Obviously a discussion/speculation thread.By BFR, I mean the booster. BFS may launch by itself, but the payload capability won't be meaningful.Your thoughts?
So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
The tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year, so in about six to nine months we should start building the first ship.
I will also add -- in what configuration will BFR first launch? Will the first, and all, launches occur with a BFS attached? Or will BFR launch first with a nosecap, simply to test a downrange droneship landing, or an RTLS landing?
Components may be tested in multiple places, but operationally it will fly from 39A first. Too much infrastructure already in place there to ignore.
Wouldn't 39B be on the table? If not, is Methane the dealbreaker?
Basically Elon said it would be built in their Hawthorne facility. A very short time later Gwynne Shotwell said it will be built near a port for transport reason. My best guess, they are both right. The ordered tooling will be installed in a newly rented space in Hawthorne to build the first few prototypes, accepting the high transport cost and taking full advantage of the local workforce colocation. Starting directly with the new seaside facility would delay work by a year or more. I don't think Elon is willing to accept that.Production will be moved out to the new facility once it becomes available which will take some time. By then the most engineering intensive part of propulsion development will be done. Production will suffer less from distance.
BFR and BFS build in LA probably in new facilities but a lot of development work in Hawthorn.
Basically Elon said it would be built in their Hawthorne facility. A very short time later Gwynne Shotwell said it will be built near a port for transport reason.
that's what I think too. Alot of sub assemblies could also be built in hawthorn and easily move to the integration facility, think raptors and BFS cabins.
I see everything except the airframe and the google-web engine assembly built in Hawthorne.
The first few test vehicles will be made in Hawthorne and they'll just deal with the transportation issues.
It will launch first from 39A, IMO.
, Falcon Heavy is actually already over the legal sound limit in Boca Chica Village by 2dB, >
Quote from: Dave G on 11/14/2017 02:05 am, Falcon Heavy is actually already over the legal sound limit in Boca Chica Village by 2dB, >Irrelevant if they acquire all the properties at Boca Chica Village, either through purchase or if the local or state government utilize eminent domain.
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/14/2017 02:44 amQuote from: Dave G on 11/14/2017 02:05 am, Falcon Heavy is actually already over the legal sound limit in Boca Chica Village by 2dB, >Irrelevant if they acquire all the properties at Boca Chica Village, either through purchase or if the local or state government utilize eminent domain.In Texas, it's illegal to use eminent domain to benefit a private company.
Quote from: Dave G on 11/16/2017 05:10 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 11/14/2017 02:44 amQuote from: Dave G on 11/14/2017 02:05 am, Falcon Heavy is actually already over the legal sound limit in Boca Chica Village by 2dB, >Irrelevant if they acquire all the properties at Boca Chica Village, either through purchase or if the local or state government utilize eminent domain.In Texas, it's illegal to use eminent domain to benefit a private company.There are plenty of ways around that.
3. THE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY TAKE YOUR LAND FOR A PUBLIC USE. Although, the government or some other entity attempting to take your land may be powerful, anytime the government attempts to acquire land for any reason other than a legitimate public use, the landowner can stop the government from taking the land.
Create a public spaceport.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 11/16/2017 09:32 pmCreate a public spaceport.Yes, that could happen, but it would probably require proven BFR passenger capability before they would consider it.Also, there's still the issue of Boca Chica Beach, which can only be closed 12 times a year, and never on summer weekends. They may get permission to close it a little more, but not a lot. In other words, the Boca Chica Beach launch site is not well suited to a public spaceport.Gwynne heavily implied BFR will launch from Boca Chica, so I think that will happen. I just think it will happen from Florida first.
I would like to pose the question of what is the best way to transport the BFR and BFS. I think everyone has been assuming a large barge. I have been wondering if a large catamaran would be better.
It would be self propelled, so no tugs needed.
I'm not sure the cost of creating such a spec. vessel would offset the cost of using tugs. Part of the overall tradeoffs to consider.
From what I gather, there is quite a long sequence of events that has to happen at the launch/landing site in the ~8 minutes between launch and booster landing.
Quote from: mikelepage on 11/26/2017 03:40 amFrom what I gather, there is quite a long sequence of events that has to happen at the launch/landing site in the ~8 minutes between launch and booster landing.Which events do you mean? I was under the impression that the launch mount just sits there and waits for the BFR to return. What is there to do on the ground between launch and landing?
My interpretation of Elon's statement: SpaceX will start an aggressive production schedule of Falcon upper stages, with the aim of having a couple hundred in stock sometime next year. They'll also build up a stock of Dragon trunks. Add a few dozen Falcon Block 5 boosters, plus a dozen Crew Dragons, and that stock should be enough to fly hundreds of missions over the next 7 years.If all that works out, SpaceX could be done building Falcon 9 and Dragon by this time next year. At that point, all of SpaceX's resources will turn towards building BFR.
...when BFR may come out considerably earlier than 2024.
And even though language has considerably softened on S2 reusability, they haven't said flat out they're not working at all on it - if it's gotten to work, you may end up with a hundred useless S2s.
The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy. However, we do want to bring it back slowly. Currently, it reenters but too hot. On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse.
This seems unlikely.The rate of production for F9S2 and D2 is an order of magnitude slower at the moment than would be required to do that over one year.It also puts a massive workforce into building S2s...There is a risk in trying to rush a massive pre-prepared stock of equipment, at least initially this strategy would require probably more investment than continuing on at the existing pace and moving most of the people working on the first stage over.
"So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station."
Fairings have been recovered. We expect recovery will be good enough to start regularly reusing them in the first six months of next year.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/16/2017 03:22 pmThis seems unlikely.The rate of production for F9S2 and D2 is an order of magnitude slower at the moment than would be required to do that over one year.It also puts a massive workforce into building S2s...There is a risk in trying to rush a massive pre-prepared stock of equipment, at least initially this strategy would require probably more investment than continuing on at the existing pace and moving most of the people working on the first stage over.What you say makes sense, but it doesn't seem to agree with what Elon said in September.Spacifically, Elon said:Quote"So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system, this is really quite a profound — I won't call it breakthrough, but realization that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system.Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station."(emphasis mine)The way I read this, Elon's intent is quite clear.If they were planning to build Falcon upper stages for many years, he would have said most of our resources will then turn towards building BFR, not all.
Once the first test BFRs are complete, SpaceX can return to F9 production if needed, say if testing takes longer than anticipated.
I think testing of BFS/BFR will be VERY different from anything we have seen in rocketry. In case of expendable rockets, it is difficult to afford too many test flights before the first operational one. So, risk-taking is unavoidable. In contrast, BFX vechicles are designed for many flights. They are expensive to build, but cheap to test flight. It is difficult to afford to loose any of them, both in time and money. Therefore, I expect a very-very incremental test regime with many-many test flights.
Testing noise becomes rather more of an issue.A site that will put up with occasional booms and launches once every month or two may have a dramatically different view when you want to launch twice a day for a month.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 11:45 amTesting noise becomes rather more of an issue.A site that will put up with occasional booms and launches once every month or two may have a dramatically different view when you want to launch twice a day for a month.Exactly. This issue probably mandate an off-shore launch/landing platform, as we saw in the P2P video, from the very beginning.
This only works well if rapid reuse actually works, and works well, the BFR/S can be constructed without cycle life and operational reliability issues, and the construction of BFR/S is sufficiently cheap and fast that it can be paid for with early Starlink revenues allowing rapid deployment of the full constellation.
QuoteSome of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching in it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead, and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles, so that customers can be comfortable if they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, we'll have a bunch in stock. But then all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR. And we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station.
>>BFR is planned for 2022.It is not clear how many satellites starlink requires for a minimum constellation.>
limited service beginning in 2020 or 2021 once ~800 satellites have been placed in Low Earth Orbit
BFR is planned for 2022.
Quote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 09:26 pmBFR is planned for 2022.To clarify, the first BFR Mars missions are planned for 2022.This would presumably require multiple BFR test launches starting at least a year before that, i.e. in 2021.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/17/2017 10:55 pmQuote from: speedevil on 12/17/2017 09:26 pmBFR is planned for 2022.To clarify, the first BFR Mars missions are planned for 2022.This would presumably require multiple BFR test launches starting at least a year before that, i.e. in 2021.Quite. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43920.msg1757581#msg1757581 - I did not want to go into full timings here, as I've done it in other threads.Depending on meeting timings, and development plan, BFR/S development and Starlink being initially operational may overlap, before the 2022 window.As mentioned upthread, Patricia Cooper, SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Government Affairs stated in October that initial operation may happen in 2020/21.If this happens, then the valuation of the company that manages starlink could get really quite large indeed, and the perceived risk of investment could be quite small.This would mean that >$5B of investment into Starlink, either in the form of shares, or selling bonds on future performance could have a minimal effect on ongoing revenue, and allow dramatic investment in BFR.At this time, if everything is going right, there may be flying hardware of some form (hoppers, BFS, depending). That investment could pay for several operational BFR/BFS and pads on an accelerated schedule.Even a strict reading where BFS/R development is only paid for by launches, if everything is going well, BFS could in principle be aiding with the launch campaign and getting revenue from that at the same time as testing. If BFR is actually delayed, and Starlink is not, Starlink operation before the 2024 window may be nearly a full constellation.It would be beyond odd if they have not considered various funding schemes for if BFR costs much more or less than expected to develop to a ready state, and if Starlink is delayed or not, and how the funding for these would be related.Reading the words "cannibalise our own products" to mean that is the only possible source of funding seems counter to everything being said before.I tried to put rough numbers on this, and came to the conclusion that constraining BFR/S flightrate in 2024 (manned mars date) to within two, perhaps three orders of magnitude is hard.If BFR/S actually gets to the point of being rapidly reusable so much changes so fast both from a costing of a Mars launch in 2022 point of view and an external investment point of view that depending on your choices you can get tanker launches costing $100M or $2M.Questions on here in 2022 could almost as easily be 'so, when will it really fly' or 'Where will the twentieth pad be'.
Don't see that they'd be a need for booster grasshopper equivelent. The three raptor BFS should test the key components shouldn't it?
Yeah, if you think the last 5 years were exciting...
April 8, 2016: First successful landing of Falcon 9 booster
Quote from: Dave G on 12/18/2017 12:36 pmApril 8, 2016: First successful landing of Falcon 9 boosterCorrection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_flight_20
The BFR booster doesn't have legs. It lands right back on the launch pad. The booster has 3 little fins that guide it into a collar on the pad. This will need to be tested.Grasshopper style tests may be perfect for this.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/18/2017 11:42 amThe BFR booster doesn't have legs. It lands right back on the launch pad. The booster has 3 little fins that guide it into a collar on the pad. This will need to be tested.Grasshopper style tests may be perfect for this.I was aware of that when I posted. I just felt that since the BRS demonstrator is essentially a raptor grasshopper already, you can cover off hovering, landing precision and orientation as being tested. The remaining part of the collared landing that you can't test is,hopefully gentle docking of booster base with the collar. It feels like a waste to build another $xx million test craft when most of it's covered. Isn't the collared landing, once you achieve the necessary flight control, just like positioning a booster onto a test stand? Except with more fire.That was my logic anyway, which probably doesn't hold up to engineering scrutiny!
Quote from: Cheapchips on 12/18/2017 04:38 pmQuote from: Dave G on 12/18/2017 11:42 amThe BFR booster doesn't have legs. It lands right back on the launch pad. The booster has 3 little fins that guide it into a collar on the pad. This will need to be tested.Grasshopper style tests may be perfect for this.I was aware of that when I posted. I just felt that since the BRS demonstrator is essentially a raptor grasshopper already, you can cover off hovering, landing precision and orientation as being tested. The remaining part of the collared landing that you can't test is,hopefully gentle docking of booster base with the collar. It feels like a waste to build another $xx million test craft when most of it's covered. Isn't the collared landing, once you achieve the necessary flight control, just like positioning a booster onto a test stand? Except with more fire.That was my logic anyway, which probably doesn't hold up to engineering scrutiny!I'd assume that the cradle landing would be first demo'd on a test cradle (cheap compared to a booster or ship). This cradle could be placed at the big landing pad or even on an ASDS... my bet is the former.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/18/2017 04:52 pmQuote from: Cheapchips on 12/18/2017 04:38 pmQuote from: Dave G on 12/18/2017 11:42 amThe BFR booster doesn't have legs. It lands right back on the launch pad. The booster has 3 little fins that guide it into a collar on the pad. This will need to be tested.Grasshopper style tests may be perfect for this.I was aware of that when I posted. I just felt that since the BRS demonstrator is essentially a raptor grasshopper already, you can cover off hovering, landing precision and orientation as being tested. The remaining part of the collared landing that you can't test is,hopefully gentle docking of booster base with the collar. It feels like a waste to build another $xx million test craft when most of it's covered. Isn't the collared landing, once you achieve the necessary flight control, just like positioning a booster onto a test stand? Except with more fire.That was my logic anyway, which probably doesn't hold up to engineering scrutiny!I'd assume that the cradle landing would be first demo'd on a test cradle (cheap compared to a booster or ship). This cradle could be placed at the big landing pad or even on an ASDS... my bet is the former.Landing on a cradle that is anchored to the earth (motionless) is quite a different proposition from landing on one attached to a oceangoing vessel which will be moving some under the best of circumstances.
I wonder about this returning idea of sea platform for BFS/R. In my ignorant opinion that adds complexity with servicing. You need port capability near every single launch side, you need second sea platform for BFS? Or you land at land and then transport it back on platform?
I wonder about this returning idea of sea platform for BFS/R. In my ignorant opinion that adds complexity with servicing. You need port capability near every single launch site
you need second sea platform for BFS?
In my ignorant view it makes things much more complicated and will make "land, refill, launch like an airplane" impossible. And that's goal of Elon, RAPID reuse, not just reuse where you land BFS on land, then transport it to harbor, then move it by some barge to sea launch platform, then only mount it on BFR, then launch... and transporting payload and service stuff - it's all much harder to do on sea platform than on land based launch/land pad.
Or, you land BFR on one end of the barge, BFS on the other, and use a crane to lift BFS onto BFR.
Regarding shallow water in hurricane territory - What is the relationship between water depth and storm surge height, if any?
There is a large network of petroleum piping that connects off-shore platforms, even in deep water, to shore facilities in Texas and Louisiana. The engineering is established and proven. During hurricanes the use is curtailed because of possible damage on-shore.In 1982 worked on instrumentation of a bottom mounted platform in 990ft of water. It was held with piles.My thought is that the BC platform will need to be more than 5 miles off; the BFR is BIG and loud, Shallow water isn't that important.
Agreed. I've proposed 10+ miles offshore. Still relatively shallow for jack-up platforms. Very possible off BOTH Cape Canaveral and Boca. The added cost/complexity for any offshore platform is pipelines plus barge & hydrofoil transport to & from the BFR takeoff, dual BFR and BFS lander platform.
A mostly underwater "hyperloop"... could also be installed for transporting people and some (possibly most) cargo... After all, they pump oil through pipelines, so how much harder can a bigger pipeline be?
Before September 2017, most assumed revenues from their new Starlink satellite network would fund BFR. Now, all that has changed. Elon said they intend to fund BFR just using the revenue they get from launching satellites and servicing the space station.
This is very important. In last year's presentation, we were really searching for what the right way, ... you know, how do we pay for this thing. We went through various ideas, with Kickstarter, you know, collecting underpants. These didn't pan out. But now we think we've got a way to do it, which is to have to have a smaller vehicle -- still pretty big -- but one that can serve, one that can do everything that's needed in the greater Earth orbit activity. So essentially we want to make our current vehicles redundant. We want to have one system, one booster and ship that replaces Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon. So if we can do that, then all the resources that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon can be applied to this system. So that that's really fundamental. So let's see. What progress have we made in this direction?
So then getting back to the question of how do we pay for this system. This was really, I said quite a profound -- I won't call it breakthrough but realization -- that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, Heavy, and Dragon, can be applied to one system. Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they're comfortable launching on it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles so that customers can be comfortable. If they want to use the old rocket, the old spacecraft, they can do that, because we'll have a bunch in stock, but all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR, and we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the Space Station.
Starlink is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SpaceX. Straight from the horse's mouth.
we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the Space Station.
The Boring Company has no financial affiliation with SpaceX. They're separately funded companies.Starlink is part of SpaceX, but as I understand it, they're being funded separately with different investors.
Quote from: Elon Muskwe believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the Space Station....Starlink is part of SpaceX, but as I understand it, they're being funded separately with different investors.
If The Boring Company has no affiliation with SpaceX it was a pretty gutsy move to start digging up SpaceX’s parking lot.
The Boring Company has no financial affiliation with SpaceX. They're separately funded companies.
The connection here should be obvious. Starlink = part of "launching satellites", i.e. part of Starlink investment funding goes to launch costs, which includes development of a more cost-effective launcher. He's leveraging the future value of the constellation to fund BFR.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/20/2017 01:19 pmThe Boring Company has no financial affiliation with SpaceX. They're separately funded companies.Starlink is part of SpaceX, but as I understand it, they're being funded separately with different investors.I don't know either of those statements to be true and wonder what your sources are.
Starlink:https://www.geekwire.com/2015/report-google-talks-invest-spacex-boosting-seattle-based-satellite-initiative/
Boring Company is registered as a separate corporation, not part of SpaceX.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company
If you wish to leave it at that, that's fine. But I think we need to be clear that you don't have a solid basis for those statements.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 12/20/2017 10:23 pmIf you wish to leave it at that, that's fine. But I think we need to be clear that you don't have a solid basis for those statements.The Boring Company is a separate company, not part of SpaceX. I believe docmordrid's link above proves this.Starlink is part of SpaceX. They're the same company. My statement makes this very clear. But the article I linked above implies that some SpaceX investors that have earmarked those funds specifically for Starlink. That's my understanding of this article, so that's how I phrased my statement.Can we move on now?
Can we move on now?
Assuming they either get approval to launch from boca chica beach or do a offshore platform that still leaves another question. They can only launch at low inclinations because of cuba for easterly directions or the yucatan for southerly direction. What's the probability of these restrictions being relaxed?
Since the first and primary reason for BFR/BFS is starlink doesn't this have a direct bearing on where the first complete BFR/BFS will be launched from?
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 12/26/2017 01:05 pmAssuming they either get approval to launch from boca chica beach or do a offshore platform that still leaves another question. They can only launch at low inclinations because of cuba for easterly directions or the yucatan for southerly direction. What's the probability of these restrictions being relaxed?Within the next 10 years, I'd say the probability is 0. After that, the probability would still be low.But remember, SpaceX has been buying property at Boca Chica under the name "Dogleg Park LLC".Quote from: rsdavis9 on 12/26/2017 01:05 pmSince the first and primary reason for BFR/BFS is starlink doesn't this have a direct bearing on where the first complete BFR/BFS will be launched from?I'd say the primary reason for BFR/BFS is for Mars missions. For Starlink, they could have used Falcon 9. In fact, depending on the timing of BFR, they may still use Falcon 9 to launch the majority of Starlink satellites.
I think Starlink is the prime reason for the mini BFR.
So we've already started building the system. The tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...
I too don't see a 12m version in the cards. My expectation is that the next version after the 9m will be FAR larger than 12m. Capable of carrying thousands of tonnes of freight or thousands of passengers. But that version won't even be started till the late 2020s or (more likely) 2030s or 2040s...
Quote from: Lar on 12/27/2017 01:49 pmI too don't see a 12m version in the cards. My expectation is that the next version after the 9m will be FAR larger than 12m. Capable of carrying thousands of tonnes of freight or thousands of passengers. But that version won't even be started till the late 2020s or (more likely) 2030s or 2040s...Musk said they "chickened out" of the 12 m.Which is good, since it was too big for the first years, and the F1 lesson is "fail small".Maybe they'll get back to 12 later, maybe to 15... but they won't stay at 9, I'm pretty sure.Beyond that, at some point the architecture will change to "orbit-to-orbit" ships, but that's nowhere near.
Quote from: Lar on 12/27/2017 01:49 pmI too don't see a 12m version in the cards. My expectation is that the next version after the 9m will be FAR larger than 12m. Capable of carrying thousands of tonnes of freight or thousands of passengers. But that version won't even be started till the late 2020s or (more likely) 2030s or 2040s...Yep. Think of the BFR/BFS as "small" supporting vehicles carrying stuff and people to the real future Mars Colonial Transport to and from various destinations in the Solar system.The question is whether SpaceX will build something bigger than a Sea Dragon or assemble something in orbit as the future Mars Colonial Transport.Think you can send up a 16 meter diameter vehicle component on the BFR with a new upper stage to LEO.
No, building a large diameter BFR+ would be better.But that is a long way off. BFR will lift 150 tonnes to leo, for less than the cost of a Falcon 1, can you think of anything sensible that weighs more than 150 tonnes but can't be launched in pieces?
Quote from: nacnud on 12/27/2017 09:18 pmNo, building a large diameter BFR+ would be better.But that is a long way off. BFR will lift 150 tonnes to leo, for less than the cost of a Falcon 1, can you think of anything sensible that weighs more than 150 tonnes but can't be launched in pieces?I'm thinking a large diameter lunar or martian habitation module might be more easily constructed on earth and transported from there rather than be constructed on site, avoiding potential problems with moon dust, or at least for initial habitation modules to be used while gaining experience with constructing things on site.
Quote from: DavidCar on 12/28/2017 12:02 amI'm thinking a large diameter lunar or martian habitation module might be more easily constructed on earth and transported from there rather than be constructed on site, avoiding potential problems with moon dust, or at least for initial habitation modules to be used while gaining experience with constructing things on site.You can use a BFS fully equipped for that purpose. It is not that expensive.
I'm thinking a large diameter lunar or martian habitation module might be more easily constructed on earth and transported from there rather than be constructed on site, avoiding potential problems with moon dust, or at least for initial habitation modules to be used while gaining experience with constructing things on site.
SpaceX is focused on the transportation part of the Mars problem, but people need somewhere to go once they arrive. I don't think it's an accident that Elon started the Boring Company, tunnels will be very important in the first steps of living on Mars, before we build domes and terraform.
Quote from: guckyfan on 12/28/2017 01:58 amQuote from: DavidCar on 12/28/2017 12:02 amI'm thinking a large diameter lunar or martian habitation module might be more easily constructed on earth and transported from there rather than be constructed on site, avoiding potential problems with moon dust, or at least for initial habitation modules to be used while gaining experience with constructing things on site.You can use a BFS fully equipped for that purpose. It is not that expensive.For lunar habitation, I suspect they'll need to go underground to avoid radiation. Same with Mars.In fact, Gwynne mentioned this at Stanford:Quote from: Gwynne ShotwellSpaceX is focused on the transportation part of the Mars problem, but people need somewhere to go once they arrive. I don't think it's an accident that Elon started the Boring Company, tunnels will be very important in the first steps of living on Mars, before we build domes and terraform.https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/37659376821
There is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease... Not holding my breath on that option... but one that IS out there... My opinion, is SpaceX will NOT mess with 39A as long as the NASA manned D2 program and FH is operational...BFR/BFS full stack has to go somewhere else on the East Coast... and on solid ground...
Quote from: John Alan on 12/29/2017 07:23 pmThere is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease... Not holding my breath on that option... but one that IS out there... My opinion, is SpaceX will NOT mess with 39A as long as the NASA manned D2 program and FH is operational...BFR/BFS full stack has to go somewhere else on the East Coast... and on solid ground... why the east coast? Vandenburg should have better launch azimuths for starlink.
Any chance that the never built Pad 39C might be constructed ?
There is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease...
Lots of discussion about building something larger than BFR.Is there any basis for this, or is it purely speculation?Again, as I understand it, the 12m ITS design was scrapped in favor of the 9m BFR design.Has SpaceX mentioned anything about building something larger than the 9m BFR since September?
Quote from: MickQ on 12/29/2017 10:31 pmAny chance that the never built Pad 39C might be constructed ?There is a pad 39C now but it's for small vehicles.https://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/Partnering-Opportunities/Capabilities-and-Testing/Physical-Assets/Launch-Pad-39CThe original proposed site for 39C is still unused but would require a lot of work as nothing was ever built not even roads.But there may be space for a new pad between LC-40 and LC-37 though ULA may be happy with something like BFR being tested near one of their pads which would be understandable.
Quote from: MickQ on 12/29/2017 10:31 pmAny chance that the never built Pad 39C might be constructed ?There is a pad 39C now but it's for small vehicles.https://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/Partnering-Opportunities/Capabilities-and-Testing/Physical-Assets/Launch-Pad-39CThe original proposed site for 39C is still unused but would require a lot of work as nothing was ever built not even roads.
Really, SpaceX needs to stop trying to save a buck or two with rebuilding stuff and just build TWO new pads going forward... one on each coast where they KNOW they can get launch licenses...
Quote from: John Alan on 12/29/2017 07:23 pmThere is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease... A far bigger chance that BFR will be cancelled before it even flies.....
Quote from: Dalhousie on 12/29/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: John Alan on 12/29/2017 07:23 pmThere is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease... A far bigger chance that BFR will be cancelled before it even flies.....BFR in some form will almost certainly fly, eventually. The only way it won't is if SpaceX fails as a business...
The tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...
Quote from: Dave G on 12/26/2017 02:14 pmQuote from: rsdavis9 on 12/26/2017 01:05 pmAssuming they either get approval to launch from boca chica beach or do a offshore platform that still leaves another question. They can only launch at low inclinations because of cuba for easterly directions or the yucatan for southerly direction. What's the probability of these restrictions being relaxed?Within the next 10 years, I'd say the probability is 0. After that, the probability would still be low.But remember, SpaceX has been buying property at Boca Chica under the name "Dogleg Park LLC".Quote from: rsdavis9 on 12/26/2017 01:05 pmSince the first and primary reason for BFR/BFS is starlink doesn't this have a direct bearing on where the first complete BFR/BFS will be launched from?I'd say the primary reason for BFR/BFS is for Mars missions. For Starlink, they could have used Falcon 9. In fact, depending on the timing of BFR, they may still use Falcon 9 to launch the majority of Starlink satellites.Well if they do a dogleg for the south of cuba/north of yucatan trajectory, how much extra delta-v do they need to get to the starlink inclinations? Also if they start the dogleg after clearing yucatan/cuba will south america be far enough away to not matter?My understanding is that most starlink's will be in ~45 deg inclinations.
I’d go with BFR first launch from a Sea platform much like in the point to point video, off of Boca Chica. BFS suborbital hops earlier on it’s own. First launches of BFR as well as BFS more like Grasshopper than an expendable rocket. First just engine burns tied down. Brief hovers. Short suborbital flights. Boosting the BFS suborbital. Quite a lot of flying before actually putting a BFS in orbit.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 12/29/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: John Alan on 12/29/2017 07:23 pmThere is always the chance that SLS is canceled after N launches and 39B is put up for lease... A far bigger chance that BFR will be cancelled before it even flies.....BFR as we know it might not make it past the design stage but something bigger than Falcon heavy is pretty much a given unless Spacex self destructs like Commodore did in the 1990s.SLS is pretty much intended to eventually be replaced with something else.
BFR as we know it might not make it past the design stage but something bigger than Falcon heavy is pretty much a given unless Spacex self destructs like Commodore did in the 1990s.SLS is pretty much intended to eventually be replaced with something else.
Quote from: Patchouli on 01/01/2018 04:13 pmBFR as we know it might not make it past the design stage but something bigger than Falcon heavy is pretty much a given unless Spacex self destructs like Commodore did in the 1990s.SLS is pretty much intended to eventually be replaced with something else.Never ever, ever, use Commodore and the company we are discussing in the same sentence! I loved Commodore (Had a C64, Amiga) and reading https://www.amazon.com/Commodore-Company-Edge-Brian-Bagnall/dp/0973864966/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514832547&sr=1-4&keywords=commodore was enough to make me cry.
Quote from: geoffc on 01/01/2018 05:50 pmQuote from: Patchouli on 01/01/2018 04:13 pmBFR as we know it might not make it past the design stage but something bigger than Falcon heavy is pretty much a given unless Spacex self destructs like Commodore did in the 1990s.SLS is pretty much intended to eventually be replaced with something else.Never ever, ever, use Commodore and the company we are discussing in the same sentence! I loved Commodore (Had a C64, Amiga) and reading https://www.amazon.com/Commodore-Company-Edge-Brian-Bagnall/dp/0973864966/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514832547&sr=1-4&keywords=commodore was enough to make me cry. Didn't mean to hit a nerve but Commodore was very innovative,vertically integrated, shipped more systems than any other company during the 1980s.
I don't think BFR as shown to us so far is a given. It will evolve and mature with time, it will be larger than FH and be a very impressive vehicle, but maybe not the monster we've seen.
The 2017 BFR is conspicuously sized for the maximum thrust rating of the LC-39 flame duct, so that should say something about their plans.
I’d go with BFR first launch from a Sea platform much like in the point to point video, off of Boca Chica. BFS suborbital hops earlier on it’s own. First launches of BFR as well as BFS more like Grasshopper than an expendable rocket. First just engine burns tied down. Brief hovers. Short suborbital flights. Boosting the BFS suborbital. Quite a lot of flying before actually putting a BFS in orbit.If that takes place 10 miles offshore there’s a lot less risk and disruption for Falcon operations taking place at the same time.
The sea platform Spaceport lets them rapidly scale launch sites, putting them all over the world much faster than could ever happen with land based pads. If that’s the goal, they might as well focus on solving related technical issues rather than solving them for a different approach first then starting over.If they’re doing this there ought to be some evidence of a big platform under construction for them at a major shipyard in the next year or two.
I played with my 1983 Commodore Vic 20 over the holidays, that was a trip down memory lane.
Musk said BFR2 was constrained by what could be built using SpaceX existing facilities...
Q: Where will the BFR be built?A: We're looking at building a facility by the water in LA. We thought we'd build it in our factory in Hawthorne, but we priced transport to the harbor, and it came out to $2.5m per trip. It would require taking down stoplights, and just wouldn't be worth it. So we will build a new facility by the water. We will eventually also have a number of production sites by out launch sites.
The problem with launching BFR from 39a is SpaceX needs 39a to pay the bills with launches every couple weeks indefinitely. BFR can’t use it without a lot of modifications that would interfere with it launching F9 and FH all the time.
39b is being set up as a multi user pad from what I have heard. Why not launch BFx from there?
Did I read somewhere that Brownsville is where be-commissioned aircraft carriers go to die ? Mmmm....Big flat deck. Ample room for facilities and fuel.
Just a few tenths of a cent of speculation I've been throwing around is a hybrid catamaran/barge ASDS. Basically something along the lines of two current ASDS type barges, with a platform spanning between them. This could give something close to the known quantity of stability of the current ASDS, but increase the available size. Also fits with the incremental approach of testing these types of systems, building off knowledge they already have. Still has a large mobility drawback, and might not offer enough stability for cradle landings, but I think this is something that will be tested soon with a "surplus" F9 (100% baseless speculation sorry) and I also think the OctoGrabber is at least half of this equation that unfortunately hasn't been able to be tested as they would like just yet.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 01/02/2018 10:12 pmI don't think BFR as shown to us so far is a given. It will evolve and mature with time, it will be larger than FH and be a very impressive vehicle, but maybe not the monster we've seen.What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:Quote from: Elon MuskThe tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...Note that the second quarter of 2018 is now just 13 weeks away. So if Musk's statement is true, the design for BFR is pretty much nailed down, and they're getting ready to manufacture it.
Quote from: Dave G on 01/03/2018 02:50 amQuote from: wannamoonbase on 01/02/2018 10:12 pmI don't think BFR as shown to us so far is a given. It will evolve and mature with time, it will be larger than FH and be a very impressive vehicle, but maybe not the monster we've seen.What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:Quote from: Elon MuskThe tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...Note that the second quarter of 2018 is now just 13 weeks away. So if Musk's statement is true, the design for BFR is pretty much nailed down, and they're getting ready to manufacture it.Elon makes a lot of promises that don't always come true. Based on what was shown at IAC 2017 the design is no where near being finished and they are still refining the concept.'Tooling for the main tanks has been ordered' probably just means that they have ordered some AFP machines and/or layup tools that are relatively agnostic to the final design. 'We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year' probably means that they plan to start making manufacturing demonstrators on new tooling, maybe start manufacturing a suborbital test vehicle before the end of the year.I would bet that IAC 2018 will bring some significant changes to the overall vehicle /architecture and the amount of progress will be much less that people here seem to expect.
Quote from: RDMM2081 on 01/05/2018 07:45 pmJust a few tenths of a cent of speculation I've been throwing around is a hybrid catamaran/barge ASDS. Basically something along the lines of two current ASDS type barges, with a platform spanning between them. This could give something close to the known quantity of stability of the current ASDS, but increase the available size. Also fits with the incremental approach of testing these types of systems, building off knowledge they already have. Still has a large mobility drawback, and might not offer enough stability for cradle landings, but I think this is something that will be tested soon with a "surplus" F9 (100% baseless speculation sorry) and I also think the OctoGrabber is at least half of this equation that unfortunately hasn't been able to be tested as they would like just yet.BFR is powerful enough that all missions will return the booster to the launch site. 100% RTLS. Elon made this clear in both IAC presentations. Remember, their goal is full and rapid reusability. ASDS doesn't allow that. So the current concept of landing a booster on a barge far down range, that's a temporary solution. Once F9 and FH are retired in favor of BFR, SpaceX will stop using ASDS. If you're talking about the possibility of a floating launch site, that would need to be huge. Much larger than a pair of barges. Much larger than an aircraft carrier. Remember, we're talking about 5,400 tons of thrust at takeoff. To counteract that on a floating platform, it would need to be really, really huge. For this reason, I believe a floating launch site for BFR is extremely unlikely.Much more likely would be a fixed launch platform 5-10 miles offshore. This would have legs that physically connect it with the ocean floor, so it would be more like a small man-made island than a huge boat. Note that the ocean floor is very shallow for miles off the coast of Boca Chica and Cape Canaveral. In addition, they could have cables and pipes running underwater back to shore, so they would only need to store a relatively small amount of LOX and liquid methane on the fixed offshore platform, plus chillers. I believe this is the option Elon showed at IAC 2017.
Elon makes a lot of promises that don't always come true. Based on what was shown at IAC 2017 the design is no where near being finished and they are still refining the concept.
The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy... On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse... Fairings have been recovered. We expect recovery will be good enough to start regularly reusing them in the first six months of next year.
just my opinion: Gwynne has said the Los Angeles waterfront for building the first BFR/BFS factory (Hawthorne for Raptor Engines); This will probably be from 2018 to 2030 time frame before building factories near the launch pads that they will have by then... Testing and Launches could begin as early as late 2019 - early 2020... operational Launches could start as early as Late 2020 - Early 2021... on an optimistic schedule to be sure.. but I believe if all goes well is feasible.. naturally, as with everything, it is probable that there will be slips to the right...
They'll do ground testing of finished cores at Vandenberg because of it's proximity...Then a few test launches at Vandenberg and landings... some later tests will be to land at various other finished launch pads around the country; either point to point suborbital or after a few orbits...Then as production ramps up, they will continue to do distributive launches from Vandenberg to other launch pads, to prepare for entry into service; I think we can forget about barges through the Panama Canal
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 01/09/2018 05:18 pmjust my opinion: Gwynne has said the Los Angeles waterfront for building the first BFR/BFS factory (Hawthorne for Raptor Engines); This will probably be from 2018 to 2030 time frame before building factories near the launch pads that they will have by then... Testing and Launches could begin as early as late 2019 - early 2020... operational Launches could start as early as Late 2020 - Early 2021... on an optimistic schedule to be sure.. but I believe if all goes well is feasible.. naturally, as with everything, it is probable that there will be slips to the right... Totally agree.Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 01/09/2018 05:18 pmThey'll do ground testing of finished cores at Vandenberg because of it's proximity...Then a few test launches at Vandenberg and landings... some later tests will be to land at various other finished launch pads around the country; either point to point suborbital or after a few orbits...Then as production ramps up, they will continue to do distributive launches from Vandenberg to other launch pads, to prepare for entry into service; I think we can forget about barges through the Panama Canal Not sure about Vandenberg. Once BFR is on water, any coastal launch site is relatively easy. Also, for the first test with a brand new vehcile of this size, Vandy may not be the easiest place to get approvals.
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 01/09/2018 05:28 amQuote from: Dave G on 01/03/2018 02:50 amQuote from: wannamoonbase on 01/02/2018 10:12 pmI don't think BFR as shown to us so far is a given. It will evolve and mature with time, it will be larger than FH and be a very impressive vehicle, but maybe not the monster we've seen.What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:Quote from: Elon MuskThe tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...Note that the second quarter of 2018 is now just 13 weeks away. So if Musk's statement is true, the design for BFR is pretty much nailed down, and they're getting ready to manufacture it.Elon makes a lot of promises that don't always come true. Based on what was shown at IAC 2017 the design is no where near being finished and they are still refining the concept.'Tooling for the main tanks has been ordered' probably just means that they have ordered some AFP machines and/or layup tools that are relatively agnostic to the final design. 'We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year' probably means that they plan to start making manufacturing demonstrators on new tooling, maybe start manufacturing a suborbital test vehicle before the end of the year.I would bet that IAC 2018 will bring some significant changes to the overall vehicle /architecture and the amount of progress will be much less that people here seem to expect.That's a pretty wishy-washy bet, can you make it something objective so we can actually bet on it?
Fair enough! I predict the following for IAC 2018:-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.-Detailed plans for a suborbital test BFS will be discussed and the composite tank for it will be shown in some state of production.-Elon will give the system a cool name and get people hyped with another video.
-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.
-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2018 05:47 amQuote from: Rabidpanda on 01/09/2018 05:28 amQuote from: Dave G on 01/03/2018 02:50 amQuote from: wannamoonbase on 01/02/2018 10:12 pmI don't think BFR as shown to us so far is a given. It will evolve and mature with time, it will be larger than FH and be a very impressive vehicle, but maybe not the monster we've seen.What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:Quote from: Elon MuskThe tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the facility is being built. We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year...Note that the second quarter of 2018 is now just 13 weeks away. So if Musk's statement is true, the design for BFR is pretty much nailed down, and they're getting ready to manufacture it.Elon makes a lot of promises that don't always come true. Based on what was shown at IAC 2017 the design is no where near being finished and they are still refining the concept.'Tooling for the main tanks has been ordered' probably just means that they have ordered some AFP machines and/or layup tools that are relatively agnostic to the final design. 'We will start construction of the first ship around the second quarter of next year' probably means that they plan to start making manufacturing demonstrators on new tooling, maybe start manufacturing a suborbital test vehicle before the end of the year.I would bet that IAC 2018 will bring some significant changes to the overall vehicle /architecture and the amount of progress will be much less that people here seem to expect.That's a pretty wishy-washy bet, can you make it something objective so we can actually bet on it? Fair enough! I predict the following for IAC 2018:-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.-Detailed plans for a suborbital test BFS will be discussed and the composite tank for it will be shown in some state of production.-Elon will give the system a cool name and get people hyped with another video.
I predict the following for IAC 2018:-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.
Q: The sub-scale Raptor prototype has a (speculated) thrust of about ~100 tons-force currently, and will be scaled up to ~170 tons-force according to your IAC/2017 design. Can you tell us more about the current status and expected (best-case) timeline of this scale-up effort?A: Thrust scaling is the easy part. Very simple to scale the dev Raptor to 170 tons. The flight engine design is much lighter and tighter, and is extremely focused on reliability. The objective is to meet or exceed passenger airline levels of safety...
The difficulty of deep throttling an engine increases in a non-linear way, so 2:1 is fairly easy, but a deep 5:1 is very hard. Granularity is also a big factor. If you just have two engines that do everything, the engine complexity is much higher and, if one fails, you've lost half your power. Btw, we modified the BFS design since IAC to add a third medium area ratio Raptor engine partly for that reason (lose only 1/3 thrust in engine out) and allow landings with higher payload mass for the Earth to Earth transport function.
-Detailed plans for a suborbital test BFS will be discussed and the composite tank for it will be shown in some state of production.
-Elon will give the system a cool name and get people hyped with another video.
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 01/09/2018 08:00 pmFair enough! I predict the following for IAC 2018:-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.-Detailed plans for a suborbital test BFS will be discussed and the composite tank for it will be shown in some state of production.-Elon will give the system a cool name and get people hyped with another video.What's the bet? Is it all-or-nothing for the predictions above? For example, what if you're right on the first 3 items, but Elon keeps the BFR name? What if you're right on item 2, but wrong on all the others?Also, as I understand it, item 2 is already a given, since they added another landing engine on BFS since IAC.
Quote from: Dave G on 01/09/2018 08:37 pmQuote from: Rabidpanda on 01/09/2018 08:00 pmFair enough! I predict the following for IAC 2018:-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.-Detailed plans for a suborbital test BFS will be discussed and the composite tank for it will be shown in some state of production.-Elon will give the system a cool name and get people hyped with another video.What's the bet? Is it all-or-nothing for the predictions above? For example, what if you're right on the first 3 items, but Elon keeps the BFR name? What if you're right on item 2, but wrong on all the others?Also, as I understand it, item 2 is already a given, since they added another landing engine on BFS since IAC.I don't think adding a 3rd landing engine will change the outer mold line.
Thank you Dave G for posting that video.
Speaking at the NewSpace Europe conference here Nov. 16, Gwynne Shotwell noted that SpaceX is already receiving funding from the U.S. Air Force supporting the development of Raptor, the engine that will power the vehicle known as BFR, or Big Falcon Rocket, and the reusable spacecraft known as BFS or Big Falcon Spaceship.“I do anticipate that there is residual capability of that system that the government will be interested in,” she said. “I do see that we would likely get some funding from the government for BFR and BFS.” She added, though, that work on the vehicles was not contingent on receiving government funding.One avenue for doing so would be through the U.S. Air Force’s Launch Services Agreement competition, which plans to provide several awards to companies to help fund development of prototype launch systems, though initial test flights, to end U.S. reliance on the Atlas 5 and its Russian-manufactured RD-180 engine. Proposals for the competition are due to the Air Force Nov. 20.Shotwell said after the talk that BFR could be used to launch some of the heaviest national security payloads envisioned by the Air Force in the 2020s. Most of those payloads, she said, can be served by the existing Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, whose first launch is scheduled for late this year.
Not sure if this was posted already:SpaceX expects government support for development of BFR launch systemQuote from: Space News, November 16, 2017Speaking at the NewSpace Europe conference here Nov. 16, Gwynne Shotwell noted that SpaceX is already receiving funding from the U.S. Air Force supporting the development of Raptor, the engine that will power the vehicle known as BFR, or Big Falcon Rocket, and the reusable spacecraft known as BFS or Big Falcon Spaceship.“I do anticipate that there is residual capability of that system that the government will be interested in,” she said. “I do see that we would likely get some funding from the government for BFR and BFS.” She added, though, that work on the vehicles was not contingent on receiving government funding.One avenue for doing so would be through the U.S. Air Force’s Launch Services Agreement competition, which plans to provide several awards to companies to help fund development of prototype launch systems, though initial test flights, to end U.S. reliance on the Atlas 5 and its Russian-manufactured RD-180 engine. Proposals for the competition are due to the Air Force Nov. 20.Shotwell said after the talk that BFR could be used to launch some of the heaviest national security payloads envisioned by the Air Force in the 2020s. Most of those payloads, she said, can be served by the existing Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, whose first launch is scheduled for late this year.
H. Study the potential for residual upper stage capability.1. Assess whether the planned upper stage for the EELV Launch System prototype willhave residual capability for any of the nine EELV reference orbits to make it capableof spacecraft servicing, orbital transfers, and other services that enhance nationalsecurity space resiliency2. Assess what types of enhancements would need to be added to the upper stage tomake it capable of spacecraft servicing, orbital transfers, and other services thatenhance national security space resiliency
Thus for the first 10 years of the program hardware could be:6 Boosters 6 Tankers10 Mars cargo ships6 Mars crew ships2 Moon ships3 Satellite delivery/recovery ships1 ISS support shipThat's 6 Boosters and 28 upper stages. A pretty small fleet considering the range of activities.
Quote from: Restless on 01/16/2018 09:44 pmThus for the first 10 years of the program hardware could be:6 Boosters 6 Tankers10 Mars cargo ships6 Mars crew ships2 Moon ships3 Satellite delivery/recovery ships1 ISS support shipThat's 6 Boosters and 28 upper stages. A pretty small fleet considering the range of activities.Yes, and that covers for all the possible things that may happen from 2022 to 2032, and that assumes many overlapping missions. For example, if they fly BFS to the moon and back as a test, they could reuse that same flight proven BFS to go to Mars.Also, looking at just the the first 4 years (2022-2026), they could probably get by with just 3 boosters and 8 ships. They may want more, but my point is that in a pinch, they could do a hell of a lot with relatively few boosters and spaceships.I think the true value of full reusability is starting to become apparent. It doesn't just save cost. It means you can do a lot of missions without needing to stockpile much hardware.
Josh Brost, Senior Director of SpaceX’s Government Business Development was in attendance at a civil spaceflight conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, January 18, and provided a number of interesting details about SpaceX’s upcoming activities in 2018. Perhaps most intriguingly, he reiterated SpaceX’s interest in enabling exploration of the Moon and Mars, while also clarifying that the upcoming Falcon 9 upgrade will be the last major change to the vehicle for the indefinite future.Curiously, Brost explicitly tempered CEO Elon Musk’s common-knowledge goal of Martian colonization, with a suggestion that the Moon could be a more logical starting place for the company as it ramps up its deep space efforts and gradually slips beyond Earth orbit. This is clearly a strategic and calculated contradiction of the launch company’s famous founder and an attempt to position SpaceX in a way that can derive the most value from the Federal government’s recently revived interest in returning US astronauts to the Moon...While it was a small detail in an obscure sentence of one of several hour-long discussions, Brost specifically stated this:(see tweet below)This is arguably the most exciting tidbit provided to us by SpaceX. While it was undeniably vague and rather less than crystal-clear, it can be interpreted as something like this: once Block 5 has been introduced and begun to fly and refly both regularly and successfully, the vast majority of SpaceX’s launch vehicle development expertise will begin to focus intensely on the development and testing of BFR and BFS.Statements from just last week made by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell strengthen this intuitive leap considerably, because BFR and BFS are liable to require a considerable amount of attention as they proceed through design maturation and eventually begin physical hardware testing in Texas.Shotwell’s comments implied that SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch facilities, currently under construction, would be ready to support “vehicle tests” as early as late 2018/early 2019. Comments from earlier in 2017 indicate that SpaceX (and Shotwell) perceive Boca Chica as a near-perfect location for BFR launches (and thus BFR testing, as well). Finally, Brost’s implication that SpaceX’s exceptional team of brilliant and innovative launch vehicle engineers would be refocused on BFR soon after Block 5 was stable also meshes with this rough timeline. If Falcon 9 Block 5 does indeed debut within the “next few months” as Brost stated, it will have likely reached some level of design and operational maturity by the end of 2018, assuming SpaceX’s expected launch
Sorry if discussed before, but I could only find a post and small discussion on inclination that did not give me the answer I am looking for..What are the restrictions on over flying populated land?I mean, from what hight is it allowed to overfly populated land?Does it need to be in orbit, and if so, could BFR be in orbit before overflying Florida?I guess there are limitations preventing this, otherwise it would have been discussed, but I would like te understand better the precise mechanics... thanks for any insight into this matter(a noob on this field)
Quote from: Jakusb on 05/02/2018 03:03 pmSorry if discussed before, but I could only find a post and small discussion on inclination that did not give me the answer I am looking for..What are the restrictions on over flying populated land?I mean, from what hight is it allowed to overfly populated land?Does it need to be in orbit, and if so, could BFR be in orbit before overflying Florida?I guess there are limitations preventing this, otherwise it would have been discussed, but I would like te understand better the precise mechanics... thanks for any insight into this matter(a noob on this field)The overflight itself is not a problem, as long as it occurs at an altitude of over 100 km if over other countries. It could be even lower over the US with FAA approval.The problem is where rocket parts are going to land if things go kablooey at just the wrong time. That is the "instantaneous impact point", or IIP. The IIP starts under the rocket at launch, and proceeds downrange faster than the rocket, at the other end of an approximately ballistic arc. The IIP actually goes all the way around the world in the 10 minutes or so it takes the rocket to get to orbit.The combination of failure probability at any given time, IIP dwell time over populated ares, the population density under the path the IIP takes, and the size and weight of the falling rocket parts, all determine the probability of a casualty on the ground. The probability of a casualty has to be less than 30x10-6 per flight to get FAA approval.
Very informative. Is this the same standard applied to commercial aircraft flights?
I’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2018 07:48 pmI’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.Why would they launch in the middle of nowhere when they have a floating platform? Boca Chica comes to mind.
Quote from: guckyfan on 09/10/2018 06:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2018 07:48 pmI’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.Why would they launch in the middle of nowhere when they have a floating platform? Boca Chica comes to mind.there is near zero SpaceX infrastructure left on Kwaj. near none
Quote from: TripleSeven on 09/10/2018 12:33 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 09/10/2018 06:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2018 07:48 pmI’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.Why would they launch in the middle of nowhere when they have a floating platform? Boca Chica comes to mind.there is near zero SpaceX infrastructure left on Kwaj. near noneThere is range infrastructure by the US military. Which is why SpaceX was there in the first place. Pegasus sometimes flies out of Kwaj for exactly the same reason....but you're much smarter.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/22/2018 10:03 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/10/2018 12:33 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 09/10/2018 06:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2018 07:48 pmI’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.Why would they launch in the middle of nowhere when they have a floating platform? Boca Chica comes to mind.there is near zero SpaceX infrastructure left on Kwaj. near noneThere is range infrastructure by the US military. Which is why SpaceX was there in the first place. Pegasus sometimes flies out of Kwaj for exactly the same reason....but you're much smarter.By range infrastructure you mean a radar? There doesn't seem to be much else, and it seems busier with military stuff these days than it was during the Falcon 1 campaigns.
Quote from: gongora on 09/22/2018 10:55 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/22/2018 10:03 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/10/2018 12:33 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 09/10/2018 06:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2018 07:48 pmI’m thinking Kwaj is a real option for BFR, from a floating platform.Why would they launch in the middle of nowhere when they have a floating platform? Boca Chica comes to mind.there is near zero SpaceX infrastructure left on Kwaj. near noneThere is range infrastructure by the US military. Which is why SpaceX was there in the first place. Pegasus sometimes flies out of Kwaj for exactly the same reason....but you're much smarter.By range infrastructure you mean a radar? There doesn't seem to be much else, and it seems busier with military stuff these days than it was during the Falcon 1 campaigns....and still used by Pegasus to this day, so clearly an option.BFR on a mobile platform may want to launch from Kwajalein for the same reasons that Pegasus does today.
