Author Topic: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)  (Read 76732 times)

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #80 on: 07/21/2018 01:03 am »
Yeah, Gwynne has done a very good job, here. SpaceX can continue just on its Falcon 9 dominance (solidified by FH, Block 5, and possibly upper stage reuse). BFR isn’t a “bet the company” thing.

Agreed, F9/FH Block 5 can carry SpaceX for years to come.  There are no paying customers waiting for a Super Heavy lift.

Starlink is a critical enabling component to the supposed Mars plans.  It should get more $ than BFR at this point.  Do some long lead development for BFR but dump effort into Starlink. 

9 meter composite tanks, Raptor engines and composite common bulkheads not small problems to be solved.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #81 on: 07/21/2018 01:16 am »
he [Elon] betted SpaceX on BFR

- he really diddn't.

BFR isn’t a “bet the company” thing.

I think geza's point originates from Elon's stated intentions to build enough reusable F9 Block 5 boosters and enough expendable S2s to last for awhile, shut down F9 production, and shift everything to BFR production. I could be mistaken, but I believe that was said when he hoped to build BFR at Hawthorne, prior to the decision to build BFR at the Port of Los Angeles.

That begs the question, and I apologize if I missed the answer elsewhere, what happens to the line at Hawthorne when enough F9s are built? Is the tooling left to sit idle? How much of it is moved to PoLA? I assume the same workers will then commute to PoLA. If BFR experiences massive unforeseen difficulties, how difficult would it be to restart the F9 line at Hawthorne?

At the current build rate it will take 4 years to complete 50 F9 boosters. At that point (mid 2022) they should have a pretty good idea if they want to rely on BFR or not.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #82 on: 07/21/2018 01:24 am »
Yeah, and theoretically they could do thousands of launches (worth hundreds of billions in revenue) with just a few dozen F9 cores. With reusable upper stages, BFR is completely optional for the long-term health of the company... but they will push BFR hard.
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 speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #83 on: 07/21/2018 01:40 am »
That begs the question, and I apologize if I missed the answer elsewhere, what happens to the line at Hawthorne when enough F9s are built? Is the tooling left to sit idle? How much of it is moved to PoLA? I assume the same workers will then commute to PoLA. If BFR experiences massive unforeseen difficulties, how difficult would it be to restart the F9 line at Hawthorne?

We're talking at least a year or two in the future, when they come to consider finally shutting the line.
If at that time S1 reuse is well proven, they could reasonably have several years leeway in S1 operations before having to revive, if things went wrong. Assuming there are not a large number of holdout customers with big orders post shutdown.

If S2 reuse works as well, this is even more true.
During this time, they'll have at least significant experience constructing BFS and an idea as to where it's going.

If BFS fails, there are likely to be 'bits' which may make more sense than reactivating the line.

Everything from launching a F9S2 sized methalox second stage from a BFS which can't do anything beyond low suborbital, to a massively overweight nonreusable S2 with a recoverable enginepod for BFR.

Assuming it's not simply rescoped down to a 50 ton payload.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2018 01:41 am by speedevil »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #84 on: 07/21/2018 02:18 am »
Yeah, and theoretically they could do thousands of launches (worth hundreds of billions in revenue) with just a few dozen F9 cores. With reusable upper stages, BFR is completely optional for the long-term health of the company... but they will push BFR hard.

wishful thinking...they will not come close to that with Block 5  if they are lucky they will get to 10 a core...but I bet they dont get much past 5

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #85 on: 07/21/2018 04:18 am »
Yeah, and theoretically they could do thousands of launches (worth hundreds of billions in revenue) with just a few dozen F9 cores. With reusable upper stages, BFR is completely optional for the long-term health of the company... but they will push BFR hard.

wishful thinking...they will not come close to that with Block 5  if they are lucky they will get to 10 a core...but I bet they dont get much past 5
I bet they'll get at least 7 on 1 core by 2024.

I don't think the capability to do a lot of flights is wishful thinking at all. They made a LOT of mods to make Block 5 more amenable to more launches, and further tweaks are possible. There really is no fundamental technical reason they couldn't hit 100 flights per core. What may be wishful thinking is the idea that there are thousands of launches they'll need to make. To demonstrate, say, 4000 flights in 20 years would require 200 flights per year. Not likely to happen at anywhere current prices.
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 TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #86 on: 07/21/2018 03:26 pm »
What may be wishful thinking is the idea that there are thousands of launches they'll need to make. To demonstrate, say, 4000 flights in 20 years would require 200 flights per year. Not likely to happen at anywhere current prices.

If a reusable S2 and the ability to do 100 flights per booster brought the price of a single launch down to $6M as some have suggested, you might have a huge surge of demand. So much so that cluttered a LEO becomes even more of a problem. Regulatory agencies might even wind up denying launch permits simply because a payload is too unworthy in comparison to others.

In any case, I think that old claim of flying boosters back to the launch site following a drone ship landing was just hyperbole not only because of launch complexities, but because you are shortening the life span of a booster with a non-paying and unnecessary flight. I think they'll want to get as many safe launches as possible out of each booster and flying back from a drone ship infringes on that number.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #87 on: 07/21/2018 10:28 pm »
If a reusable S2 and the ability to do 100 flights per booster brought the price of a single launch down to $6M as some have suggested, you might have a huge surge of demand. So much so that cluttered a LEO becomes even more of a problem. Regulatory agencies might even wind up denying launch permits simply because a payload is too unworthy in comparison to
A working reuse at $6M per, even of only 15 tons, with passengers on Dragon 2, would allow for very significant price reduction in space tourism - especially considering what could be launched on even one FH with a modestly higher cost.

This would of course be a distraction from an on-schedule BFR, but could make sense in growing experience if they intended to offer services based around BFR in this realm.
No debris concern with passengers.
(unless you do it very wrong).

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 434
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #88 on: 07/23/2018 08:08 am »
Yeah, Gwynne has done a very good job, here. SpaceX can continue just on its Falcon 9 dominance (solidified by FH, Block 5, and possibly upper stage reuse). BFR isn’t a “bet the company” thing.
Yeah, Elon talked about "cannibalizing" the company.... It is not about factory floor. It is about financing the BFR development from Falcon/Dragon revenue without spending much more on that systems. This was the stated novelty of the of the IAC17 lecture.

If F9B5 works, as advertised, with heavily reused first stages and fairings, they will have pretty large positive cash flow. Lowering prices would not increase demand instantly, so they will keep the price level while possible. Assume 30 launches per year (will not find much more demand) and 40 million profit per launch. This is 1.2 billion yearly for a few years - until Bezos, or the Chinese, arrive. This money is to develop BFR. Instead of paying people developing and building the Falcons, pay the (mostly same) people to create BFR. Cannibalize the company.

If BFR development is successful, then the competitors will not achieve much by developing reusable first stage themselves - SX will be years ahead. If BFR is a failure, or delayed too much, then F9B5-like systems by others will arrive and take away a large part of the revenue stream. The new systems will have advantages and SX, which will have spent all of its money on the defunct system, will hard time even to survive the competition.

Starlink is an extra dimension to the problem. It was not mentioned in the "cannibalism" talk. Starlink requires huge amount of money from external investors. If that money arrives, it will be a huge demand for Falcon launches initially, and for BFR launches later. Then, financing BFR will not be a problem. If Starlink investment takes place but will not become profitable by any reason (remember Iridium), it is bankruptcy.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #89 on: 07/23/2018 09:02 am »
Elon talked about "cannibalizing" the company...


Musk is also prone to hyperbole and sometimes does not choose the most accurate terms. I would not place too much emphasis on one particular word.

BO is developing a reusable first stage for New Glenn. Musk is already looking at recovering F9 S2. We really do not know anything about New Armstrong architecture. ULA's plan for Vulcan engine recovery and ACES is too little too late. Even if BO did catch up with F9 and if BFR did not work out, SpaceX will learn enough from their R&D to have the ability to build something more efficient than F9 and stay ahead of BO for quite some time. I wouldn't plan on writing an obituary any time soon. My only concern is that Elon be more careful what he tweets when he is too tired.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2018 07:00 pm by TomH »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #90 on: 07/24/2018 01:34 pm »
If they got the cost down to $6M, that would be a major benefit to Starlink launches which would be at internal cost, but the price for customers ought to stay at least 5X-10X that high, otherwise they’re just leaving money on the table. When you’re already the lowest cost provider by a solid margin it’s not useful to keep cutting prices rather than growing profit margins. SpaceX still can offer special discounts to anyone who they think is a prospect for significantly growing the market without slashing official prices.

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: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #91 on: 07/24/2018 07:35 pm »
If they got the cost down to $6M, that would be a major benefit to Starlink launches which would be at internal cost, but the price for customers ought to stay at least 5X-10X that high, otherwise they’re just leaving money on the table. When you’re already the lowest cost provider by a solid margin it’s not useful to keep cutting prices rather than growing profit margins. SpaceX still can offer special discounts to anyone who they think is a prospect for significantly growing the market without slashing official prices.
Nod. But for some contracts they can't bid higher than a certain profit margin, I think? Government contracts? or is that only bidding below cost?
"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 TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #92 on: 07/24/2018 09:05 pm »
But for some contracts they can't bid higher than a certain profit margin, I think? Government contracts? or is that only bidding below cost?

Good questions. That makes me wonder, however, if cost can be defined as including amortization of all the R&D that went into developing reusable LVs. There would be a significant difference between cost which does include that and cost which doesn't. To be profitable, you do need to recover investments already sunk into R&D.

Then you have the issue as to whether that profit is a flat amount or is a percentage of the cost. If it is only a percentage, say 25%, and your cost not including R&D is only $6m, then the profit is only $1.5m. If ULA launches the same payload on an Atlas 5 at a cost of $280m, their profit is then $70m. By these standards, innovation and efficiency become self-defeating objectives.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2018 09:13 pm by TomH »

Offline cebri

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Spain
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #93 on: 07/25/2018 03:09 pm »
Yeah, Gwynne has done a very good job, here. SpaceX can continue just on its Falcon 9 dominance (solidified by FH, Block 5, and possibly upper stage reuse). BFR isn’t a “bet the company” thing.

Starlink is an extra dimension to the problem. It was not mentioned in the "cannibalism" talk. Starlink requires huge amount of money from external investors. If that money arrives, it will be a huge demand for Falcon launches initially, and for BFR launches later. Then, financing BFR will not be a problem. If Starlink investment takes place but will not become profitable by any reason (remember Iridium), it is bankruptcy.

I really wonder if Starlink is going to be a SpaceX subdivision or a different whole company instead. SpaceX could spinoff Starlink to avoid it becoming an existencial risk for SpaceX. There are methods to isolate the risk if the thing doesn't work.
"It's kind of amazing that a window of opportunity is open for life to beyond Earth, and we don't know how long this window is gonna be open" Elon Musk
"If you want to see an endangered species, get up and look in the mirror." John Young

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #94 on: 07/27/2018 06:01 am »
https://mobile.twitter.com/larsblackmore/status/1022257359278682113

Quote
Seems like a good time to start working on landing BFR
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 speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #95 on: 07/27/2018 11:05 am »
https://mobile.twitter.com/larsblackmore/status/1022257359278682113

Quote
Seems like a good time to start working on landing BFR

If the twitter comment of '5km above datum' is correct, in the normal landing profile as outlined at IAC2017, it would impact at around 2km/s.
The trajectory may be modifiable, but it seems likely it's going to use some more propellant.
The trajectory normally dips to 5km or so, then uses high angle of attack to scrub off horizontal speed for height, shooting up to 10km, before landing.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #96 on: 07/27/2018 11:35 am »
BFS is capable of landing on the Moon. So it’s capable of landing on Mars even at high altitude if you use a slow transit (or possibly refuel... in LMO).
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 speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #97 on: 07/27/2018 01:49 pm »
BFS is capable of landing on the Moon. So it’s capable of landing on Mars even at high altitude if you use a slow transit (or possibly refuel... in LMO).
Sure.

As a most obvious case, getting two BFS ready for a similar mars injection, stopping halfway through the first burn and retanking one and having one burn for earth gives you well over a hundred tons of fuel extra at Mars, which is plenty to land anywhere on the surface without relying on any lift at below 1000m/s or so.

It does double your launch cost, but that may not be a big issue.
Does it actually make ISRU more doable is perhaps a more relevant question.

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
  • UK
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 1931
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #98 on: 07/27/2018 02:31 pm »

I think Blackmore is just having a laugh.  The lake is 1.5km below the surface. It not suitable for ISRU and local science is going to be years down the line from the first human mission.


Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #99 on: 07/27/2018 04:04 pm »
Ice Cube 'drilled' to 2.4km using a relatively basic hybrid hot-water drill: circulate hot fluid through the 'cutting' head, return to top for heat recovery and reheat, pump out sufficient melt to form permanent well diameter. Once you're through to ice (broken through any rock top cover) a heat source is all you need to sink as deep a rodwell as you want (you could use an RTG on a rope in a pinch). Whether it makes sense to drill to a brine lake over melting surface ice depends on the energy requirements of melting the required X tons of ice to water vs. the energy required to filter the brine to a processible quality. The larger the volume of water required, the more likely the energy cost of the initial rodwell 'drilling' is amortised over enough recovered tons for it to come out ahead. Power source is also important: solar means restriction to lower latitudes or placement of significant structure for efficient capture, while nuclear removes that restriction and provides 'free' thermal power for melting operations.

Tags:
 

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