Where will BFR launch from first? and When will that be?

[Dave G]

Musk said BFR2 was constrained by what could be built using SpaceX existing facilities...

Yes, but at IAC 2017, Elon also said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mars-iac-2017-transcript-slides-2017-10/#-34

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.

And then Gwynne later clarified:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/37659376821

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.

Note that there's a whole other thread speculating exactly where this new BFR manufacturing facility will be:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43871.msg1760847#msg1760847

[Dave G]

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.

Yes, this is why some are speculating they won't use LC-39A for the first launch of BFR.

The counter argument: Once they get F9 and FH launching from Boca Chica, that would free up LC-39A somewhat.

But then, folks on reddit and some folks here are speculating Boca Chica will bypass F9/FH and go straight to BFR.

There's also speculation that BFR will use a fixed launch platform 5-10 miles offshore, as Elon showed at IAC 2017.

And I have no idea who's right. It will be interesting to see.

[Steve D]

39b is being set up as a multi user pad from what I have heard. Why not launch BFx from there?

[nacnud]

I don't think NASA want to share anymore, at least not until after SLS EM-1.

[AncientU]

39b is being set up as a multi user pad from what I have heard. Why not launch BFx from there?

From what we've been hearing, both SpaceX and Blue Origins inquired about using LC-39B. 
(Also recall that Orbital ATK was interested in using it for NGL.)
Answer was NO.

[MickQ]

Did I read somewhere that Brownsville is where de-commissioned aircraft carriers go to die ?  Mmmm....

Big flat deck.  Ample room for facilities and fuel.

[chipguy]

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.

A retired carrier will take a lot of bodies to run the engines, move it from place
to place, regular maintenance etc.

Also the flight deck is fairly high off the waterline which would hurt stability for
off centre landing.

I think a low riding custom designed vessel with low maintenance plant and high
automation is a better, safer, and cheaper option long term.

[RDMM2081]

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.

[Dave G]

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.

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.

[Rabidpanda]

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.

What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:

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...

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.

[Robotbeat]

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.

What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:

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...

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?

[cro-magnon gramps]

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
     
       

[guckyfan]

With polar launches now possible from the Cape, especially with such powerful boosters, I doubt that they will build a pad for BFR in Vandenberg. So probably no testing there IMO.

[Patchouli]

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.

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.

Another option use a ship to bring the propellant as the fuel side can be an off the shelf LNG carrier.
Though I think they will probably give up landing on the launch platform at least for the near term as BFR is a more manageable size to handle and probably not much heavier than the Saturn S-IC.

[Dave G]

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.

I disagree.  I suspect the BFR design is much more final than many believe.   

At IAC 2017, the tone of the presentation was noticeably different than the year before. For the first time, Elon talked about retiring Falcon 9 and Dragon, implying that it would be more difficult to fund BFR together with Falcon 9 and Dragon at the same time.

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.

Now couple this with what Gwynne said a few weeks later:

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.

To me, this implies that:
1) SpaceX has given up on F9 / FH upper stage reusability.
2) Very soon, the only part of F9 / FH that's not reusable will be the upper stage.

Now remember that reusability not only reduces cost, it also frees up the workforce. 

For example: If fairing reuse works in 1H 2018, the composites people that made the fairings are free to work on BFS.

Also, if Falcon Block 5 reuse works as designed, they may only need to build 10-15, and then just keep reusing them.  So maybe 6-8 months from now, the guys that used to build Falcon Block 5 boosters will be available.

With this newly available workforce, I'm guessing SpaceX will accelerate their production of Falcon 9 upper stages. As Elon says above, they'll "build ahead, and have a stock" of Falcon upper stages, perhaps as many as 200.  How long would this take?  Remember that they're no longer building boosters, which require an order of magnitude more core sections and Merlin engines, so the upper stage production rate could be an order of magnitude more.  With this in mind, it's possible they could stockpile 200 upper stages within a year or less.

So in 18-24 months, it's possible that SpaceX will have pre-built enough F9/FH parts to last 5 years or more.  At that point, all of the SpaceX resources that were used to build Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy will be available for BFR.

On the Dragon side, at the CRS-13 Pre-Launch News Conference, starting at 50:12, although SpaceX didn't answer the question directly, her answer implies that SpaceX no longer builds Dragon 1.  For ISS resupply, they have a stock of around 7 Dragons that they intend to reuse for the remainder of the current CRS contract.

Similarly, for Dragon 2, they may only need to build 10-12, and then just reuse them.

Again reusability not only reduces cost, it also frees up the workforce for future projects.  I believe this is part of the "realization" Musk spoke about at IAC 2017.

[Dave G]

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...

Totally agree.

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

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.

[cro-magnon gramps]

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...

Totally agree.

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

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.

two things,
one it won't matter what the potential orbital inclination at launch is... this beast will have margin for dog legs..
two convenience; in time and money, this will speed up delivery of operational rockets; by testing and launching;

and like I said, it's an opinion, which with the pressure on to launch to Mars in 2022, will be weighing heavily on SpaceX to get results... whether it is in cash flow or operational rockets.... 2-3 years will prove me wrong or right..

[Rabidpanda]

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.

What you say doesn't seem to agree with Musk's statements at IAC 2017:

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...

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.

[Dave G]

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.

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.

[dnavas]

-Elon will show off pictures of a full scale production Raptor engine, but it will not have been test fired yet.

I'd be willing to bet that, unless the engine is upsized (which I think is possible), we'll see a test fire by 2018.

-The OML of BFR+BFS will have significant (noticeable) changes from what was presented at IAC 2017.

Agreed.  I expect the ships may grow larger a little, given they might get more space in a new manufacturing facility.  Regardless, we haven't been told anything about abort handling, which makes me think we don't have final plans just yet.