Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/28/2016 02:47 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.This is the first true Spaceship. Apollo and all previous spacecraft were payloads.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.
I haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/28/2016 02:24 pm- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several months- Spark ignited, strung out turbopumped deep space propulsion ? What kind of redundancy and whats the testing regime for this ?Radiators, narrow aspect to the sun(engines toward the sun), cryo-coolers... some combination of these low grade technologies.
- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several months- Spark ignited, strung out turbopumped deep space propulsion ? What kind of redundancy and whats the testing regime for this ?
Testing in Cis-Lunar space -- the proving ground.
Solar powered liquefaction pumps that take boil off and re-condense? Maybe just some sub cooling so there is no boil off. refrigerators are easy.
Quote from: CapitalistOppressor on 09/28/2016 09:13 amIt sounds like its the actual tank for the initial ship that they plan on using for testing.I'm wondering where they will test it. Hawthorne factory probably not best place for exprerimental LOX tank. Could they transport something that big to more safe place?Also landing legs don't like sturdy enough to hold fully fueled spaceship, even on mars.
It sounds like its the actual tank for the initial ship that they plan on using for testing.
Quote from: jpo234 on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: savuporo on 09/28/2016 02:24 pm- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several monthsLook at the schematics on slide 26: there are smaller tanks inside the main tanks.They need gases for pressurization. Etc.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/28/2016 02:24 pm- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several monthsLook at the schematics on slide 26: there are smaller tanks inside the main tanks.
- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several months
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 02:53 pmQuote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?You cannot think of a benefit from an American company developing a Mars Transportation System that can put people and cargo on another planet for peanuts?
Quote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?
Quote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.
Quote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?
I was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.
You cannot think of a benefit from an American company developing a Mars Transportation System that can put people and cargo on another planet for peanuts?
Quote from: Dante80 on 09/28/2016 02:57 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 02:53 pmQuote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?You cannot think of a benefit from an American company developing a Mars Transportation System that can put people and cargo on another planet for peanuts?Fine for a company from any country, sure... It has to benefit "all" the average US citizens/taxpayers in a government role...
Considering the new booster is a really massive rocket and it will have to make hundreds if not thousands of launches, that is a significant environmental impact from a greenhouse gas emission point of view.In the following decades politics and population will become increasingly sensitive to that as climate change effects start affecting the living quality of the western world general population to a higher degree.As Elon Musk has said in the past, Rockets are unfortunately the only thing that can not be run electrically.Except they can:SpaceX already needs to develop large scale In Situ propellant synthesis from water and carbon dioxide for the mars operation. All it needs is CO2 + H2O + Energy.These elements are as readily available on Earth. Building a large propellant synthesis plant in combination with regenerative energy sources near the launch pad will solve two issues at once:ITS will fly "green" with a 0 net carbon footprintThe In Situ technology can have a large scale test run on earth to see if there's any issues with long term operation and upscaling. (On Mars it'd be a bit late if some critical catalyst starts to degrade over time ad you have no spares)
Do we have any hard data that the Tankers would definitely have/use legs?If landing on a cradle is modus operandi for the Booster, then perhaps is also for the Tankers. In which case, leave off the legs, and carry more propellant.
Also landing legs don't like sturdy enough to hold fully fueled spaceship, even on mars.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 09/28/2016 02:48 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: savuporo on 09/28/2016 02:24 pm- What magic will keep both propellant in tanks for several monthsLook at the schematics on slide 26: there are smaller tanks inside the main tanks.They need gases for pressurization. Etc.No, they don't. Once again slide 26: "Autogenous pressurization".
Do we have any hard data that the Tankers would definitely have/use legs?
Quote from: Bubbinski on 09/28/2016 01:29 amWowza. The ITS is one impressive rocket. 42 engines in the first stage. How many engines can fail and the rocket still get the Mars ship to a useful orbit? Elon said "multiple". I would expect each engine to be surrounded by shielding to prevent one Raptor RUD from taking out the others (like what happened with N-1?).As far as the ITS crewed vessel, one question that occurs to me is how much payload would it carry if it were just being launched by itself (SSTO) into a low earth orbit like the one Shuttle used? Elon said it was a small number. Better yet, how much of a payload would it carry on a suborbital flight, say from New York to London? If they test it on suborbital hops and find it can work well I wouldn't be surprised if Elon tries to make money by pioneering transoceanic suborbital cargo & passenger services, after all he'll need lots of income to pull this off. Speaking of tourism, if ITS really works and they fly people as far as Saturn I could see myself enjoying a tourist flight to see the rings of Saturn close up, if I make it out that far.....Musk being the environmentalist that he is, would probably not use the ITS as a intercontinental cargo/people mover. The carbon footprint would be astronomically higher than even the most fuel thirsty airplane. Yes, your package would get to London in a matter of minutes, but you're burning millions of pounds of methane doing so.
Wowza. The ITS is one impressive rocket. 42 engines in the first stage. How many engines can fail and the rocket still get the Mars ship to a useful orbit? Elon said "multiple". I would expect each engine to be surrounded by shielding to prevent one Raptor RUD from taking out the others (like what happened with N-1?).As far as the ITS crewed vessel, one question that occurs to me is how much payload would it carry if it were just being launched by itself (SSTO) into a low earth orbit like the one Shuttle used? Elon said it was a small number. Better yet, how much of a payload would it carry on a suborbital flight, say from New York to London? If they test it on suborbital hops and find it can work well I wouldn't be surprised if Elon tries to make money by pioneering transoceanic suborbital cargo & passenger services, after all he'll need lots of income to pull this off. Speaking of tourism, if ITS really works and they fly people as far as Saturn I could see myself enjoying a tourist flight to see the rings of Saturn close up, if I make it out that far.....
Quote from: dnavas on 09/28/2016 01:48 pmHow many flights do you need to be confident enough not to have an abort strategy?How do you get that flight count on a brand new engine and launch system?I guess you have to retire the risk on each system then the vehicle as a whole and Elon makes the call on what is acceptable since he is running his own space agency here. Now if you ask in light of the recent failures color me a bit skeptical at this point...
How many flights do you need to be confident enough not to have an abort strategy?How do you get that flight count on a brand new engine and launch system?
There are several unique features of the BFR/ICT that are unheard of today. Some of them game changing, some of them simply different than anybody else. I try to catch them all:..
Quote from: mclumber1 on 09/28/2016 01:26 pm...Musk being the environmentalist that he is, would probably not use the ITS as a intercontinental cargo/people mover. The carbon footprint would be astronomically higher than even the most fuel thirsty airplane. Yes, your package would get to London in a matter of minutes, but you're burning millions of pounds of methane doing so.So, you're burning millions of pounds of one greenhouse gas (methane) and producing millions of pounds of a different greenhouse gas (CO2). Why is this a problem?
...Musk being the environmentalist that he is, would probably not use the ITS as a intercontinental cargo/people mover. The carbon footprint would be astronomically higher than even the most fuel thirsty airplane. Yes, your package would get to London in a matter of minutes, but you're burning millions of pounds of methane doing so.
Well, I ask given that the answer seems to suggest that the Raptor needs another system to run in in order to "retire the risk" as you say. You're right, of course, that the recent failures force me to set the bar a little higher than "trust SX", but the thrust of my point was to wonder what that other system is....
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/28/2016 02:34 pmDo we have any hard data that the Tankers would definitely have/use legs?It's in the video.
So, you're burning millions of pounds of one greenhouse gas (methane) and producing millions of pounds of a different greenhouse gas (CO2). Why is this a problem?
