SpaceX doesn't like Hydrogen, modifying their pad to support LH2 is just a distraction that has no return.
If you follow Zubrin's plan. Then you need to developed a lander, an ascend vehicle and a habitat module in parallel. Called it a wash in time required to developed the Zubrin vehicles and modules in comparison to the BFS. However the payload delivered to the Lunar surface by Zubrin's plan is a small fraction of what the BFS is capable of depending on how much refueling of the BFS is done.
Zubrin’s Lunar Direct plan is only viable if the BFR & BFS service introductions is drastically delay.
Elon wants the BFS to be SSTO!
And re-entry failure (of which SpaceX has experience) then that’s a delay. After re-entry at LEO speeds, the BFS has to land. Any landing failures (...)... Get the idea? But even a SSTO BFS is not sufficient to abandon alternate vehicles because the BFS has to re-enter at lunar if not Martian speeds. And for that we need the BFB.
Quote from: DougSpace on 04/11/2018 06:29 am Elon wants the BFS to be SSTO!Only on Mars, not on earth. Elon knows BFS-SSTO is worthless on earth.
How many Zubrin-type FalconHeavy missions to the Moon could be performed pending the emergence of BFR/BFS?
He doesn't particularly want to destroy other launch providers.
Elon also ridiculed Blue Origin's attempt at getting access to LC-39A.
“[Blue Origin] “If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA’s human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs. Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.”
Quote from: DistantTemple on 04/14/2018 02:37 amHe doesn't particularly want to destroy other launch providers.I disagree with that. SpaceX went out of their way to have the RD-180 banned, the engine for ULA's cheapest launch vehicle, the Atlas V. Elon also ridiculed Blue Origin's attempt at getting access to LC-39A.
Russia has great rocket technology & talent. Much respect. Would encourage focus on reusability. Single-use rockets cannot be competitive any more than single-use aircraft.
In case of LOP-G there will need to be a fuel depot so lander can be refuelled.
A critical part of this presentation is that Zubrin is describing two different landers: crew and cargo.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/31/2018 03:07 pmIn case of LOP-G there will need to be a fuel depot so lander can be refuelled. Could LOP-G simply be replaced with “rendezvous point” (eg EML1) where a payload (propellant, cargo, or crew) rendezvouses with a reusable lunar lander and simply hands over the payload?Given the few days involved with cislunar transport, it simply becomes a matter of scheduling — no need for long-term in-space storage of propellant. Whenever propellant production starts on the lunar surface, then the lunar surface becomes the depot with propellant storage accomplishes using the ambient temperatures of small, permanently-shadowed craters or tanks shadowed via a ring wall of reflective Mylar.Standardized payload modules means that payloads would be handed off from incoming craft to the reusable lander on a one-to-one bases — no need for a Gateway to accumulate propellant, cargo, or crew.
When Zubrin spoke on The Space Show about Moon Direct, he seemed to be unaware of the ULA - XEUS or ACES lander concepts. When he spoke at ISDC he still made no mention of it.
No need to develop an entirely new crew lander.