Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7  (Read 225745 times)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #320 on: 07/13/2018 04:21 pm »
That's still a little unclear. If BFS can reach orbit on it's own, it would either have to be using vacuum engines at sea level, low level engines in vacuum or have some sort of third type of compromise engine, right?

There are a number of plausible modifications that would let it reach orbit, and in some cases carry a nominal payload.
As outlined in this thread.

As one example, if all the engines have the same bolt pattern, then bolting on four low ratio engines in place of the vacuum bells pretty much works.
We don't have enough info - IAC in October with luck.

1) My emphasis:  Don't forget the tin snips  ;)
2) This is straying from Boca Chica into technical discussions of the BFS, which we know will fly from there. 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #321 on: 07/13/2018 04:37 pm »

 This is straying from Boca Chica into technical discussions of the BFS, which we know will fly from there. 
Not to me. I came here to see stuff go into space, not a giant grasshopper. We already have those here.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline kevindbaker2863

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Columbus, Ohio
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #322 on: 07/13/2018 05:25 pm »
I expect that they are going to keep it high so that when the permanent site is ready they can just load it up on a trailer to move it.  if you see any piping or connections being made to it that would be news.  also keep lookout for place that is between solar farm and the beach for slight elevation ground work or lots of concrete pads spaced apart same distance you see the blue mounts for the tank are now.  that will probably be the permanent location of the tank farm.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #323 on: 07/13/2018 06:25 pm »
 They're setting the tank on beams. The towers were just to use straps to lift the tank off the trailer and set it on the beams. They'll probably be gone by the end of the day. Probably the same way they'll install them at the pad when they're ready.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2018 06:42 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #324 on: 07/13/2018 06:33 pm »
My guesstimate is two, maybe three more tanks could be stored there until permanent installation by the 'mound'.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #325 on: 07/13/2018 07:24 pm »

Specifically here:
Quote
Will be starting with a full-scale Ship doing short hops of a few hundred kilometers altitude and lateral distance. Those are fairly easy on the vehicle, as no heat shield is needed, we can have a large amount of reserve propellant and don't need the high area ratio, deep space Raptor engines.

Next step will be doing orbital velocity Ship flights, which will need all of the above. Worth noting that BFS is capable of reaching orbit by itself with low payload, but having the BF Booster increases payload by more than an order of magnitude. Earth is the wrong planet for single stage to orbit. No problemo on Mars.
That's still a little unclear. If BFS can reach orbit on it's own, it would either have to be using vacuum engines at sea level, low level engines in vacuum or have some sort of third type of compromise engine, right?

In other threads I speculated that they'd start hop tests with just the 2 or 3 SL engines.  Then add engines by substituting a couple Rvacs with sea level raptors, and  absorbing the hit on performance.  Eventually sub-orbital (and return of course) with say 5 sea level engines for takeoff and maybe 2 Rvacs to test that different engine at altitude with less mass.

/boca site topic
« Last Edit: 07/14/2018 12:45 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #326 on: 07/13/2018 08:15 pm »
Sealevel versus vacuum nozzles - I have a question. As I recall, the SSME nozzles were optimized for 60,000 feet altitude. The question is, "What are the trades that went into choosing that altitude for the shuttle engines?" And would there be any benefit to the BFS as an SSTO in doing similar trades?

Mods: This post should go to another thread, perhaps the Raptor thread?

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #327 on: 07/14/2018 02:53 am »
  Now we know what the STARGATE facility in Boca Chica is really for.

 "Just between us, I have a teleportation stargate to the Andromeda galaxy. It’s amazing."

 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1017328199825575936
« Last Edit: 07/14/2018 02:54 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Liked: 4097
  • Likes Given: 2770
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #328 on: 07/15/2018 06:24 am »
One more reason to pay for L2. With things picking up in Boca Chica, some items are going to start getting posted there. Not the way I would have chosen, but the potential for sensitive information getting out is growing, and bad people are already abusing some of the photos and information they see here.

I'd be happy to visit an L2 SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Update thread.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #329 on: 07/16/2018 12:03 am »

I'd be happy to visit an L2 SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Update thread.
It's going into "SpaceX Launch Pads and Facilities Master Thread - UPDATES" at the moment. Maybe when we start getting more than one new development every three months, or Chris starts saying  "What part of 'UPDATES' don't you understand you wrong side of the road driving, reality show host electing, cold beer drinking colonial?"  it will have it's own thread.

 An unnamed neighbor was worried about a storm rolling that tank around. Invoking the power of Google, I came up with about a 6 ton wind load at 60mph and 100 tons for the tank with a 20 foot wide base, so I think we're OK. It should take about 150mph to tip it over, and in that case there won't be anything left for it to crush anyway.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2018 12:38 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline SPITexas

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #330 on: 07/16/2018 11:48 pm »
The facility is a key part of SpaceX’s future plans. While the company currently leases three launch facilities from the United States government, the privately-owned Boca Chica spaceport would mean the company would have full control over its launch plans. At the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas, in March, Musk suggested that an orbital launch of the BFR could come as soon as 2020.

https://www.inverse.com/amp/article/47072-spacex-elon-musk-s-bfr-may-be-positioned-to-begin-hop-tests-by-2019

That was the reason this site is being built after all isn’t it?

Offline Beittil

Primary plan was actually to launch Falcon 9's and Heavies from BC, with a possibility of later upgrading to BFR. But with 3 active pads and the ability for quicker and quicker turnarounds it seems that the manifest can go pretty smoothly which led to SpaceX apparently dedicating BC to the BFR effort.

Offline BadgerLegs

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • North Carolina Sandhills
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #332 on: 07/17/2018 02:46 pm »
Primary plan was actually to launch Falcon 9's and Heavies from BC, with a possibility of later upgrading to BFR. But with 3 active pads and the ability for quicker and quicker turnarounds it seems that the manifest can go pretty smoothly which led to SpaceX apparently dedicating BC to the BFR effort.

This is conjecture, but I do not believe you are looking at it from the right angle.  The reason that BC is perfect is not because it's going so well elsewhere that they can afford to not use BC, it is because it is going so well at their other three current pads and they do not want to disrupt that.  Falcon Heavy could not be prepped for efficiently while SLC-40 was out of commission. Prepping for BFR at 39A would mean taking commercial crew offline, FH offline, and also making the backup pad for SLC-40 offline.  Much more sensible to use Boca Chica beach.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #333 on: 07/17/2018 02:49 pm »
Primary plan was actually to launch Falcon 9's and Heavies from BC, with a possibility of later upgrading to BFR. But with 3 active pads and the ability for quicker and quicker turnarounds it seems that the manifest can go pretty smoothly which led to SpaceX apparently dedicating BC to the BFR effort.

This is conjecture, but I do not believe you are looking at it from the right angle.  The reason that BC is perfect is not because it's going so well elsewhere that they can afford to not use BC, it is because it is going so well at their other three current pads and they do not want to disrupt that.  Falcon Heavy could not be prepped for efficiently while SLC-40 was out of commission. Prepping for BFR at 39A would mean taking commercial crew offline, FH offline, and also making the backup pad for SLC-40 offline.  Much more sensible to use Boca Chica beach.

Clearly they have a plan and license to support a level of activity.  I have been wondering about the safety zone required for something as large as a BFS fully fueled and hopping up and down and flying around.

That's a lot of potential energy flying around.

Do they have the necessary FAA approval to run BC as a test facility?
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • UK
  • Liked: 854
  • Likes Given: 1928
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #334 on: 07/17/2018 03:26 pm »
Do they have the necessary FAA approval to run BC as a test facility?

I don't think we've seen any paperwork to that effect if it is in place.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #335 on: 07/17/2018 07:48 pm »
I have been wondering about the safety zone required for something as large as a BFS fully fueled and hopping up and down and flying around.

That's a lot of potential energy flying around.

Do they have the necessary FAA approval to run BC as a test facility?

This is unclear.

The current EIS allows sub-orbital tests of launch vehicles that are "smaller than Falcon 9".

Remember, when the EIS was originally written in early 2013, they were still doing Grasshopper tests. SpaceX hadn't yet even attempted to land a first stage on a barge at that time.  So they figured they may need Grasshopper tests from Boca Chica.  The EIS mentions Grasshopper as a specific example of a sub-orbital test vehicle.

Fast forward to today: Some folks on this thread have pointed out that BFS could be considered "smaller than Falcon 9".  Positioned vertically, BFS is not as tall as Falcon 9.  Also, the BFS delta wingspan is narrower than the Falcon 9 with it's landing legs fully extended, like Grasshopper.

So BFS suborbital test flights may be covered under the current EIS, subject the FAA's interpretation of whether BFS is "smaller than Falcon 9" or not.

The current EIS also mentions  a maximum propellant load of approximately 6,900 gallons, but its not clear if this is a hard restriction, or just one example of a suborbital test vehicle. In any case, for suborbital tests, I doubt BFS would be fully fueled. I'm guessing it would only need a small fraction of the full propellant load. Carbon fiber is light, and there would be little or no payload weight.

« Last Edit: 07/17/2018 08:23 pm by Dave G »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60418
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #336 on: 07/17/2018 08:55 pm »
 Part of the EIS would be potential for contamination if something went wrong. That's going to be a different issue with methane instead of kerosene.
 It could go with a full fuel load eventually. Launch to the east, turn the camera around and watch it come back from the west. Just land 50 feet shy of the launch point and you can still call it a suborbital test. (In a relative way at least)
« Last Edit: 07/17/2018 08:56 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Liked: 2503
  • Likes Given: 2204
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #337 on: 07/18/2018 01:18 am »
Part of the EIS would be potential for contamination if something went wrong. That's going to be a different issue with methane instead of kerosene.
 It could go with a full fuel load eventually. Launch to the east, turn the camera around and watch it come back from the west. Just land 50 feet shy of the launch point and you can still call it a suborbital test. (In a relative way at least)

Hilarious, but the over flight issues for the landing will require some permissions.

Matthew

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #338 on: 07/19/2018 10:15 am »
For BFS test hops, could they use one of their landing zones in Florida?

If the FAA says BFS test hops aren't covered covered under the current EIS for Texas, it may be easier to get the required permissions in Florida.

Online 2megs

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 7
« Reply #339 on: 07/19/2018 11:40 am »
For BFS test hops, could they use one of their landing zones in Florida?

Very unlikely. If you learn something the hard way while testing, the impact point of your ballistic trajectory is in the middle of Disneyworld.

When everything is thoroughly tested, and they're doing regular P2P flights full of passengers, maybe overflight of population centers will be as uninteresting as it is with airplanes. But initial test hops aren't going near anywhere with people.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2018 12:02 pm by 2megs »

Tags:
 

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