Author Topic: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started  (Read 106315 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37120
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20783
  • Likes Given: 413
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #340 on: 08/06/2018 09:44 pm »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #341 on: 08/06/2018 09:47 pm »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37120
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20783
  • Likes Given: 413
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #342 on: 08/06/2018 09:48 pm »

Quote from: USA Today
Would you pay $1,599 to use a beach cabana for a day? Royal Caribbean is betting that at least a few people will.

The line has released a price list for its soon-to-be-revamped private island in The Bahamas, CocoCay, that shows new over-water cabanas will cost up to $1,599 in peak season.


People pay more for cabanas at land locked resorts. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37120
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20783
  • Likes Given: 413
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #343 on: 08/06/2018 09:50 pm »
Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

wrong again.

The suits saved many SR-71 crew members

And an Army Ranger is not a valid expert on this.

The shuttle bailout was not high speed.  It was only when the vehicle was in a glide and ditching or off runway landing
« Last Edit: 08/06/2018 09:51 pm by Jim »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8668
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9991
  • Likes Given: 11742
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #344 on: 08/06/2018 10:03 pm »
Cruise lines charge more for trips to interesting destinations.

Those "destinations" are really just stopping points, but otherwise you are on a programed cruise that is out for a set amount of time. Plus, cruise lines have been around for over 170 years, so they are a fairly mature industry. Which means it's unlikely that space transportation companies will transition immediately to the cruise ship model, since they won't have any idea what the actual demand is for such non-transportation services.

Quote
For this reason much effort and investment goes into creation of the most interesting destinations.  So, at a LEO resort, what would be the most interesting things?  And how might you deliver them to LEO, efficiently?  Open questions.

Today it's pretty darn expensive just to keep 6 professional astronauts in space, so I'd say we really have no clue what it would take to keep lots of tourists alive and happy in space. It will likely take decades before we are ready for LEO tourism.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2761
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #345 on: 08/06/2018 10:10 pm »
Today it's pretty darn expensive just to keep 6 professional astronauts in space, so I'd say we really have no clue what it would take to keep lots of tourists alive and happy in space. It will likely take decades before we are ready for LEO tourism.

Alive is a pretty easy metric.
Happy and willing to purchase new tickets is not.

If we are talking of inexpensive launch, for a three day trip, for example, wholly open-loop ECLSS will only double the launch mass of the passenger. Only scrubbing CO2 with one-use scrubbers gets you more than a week for the same mass.

With a sufficiently generous mass allowance, pressurised hotel room with small bubble windows is easy to design.
Something with actual activities in space is going to take a lot of thought.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #346 on: 08/06/2018 10:26 pm »
Marsliner Package

If we are talking of inexpensive launch, for a three day trip, for example, wholly open-loop ECLSS will only double the launch mass of the passenger. Only scrubbing CO2 with one-use scrubbers gets you more than a week for the same mass.

With a sufficiently generous mass allowance, pressurised hotel room with small bubble windows is easy to design.
Something with actual activities in space is going to take a lot of thought.

We have time, let's think creatively.   :)

Quote from: USA Today
Would you pay $1,599 to use a beach cabana for a day? Royal Caribbean is betting that at least a few people will.

The line has released a price list for its soon-to-be-revamped private island in The Bahamas, CocoCay, that shows new over-water cabanas will cost up to $1,599 in peak season.



How to increase the LEO destination value, and ticket price?  A further thought comes to mind:

Previously I'd considered a low-investment SpaceX first tourist station featuring:

Quote
- Mars gravity
- Mars Environmental Test Facility, (2), with real Mars rock and Mars base hw
- Fine dining, stylish quarters, etc.

The working assumption was that the LEO resort replicated hw from the first Mars expedition.  For that expedition I'd envisioned an ITS pair, ITS-1 (crewed) and ITS-2 (uncrewed lifeboat), returning together from Mars in late 2025.  That configuration still seems plausible, considering the mission's particular need for extra delta-v, lifeboat and artificial gravity.  Replica resort hw would honor those trailblazers.

But.

While ITS-1 would likely find a home in a museum, ITS-2 would not be so famous. It would be known only as an uncrewed lifeboat, its interior practically empty, a ship lacking any personal stories of historic interest.

What if?

"No."

"Conceivably."

Tourism within the actual returned ITS-2 spaceship itself:  two nights and three days, let's say, inside real and recent history, experiencing all the martian novelties one might imagine possible.

Q:  Virgin Galactic charges $250k for a quick suborbital flight, only.  What might the notional Marsliner 3-day package sell for, aboard ITS-2?

« Last Edit: 08/06/2018 11:34 pm by LMT »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
  • Liked: 6780
  • Likes Given: 2956
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #347 on: 08/07/2018 12:21 am »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

The Shuttle suits and other systems were not intended to provide 100% coverage against all possible contingencies. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have saved the crew in certain situations.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 13498
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #348 on: 08/07/2018 05:44 am »
Marsliner Package


We have time, let's think creatively.   :)
Just an obvious thought.

Isn't cheapish launch to LEO exactly what Bigelow needs to move the whole "space hotel" concept past the tipping point?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #349 on: 08/07/2018 06:10 am »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

The Shuttle suits and other systems were not intended to provide 100% coverage against all possible contingencies. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have saved the crew in certain situations.

safety doesnt work that way. 

you cannot take precautions and have backups for everything, much less for scenarios that are so limited as to be absurd.

the pole has near zero chance of adding to the survivability of the crew.  it would have required so many unique things to happen to require an orbiter bailout AND have a stable orbiter to even be possible...and then the odds of very untrained people doing that high speed free jump are equally close to zero

the suits.  the only value that they added was a depress going up or down the hill, where the crew was essentially immobile in an attempt to plug the leak.  and in US spaceflight there has never been a history of that

what they were, in the safety business is called "frustration fixes"...ie you cannot seem to fix the real problem so you "shotgun" out a lot of fixes that look good on paper but are meaningless

the suits kept the Columbia astronauts alive about 2 seconds longer then they would have been without them and had the Challenger folks been wearing them all they would have had, was a longer time to know what was happening

thats not safety. 

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #350 on: 08/07/2018 06:16 am »
Marsliner Package


We have time, let's think creatively.   :)
Just an obvious thought.

Isn't cheapish launch to LEO exactly what Bigelow needs to move the whole "space hotel" concept past the tipping point?

yes.  Bigelow, Axiom and a few others are to me one of the pivot points of a "possible" space frontier

look at the "cubesat" folks... A LOT Of them are flying...most will fail, most will be one ofs, most will not do much...but how free enterprise works is that for every one "spark" there are lots and lots of failures...someone is going to find a cubesat idea that makes money and starts a new market

we need that in human spaceflight...we need a LOT of diversity in what humans do in space and what they try...and that is what ISS or any future "space place" should do. 

that is where you are going to find the next or first "success"

there is near zero chance that this "spark" will come from something that goes through the NASA swiss cheese of flight candidates

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #351 on: 08/07/2018 12:29 pm »
Marsliner Package


We have time, let's think creatively.   :)
Just an obvious thought.

Isn't cheapish launch to LEO exactly what Bigelow needs to move the whole "space hotel" concept past the tipping point?

yes.  Bigelow, Axiom and a few others are to me one of the pivot points of a "possible" space frontier

$55 million for 10 days.

And the Marsliner idea catches economic flak here.   ::)

A SpaceX Marsliner could plausibly offer far greater value for the money, vis-a-vis Axiom or Bigelow systems.  Beyond the novelties listed, simply not being ill is a tremendous value-add, especially on short LEO trips.  (Mars g)

No guesses at fair price for that 3-day Marsliner package? 

--

Also, schedule:

ITS-2 wouldn't be available for the top-dollar historic tour until circa 2028, notionally.  But on the same schedule, other ITS craft might be allocated for Marsliner tourism as early as 2023.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2018 06:28 pm by LMT »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #352 on: 08/07/2018 12:54 pm »
Marsliner Package


We have time, let's think creatively.   :)
Just an obvious thought.

Isn't cheapish launch to LEO exactly what Bigelow needs to move the whole "space hotel" concept past the tipping point?

yes.  Bigelow, Axiom and a few others are to me one of the pivot points of a "possible" space frontier

$55 million for 10 days.

And the Marsliner idea catches economic flak here.   ::)

A SpaceX Marsliner could plausibly offer far greater value for the money, vis-a-vis Axios or Bigelow systems.  Beyond the novelties listed, simply not being ill is a tremendous value-add, especially on short LEO trips.  (Mars g)

No guesses at fair price for that 3-day Marsliner package? 

--

Also, schedule:

ITS-2 wouldn't be available for the top-dollar historic tour until circa 2028, notionally.  But on the same schedule, other ITS craft might be allocated for Marsliner tourism as early as 2023.

I am dubious of the 55 million but...if it were "me" it would be possible

the key to turning the frontier forts into "tows" was that the US Army purposely overpaid for the supplies to the various forts delivered by private suppliers  and mostly made sure that there was some "excess" capability in the suppliers that was not used

the same was true of the airmail subsidy

If I were "king" the US government would contract for two or three crew changeout at a rate, that pays for the entire launch...and then allow the private contractors to "fill the seats" that remain with the folks who would go up for those "interval periods" ie between the go up and come down...

and that would make that money "possible"

now in my world...if say company A has an additional module on the station and wants to keep Long term folks on board there would be some charge for the "utilities" but some if not all of that could be paid off by "barter"

so for instance all of these additional modules are going to  have their own power...these will be "NEW" modern solar arrays that should help the power issue on the station as the older arrays decline...and might have better O2 purification systems etc.

in other words I would "tilt the scale" so that a low price for guest, particularly guest that are doing some science or engineering or something productive (not really space tourist) would be possible...

Likewise if Musk does fly a BFR that is "something" like the great vids...I would shift space policy and funds to that...along the same exact line

its the frontier doctrine

its how one jump starts this
« Last Edit: 08/07/2018 12:55 pm by TripleSeven »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
  • Liked: 6780
  • Likes Given: 2956
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #353 on: 08/07/2018 01:35 pm »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

The Shuttle suits and other systems were not intended to provide 100% coverage against all possible contingencies. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have saved the crew in certain situations.

safety doesnt work that way. 

you cannot take precautions and have backups for everything, much less for scenarios that are so limited as to be absurd.

the pole has near zero chance of adding to the survivability of the crew.  it would have required so many unique things to happen to require an orbiter bailout AND have a stable orbiter to even be possible...and then the odds of very untrained people doing that high speed free jump are equally close to zero

the suits.  the only value that they added was a depress going up or down the hill, where the crew was essentially immobile in an attempt to plug the leak.  and in US spaceflight there has never been a history of that

what they were, in the safety business is called "frustration fixes"...ie you cannot seem to fix the real problem so you "shotgun" out a lot of fixes that look good on paper but are meaningless

the suits kept the Columbia astronauts alive about 2 seconds longer then they would have been without them and had the Challenger folks been wearing them all they would have had, was a longer time to know what was happening

thats not safety.

The suits would have kept Georgy Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, and Vladislav Volkov alive. The shuttle had many problems, all of which were "real problems", and some of which couldn't be fixed. That doesn't make addressing some of the contingencies as possible a bad idea.

Even a launch escape system doesn't help against all failures. It's useless, for example, in a cabin fire.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #354 on: 08/07/2018 01:40 pm »
  the shuttle did not have one, all the efforts made toward one, the space suits, the escape slide etc were in name only just useless.


not true

Wrong...they never added any real survival capability as the Army ranger who did the "slide pole" escape noted when asked if a person with no real training in high speed jumps would survive this, his statement was "two chances slim and none"

the suits never saved anyone. 

have a great evening Jim...you are smart guy just wrong on this

good night

The Shuttle suits and other systems were not intended to provide 100% coverage against all possible contingencies. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have saved the crew in certain situations.

safety doesnt work that way. 

you cannot take precautions and have backups for everything, much less for scenarios that are so limited as to be absurd.

the pole has near zero chance of adding to the survivability of the crew.  it would have required so many unique things to happen to require an orbiter bailout AND have a stable orbiter to even be possible...and then the odds of very untrained people doing that high speed free jump are equally close to zero

the suits.  the only value that they added was a depress going up or down the hill, where the crew was essentially immobile in an attempt to plug the leak.  and in US spaceflight there has never been a history of that

what they were, in the safety business is called "frustration fixes"...ie you cannot seem to fix the real problem so you "shotgun" out a lot of fixes that look good on paper but are meaningless

the suits kept the Columbia astronauts alive about 2 seconds longer then they would have been without them and had the Challenger folks been wearing them all they would have had, was a longer time to know what was happening

thats not safety.

The suits would have kept Georgy Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, and Vladislav Volkov alive. The shuttle had many problems, all of which were "real problems", and some of which couldn't be fixed. That doesn't make addressing some of the contingencies as possible a bad idea.

Even a launch escape system doesn't help against all failures. It's useless, for example, in a cabin fire.

I really dont care about Russian experience.  their main issues are not design but quality control and that is their main safety factor

there is no shuttle mission nor really any mission that the suits were essential in survival...that alone makes it a really ridiculous idea from a safety standpoint, but since they are not worn all the time; it is even more absurd

the FAA will in the next 3 years get rid of O2 requirements on commercial airliners for the passengers...they are like the suits. useless

actually with the launch success of both the Atlas and the 9...the LAS is really just something to make everyone feel good

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38916
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 24729
  • Likes Given: 12003
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #355 on: 08/07/2018 02:05 pm »
Yeah.

“I don’t care about Russian experience” = “I lost the argument.”

There’s not enough spaceflight history to think we can restrict our experience to ONLY the US when it comes to safety.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2018 02:08 pm 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 JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 1711
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #356 on: 08/07/2018 03:28 pm »
I think people are really talking about the Fhloston Paradise hotel.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 13498
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #357 on: 08/07/2018 09:58 pm »
There’s not enough spaceflight history to think we can restrict our experience to ONLY the US when it comes to safety.
That is a fair point.

The Russians have probably launched more people more often into orbit than anyone.

The Russian LES  has save lives.

OTOH it's very doubtful anything like it would be possible for something the size of BFR, just as ejector seats were only viable on Shuttle when it was only pilot and co pilot, since the rest of the crew were "below decks" (something like the situation with the British "V" bombers, which expected most of the crew (who were more expensive to train than the pilot or co-pilot) to just bail out. In fact flight accidents killed most of these people, where ejector seats would have probably saved them.

But on a vehicle carrying 100? You need a whole different philosophy of safety, more airline, less ELV.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #358 on: 08/07/2018 10:17 pm »
Low g vs. Partial g Tourism

For this reason much effort and investment goes into creation of the most interesting destinations.  So, at a LEO resort, what would be the most interesting things?  And how might you deliver them to LEO, efficiently?  Open questions.

Today it's pretty darn expensive just to keep 6 professional astronauts in space, so I'd say we really have no clue what it would take to keep lots of tourists alive and happy in space. It will likely take decades before we are ready for LEO tourism.

You're confusing low g tourism with tourism under partial g, such as Mars g.  It's an important distinction to keep in mind, as conditions for tourists will differ under the two regimes.

If SpaceX runs artificial gravity experiments prior to its notional 2024 Mars launch, as seems necessary, the requirements for comfort under partial g will be known circa 2023.  Marsliner spin-rigging for partial g comfort could commence immediately thereafter, if ships are available.  So don't confuse matters by lamenting low g problems where they're n/a.

If you'd like to explore the problems Axios and Bigelow might encounter in developing low g LEO tourism, well, by all means.  But keep the distinction in mind.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2018 10:50 pm by LMT »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5119
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2559
  • Likes Given: 2822
Re: How BFR Earth-to-Earth Might Actually Get Started
« Reply #359 on: 08/08/2018 01:54 pm »
Check out the other thread on "The Air Force's Air Mobility Command" for use of BFS as delivery for the military.  If they are looking into it, and if the cargo version gets built first, the Air Force is going to be very interested.  This is why I say military use for fast delivery of military cargo and supplies to friendly bases, or for fast delivery of supplies to areas hit by natural disasters would probably be done first.  A small on board nuclear power plant can provide enough electricity to manufacture methane and lox for at least a short hop to LEO.  Then a tanker can dock to give it the additional fuel needed for landing back at base in the US or a friendly base that has boosters and supplies. 

Shotwell said they want to be able to launch 12 BFR's in one day, so it looks like a two hour load, fuel and launch is possible in that future planning.  This is much faster than a 12-14 hour flight for cargo planes, not counting the return flight.  All the military needs is a secure friendly base with equipment to refuel, since unloaded the BFR is supposed to be a SSTO.  Again, from there a tanker can refuel it for return landing.  A secure base could be a ship offshore from a military zone or natural disaster.  Helicopters can take supplies from there. 

Tags:
 

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