Author Topic: Developing the BFS - Phase 1 Big Falcon Hopper (BFH) Discussion - THREAD 2  (Read 535001 times)

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1077
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Can anybody do some Kremlinology what the lack of a SpaceX logo means? Thinking SLS here...

Basically: That's not a SpaceX rocket, that's an American rocket...
IIRC there's precedent for Musk himself pointing out that some just released illustration was outdated/inaccurate on some details.  Ostensibly the flag is even more minor than a functional part.
NEC ULTIMA SI PRIOR

These engines will run in the test cells before being installed in the hopper.  Right?

Offline DanielW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
  • L-22
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 85
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Is this known to be an official render or is it a fan render that he liked? There seem to be some marked differences with the legs. The current fin material seems to be in the middle of the leg triangle, not wrapping it.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Here's my take (cross-posted from the photo thread) on what the hopper would look like if assembled in it's current form. This isn't taking into account if they decide to fully enclose the legs, fill in the vents, add shocks to the legs or buff up the lower section to match the nose and tanks.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline lonestriker

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Houston We've Had A Problem
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 5155
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081572521105707009
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081575156990894082

Am I the only one that doesn't know how interpret these tweets together?

How can they expect to do flight tests in a month (or even 2) if the 'first hopper engine to be fired ... probably fires next month'?

Also I still don't understand from Elon's answer if the Raptors already mounted on the hopper are working engines or not.
My takeaway (and for me it’s clear, but obviously subjective) is he used “engines” not bells, nozzles, or mockups, so those are actual engines mounted in there.

However because they’ve changed materials (SX500 stainless steel for example) and potentially other things on a new iteration that has yet to be fired, they may not be the actual flight engines used for hopping.

So if they want to fly the hopper in 1-2 months is it possible they intend to forgo acceptance testing of the engines on a test stand?
Elon mentioned test firing next month, so gives four weeks after potential initial test fire to qualify and install in the BFH and still make the 8 week window. Conversely could do initial hop tests using installed engines as I would guess the plumbing connections etc would mostly stay the same.

Another possibility, they can use these Franken-engines for some tests (maybe even hops), but not at full thrust:

"I met someone tonight who worked at SpaceX and she said they are real raptors on there but not full thrust."

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/acm8sj/whats_going_on_with_spacexs_stainless_steel/ed9u3oc/

Can always swap the engines out later for final production versions when ready.


Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Can anybody do some Kremlinology what the lack of a SpaceX logo means? Thinking SLS here...

Basically: That's not a SpaceX rocket, that's an American rocket...

This is a good observation, kind of strange to only have the flag there. But it could be for aesthetics reasons, the red/white color of the flag is well contrasted against the silver body, but SpaceX's blue and gray color may look less impressive.

Offline rocambole

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 255
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Can anybody do some Kremlinology what the lack of a SpaceX logo means? Thinking SLS here...

Basically: That's not a SpaceX rocket, that's an American rocket...

This is a good observation, kind of strange to only have the flag there. But it could be for aesthetics reasons, the red/white color of the flag is well contrasted against the silver body, but SpaceX's blue and gray color may look less impressive.

Also, weren't CBP and DHS wanting to survey the property for The Wall?  Good to be patriotic if so!

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • USA
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 134
Conversely could do initial hop tests using installed engines as I would guess the plumbing connections etc would mostly stay the same.

Another possibility, they can use these Franken-engines for some tests (maybe even hops), but not at full thrust:

As many have quoted already, Elon said "First hopper engine to be fired is ... in California", therefore the engines currently in Boca Chica won't be fired.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Conversely could do initial hop tests using installed engines as I would guess the plumbing connections etc would mostly stay the same.

Another possibility, they can use these Franken-engines for some tests (maybe even hops), but not at full thrust:

As many have quoted already, Elon said "First hopper engine to be fired is ... in California", therefore the engines currently in Boca Chica won't be fired.

Bingo. These are placeholders.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Can anybody do some Kremlinology what the lack of a SpaceX logo means? Thinking SLS here...

Basically: That's not a SpaceX rocket, that's an American rocket...

This is a good observation, kind of strange to only have the flag there. But it could be for aesthetics reasons, the red/white color of the flag is well contrasted against the silver body, but SpaceX's blue and gray color may look less impressive.

A possible subtle attempt to leverage off potential angst that China's recent moon landing may have created, by demonstrating an American rocket in development that could compete with that? With the upcoming Crew Dragon test launch the added bit of substance providing a solid foundation to the, at first glance, "fanciful" Starship prototype?

A lot aligning at the start of 2019 that might influence the course of space exploration in the near future.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2019 04:17 pm by M.E.T. »

Offline NGC 4258

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Canada
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 95
As seen in photos thread, an official render of the completed BFH.

Is this known to be an official render or is it a fan render that he liked? There seem to be some marked differences with the legs. The current fin material seems to be in the middle of the leg triangle, not wrapping it.

If a post directly from Elon is not official, I'm not sure what you want to see to be convinced.
We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081572521105707009
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081575156990894082

Am I the only one that doesn't know how interpret these tweets together?

How can they expect to do flight tests in a month (or even 2) if the 'first hopper engine to be fired ... probably fires next month'?

Also I still don't understand from Elon's answer if the Raptors already mounted on the hopper are working engines or not.
My takeaway (and for me it’s clear, but obviously subjective) is he used “engines” not bells, nozzles, or mockups, so those are actual engines mounted in there.

However because they’ve changed materials (SX500 stainless steel for example) and potentially other things on a new iteration that has yet to be fired, they may not be the actual flight engines used for hopping.

So if they want to fly the hopper in 1-2 months is it possible they intend to forgo acceptance testing of the engines on a test stand?
Elon mentioned test firing next month, so gives four weeks after potential initial test fire to qualify and install in the BFH and still make the 8 week window. Conversely could do initial hop tests using installed engines as I would guess the plumbing connections etc would mostly stay the same.

Another possibility, they can use these Franken-engines for some tests (maybe even hops), but not at full thrust:

"I met someone tonight who worked at SpaceX and she said they are real raptors on there but not full thrust."

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/acm8sj/whats_going_on_with_spacexs_stainless_steel/ed9u3oc/

Can always swap the engines out later for final production versions when ready.

We don't know if installed engines are operational.  Even if they are they may wait for the new ones.  If they are delayed they could test with them.

I wouldn't expect the new engines to be full power they initially test at lower power and then increase as they get flight time just like the Merlin's.

Offline SpacePhileon

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Germany
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 10
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081572521105707009
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1081575156990894082

Am I the only one that doesn't know how interpret these tweets together?

How can they expect to do flight tests in a month (or even 2) if the 'first hopper engine to be fired ... probably fires next month'?

Also I still don't understand from Elon's answer if the Raptors already mounted on the hopper are working engines or not.
My takeaway (and for me it’s clear, but obviously subjective) is he used “engines” not bells, nozzles, or mockups, so those are actual engines mounted in there.

However because they’ve changed materials (SX500 stainless steel for example) and potentially other things on a new iteration that has yet to be fired, they may not be the actual flight engines used for hopping.

So if they want to fly the hopper in 1-2 months is it possible they intend to forgo acceptance testing of the engines on a test stand?

Edit: or maybe they're going to use just a single engine at first as su27k suggested...

Perhaps (one of) the reason(s) for these somewhat contradictory information is the fast construction of the hopper. Perhaps Musk and SpaceX didn't expect this thing to evolve so quickly, because when Musk first tweeted about it, he hoped the first hopps would be in March/April, now he is talking of February/March which would mean the schedule moved one month to the left...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076608579652616192

Quote
I will do a full technical presentation of Starship after the test vehicle we’re building in Texas flies, so hopefully March/April
« Last Edit: 01/05/2019 04:46 pm by SpacePhileon »

Offline janky

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Socal
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 24
i mean, we know they have working raptors... there's video, right?

maybe they will do static fires and short hops with the prototype engines before swapping out for the flight engines when they're ready?
« Last Edit: 01/05/2019 04:15 pm by janky »

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
i mean, we know they have working raptors... there's video, right?

maybe they will do static fires and short hops with the prototype engines before swapping out for the flight engines when they're ready?
The engines installed on the Hopper are physically about 2.5 times the size of the engine firing in this video...
The prototype was like a 3/8 bolt... The production one is 1 inch!!
So they will NOT even fit... there are L2 pics to back this... (test stand being modified)

Please stop thinking this is even possible... thanks...  ;)
« Last Edit: 01/05/2019 04:39 pm by John Alan »

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 253
Replying to something from thread 1:
Quote
Do you think that for the production Starship they will return to FSW? Supposedly it delivers welds on stainless with better high temperature properties than more prosaic welding techniques.

No, for FSW you need to use a much harder tougher metal as the stirring tool, and as hard and tough as Stainless steel becomes when cold-worked there really aren't any viable materials.

If you want to go that route then ultrasonic welding (rubbing metal on metal at ~10-20kHz ~0.001mm oscillation) is the way to go.  Doesn't ruin the strength of the cold-worked (tough and hard) stainless being welded like MIG or TIG or laser welding does.

No, tungsten carbide is many times harder than stainless steel and is a common FSW tool material.  It'll FSW stainless just fine.  And toughness of the tool material is of little relevance.  I think where the difficulty comes in in FSWing this would be that stainless requires higher forces and because of the scale BFR very long structural members in the FSW apparatus (arms, gantries etc, however they would choose to do it) woud be needed to reach the areas being welded so a very large beefy machine would be needed.  But dooable it seems if that's the chosen path.

IMO a joint can be engineered to work with cold-worked stainless steel and traditional welding techniques. For example as already seen on the hopper you can use a bandage(?) with spot welds for strength and have a buttweld for leak tightness. Can be combined with reinforcement hoops if they are necessary.

Welds can also be cold worked after welding for additional strength.

We will see what technique they will end up with (hopefully).



Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
It's still possible the Raptors currently bolted onto the Hopper were test fired, but they won't be fired on the Hopper. Why put them there? If it is for fit checks, that means they must be full size and have the same fittings.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
 There are flags on both sides.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Here's my take (cross-posted from the photo thread) on what the hopper would look like if assembled in it's current form. This isn't taking into account if they decide to fully enclose the legs, fill in the vents, add shocks to the legs or buff up the lower section to match the nose and tanks.

You're going to have to change that by the end of the day.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1