happy about the cost number...as thats what I have been saying :)|

why surprised?

there is no final design, there is no factory, there are no machines that allow them to put the thing together.

AND there are other programs which are ongoing that "need workers"

the biggest initial cost is going to be building the factory and getting the "machines" for it.

next year 2019 they will crank that up in earnest

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2040
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Funding BFR Development (Not funding Mars Colony)
« Reply #39 on: 09/18/2018 09:18 pm »
We now know that only 5% of SpaceX is working on BFR.  Slightly surprised as I thought more of a transition of engineering with Block 5 supposedly done and Crew Dragon design hopefully frozen at this time.

BFR development (whatever that scope entails) guestimated to be ~5B with must be >2B and hopefully under 10B.
B= billion dollars, or $1,000 million dollars.

So roughly averaging a billion $/ year 2019-2023, obviously with more $ in the later years

I was surprised that it was thatmany people...although pretty happy about the cost number...as thats what I have been saying :)|

why surprised?

there is no final design, there is no factory, there are no machines that allow them to put the thing together.

AND there are other programs which are ongoing that "need workers"

the biggest initial cost is going to be building the factory and getting the "machines" for it.

next year 2019 they will crank that up in earnest

And those not listed as working on BFR still work on it indirectly. It doesn't make sense to pull anyone off Crew Dragon life support yet because they might as well learn all the lessons they they can while under NASA supervision. The same goes for reuse logistics, vertical landing, ... It's not like SpaceX will suddenly have to hire 1000 new people in a year.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0