... Just heard about SpaceX launching their BFR ("Big Falcon Rocket") in 2019 ...
Quote from: DenverXDXDXD on 04/02/2018 07:42 am... Just heard about SpaceX launching their BFR ("Big Falcon Rocket") in 2019 ...SpaceX is developing the more challenging upper stage (BFS -- Big Falcon Spaceship) first, and the 2019 test launches are "short hopper flights" of the BFS without its lower stage (BFB -- Big Falcon Booster, though Musk once called it the BRB -- Big Rocket Booster / Be Right Back, as it lands back in its launch cradle just minutes after taking off).Check out Musk describing the hopper flights at 21:10 in the Falcon Heavy post-flight press conference, and note where he says of the full BFR, "I think it's conceivable that we do our first test flight in three or four years. Of a full up, orbital test flight, including the booster."The BFR is a hugely ambitious vehicle, and there is little chance they will meet the 2022 aspirational date mentioned last year for the first cargo mission to Mars, but it is certainly inspiring that a company is not just designing such a vehicle, but has actually started construction of a prototype upper stage.
I'd give it about a 30% chance based on the fact that SpaceX is significantly more seasoned than it was when it started on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. It shat out the Falcon 9 very quickly. The Falcon Heavy took longer, but the BFR/BFS is actually Elon Musk taking into account that he's overly ambitious about these things.
How much can the BFR(spaceship) carry in tons? I can't find the amount of cargo the BFR(spaceship) can carry. It doesn't say on Wikipedia, the BFR video or anywhere else.1. How much cargo can a fully fueled spaceship carry from the earth to the ISS and back?2. How much cargo can a fully fueled spaceship carry from the earth to the lunar surface and back?3. How much cargo can a fully fueled spaceship carry from the earth to the Mars?
But I also would bet they’ll miss the 2022 window. But they might still do it.
A key question will be if a vehicle is severely damaged can it be repaired, or does it need to be scrapped?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/04/2018 07:00 amA key question will be if a vehicle is severely damaged can it be repaired, or does it need to be scrapped?Another is how much cost is the shell, vs 'bits'.Is the monolithic shell wholly dominant in terms of cost (as seems likely), or does swapping over legs, engines, actuators, ... actually represent a meaningful saving vs a whole new vehicle.Some classes of damage may make the vehicle impossible to be economically reused for missions requiring reentry, but as long as there are tanker or other missions available, that's not taking a vehicle out of service.A lot depends on flight rate.
Quote from: speedevil on 04/04/2018 02:18 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 04/04/2018 07:00 amA key question will be if a vehicle is severely damaged can it be repaired, or does it need to be scrapped?Another is how much cost is the shell, vs 'bits'.Is the monolithic shell wholly dominant in terms of cost (as seems likely), or does swapping over legs, engines, actuators, ... actually represent a meaningful saving vs a whole new vehicle.Some classes of damage may make the vehicle impossible to be economically reused for missions requiring reentry, but as long as there are tanker or other missions available, that's not taking a vehicle out of service.A lot depends on flight rate.I'm sure the shell will be expensive but 31 raptor engines won't be that cheap either. It would be interesting if anyone could estimate the cost split shell v engines v the rest.
...A fully refuelled (not refuelled can't do it at all) with six tanker flights or so gets you to the lunar surface and back with 20 tons.
Quote from: speedevil on 04/04/2018 03:46 am...A fully refuelled (not refuelled can't do it at all) with six tanker flights or so gets you to the lunar surface and back with 20 tons.I know the OP specified "and back", but it "IT" was just landing cargo than BFS can do it unrefueled, in one launch.The cargo BFS could land somewhere between 5 and 20 tonnes on the Moon with a single launch, fully expended 1-way. That would be an expensive launch ($500 million?), but I'm not aware of any other LV/lander combination under active development that could do this. Falcon Heavy and SLS lack landers. Blue is working on a lander for 5 tonnes or less, presumably to work with New Glenn. Several companies (mostly former X-Prize contestants) are working on smaller landers that are mostly LV agnostic but deliver less than 1 tonne. Except BFR/BFS, none of them can land enough payload to reasonably build a base or support a crew mission with one launch. Even Saturn V landed less than 5 tonnes, and that needed 5 stages - with 2 of them hydrolox. BFR can do that with only 2 methalox stages.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/07/2018 03:21 amQuote from: speedevil on 04/04/2018 03:46 am...A fully refuelled (not refuelled can't do it at all) with six tanker flights or so gets you to the lunar surface and back with 20 tons.I know the OP specified "and back", but it "IT" was just landing cargo than BFS can do it unrefueled, in one launch.The cargo BFS could land somewhere between 5 and 20 tonnes on the Moon with a single launch, fully expended 1-way. That would be an expensive launch ($500 million?), but I'm not aware of any other LV/lander combination under active development that could do this. Falcon Heavy and SLS lack landers. Blue is working on a lander for 5 tonnes or less, presumably to work with New Glenn. Several companies (mostly former X-Prize contestants) are working on smaller landers that are mostly LV agnostic but deliver less than 1 tonne. Except BFR/BFS, none of them can land enough payload to reasonably build a base or support a crew mission with one launch. Even Saturn V landed less than 5 tonnes, and that needed 5 stages - with 2 of them hydrolox. BFR can do that with only 2 methalox stages.And what could it do if it got it returns LOx on the lunar surface?Making LOx on the lunar surface has to be very near the top of priorities.