Author Topic: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)  (Read 609588 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Third discussion thread for Elon's second BFR overview at the IAC. Yes, we are looking at a new section for all BFR, per it not being just about Mars.

Open discussion, but everyone has to be civil and posts need to be useful. No "You're concern trolling". No "Wowzers. LOLZ. Cool" <---true, but that doesn't add to anything. No posts with masses of smilies, or it just looks silly, especially when quoted several times.

Most of you know we're going for quality over quantity here, best we can. Bad posts will be removed. Don't quote bad posts (or your post will be removed too, obviously). Report to mod if you see a bad post (against the above rules) - some of you didn't take note of this on thread two and those posts were removed (you were warned!)


New Articles (more to follow) :

 [September 29, 2017] The Moon, Mars, & around the Earth - Musk updates BFR architecture, plan

 [October 4, 2017] Sputnik at 60: Ambition ties first satellite to SpaceX’s BFR, Mars plans

 Previous major discussion thread:
  IAC 2017 -- ITS (BFR) v0.2 Pre and During Speech

 Live Thread from the event:
  IAC 2017 --Elon Speech

Full video:



Additional NSF Articles Of High Relevance:

 [March. 7, 2014] SpaceX advances drive for Mars rocket via Raptor power
 [Aug. 29, 2014] Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets – SLS could face Exploration Class rival
 [Sept. 27, 2016]SpaceX reveals ITS Mars game changer via colonization plan
 [Jul. 24, 2017] Includes Subscale BFR on 39A

 Major NSF L2 Resources:

 L2 Level: Evaluations And Renderings - Thread 2 (Includes link to Thread 1)
 ITS Cargo Modules AIAA - by the Author
 Rocket and Spacecraft Traj Sim
 The Evolution of the Interplanetary Transport System Overview
 SpaceX McGregor, includes Raptor Testing and photos
 Master All SpaceX Pads Updates, Photos and Status, including for BFR


NSF Public Threads:
 
   Discussion before and during the 2017 presentation:

      IAC 2017 -- ITS v0.2
      9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread

   
   Discussion after the 2016 presentation:
 
      ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
      ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread

9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread 2

Elon's presentation at IAC 2016:



SpaceX: ITS Video from 2016:


« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 08:49 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #1 on: 10/06/2017 09:48 am »
It's interesting how close Richard Heidmann came in his analysis:
http://planete-mars.com/mars-colonization-transport-main-findings-of-our-analysis/

BFR really looks almost exactly like he imagined (except for the horizontal landing.

« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 09:49 am by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #2 on: 10/06/2017 03:27 pm »
Great first post to start tne new thread. But I'm not ready to give as much credit as you, the general outline was already known at the time of this study and the OML is going to be basically bullet shaped.... Also the study includes an "emergency capsule" which I think we know is out.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #3 on: 10/06/2017 04:05 pm »
It's interesting how close Richard Heidmann came in his analysis:
http://planete-mars.com/mars-colonization-transport-main-findings-of-our-analysis/

Of the 13 points in his analysis, it looks like he got 9 (perhaps 10) wrong.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #4 on: 10/06/2017 04:10 pm »
Great first post to start tne new thread. But I'm not ready to give as much credit as you, the general outline was already known at the time of this study and the OML is going to be basically bullet shaped.... Also the study includes an "emergency capsule" which I think we know is out.
The mentality for where the "emergency capsule" comes from is the idea that this is still an experimental vehicle with very high risks. Musk wants this vehicle to be like an airline not a combat aircraft.

Redundancies, both similar systems and use of dissimilar systems. The only problems for risk are the main engines of the SC and the prop tanks. LOX is an inherently dangerous liquid. To get the risks of a composite LOX tank down to that of an airliner will take a lot of testing both on the ground in destructive tests and many flight tests to get statistical data on behavior in the actual flight regimes to them correct deficiencies in the tank design.

Engines like for F9 would be isolated by ballistic barriers as well as protection of piping and tanks, which allows for a RUD of any specific engine to not cause a LOM or a LOC event. But since the engine redundancy does not use dissimilar redundancy but similar redundancy it like the tanks must be tested extensively on the ground and in flight looking for those design "errors" and software "bugs" in the engine and engine controllers that keep engine failures from being a design fault to being a somewhat random manufacture or wear fault.

If the reliability of those two systems can be made to be very high then the overall safety of the SC and even the Booster can be made so that large numbers of passengers can ride in relative low risk similar to that of an airliner.

A P2P system that has a significant in-flight emergency of about 2 times per year and a LOC event once every 2 or three years but at flight rates of 4 times a day per launch site with 200 launch sites gives a yearly flight rate of the P2P usage of ~300,000 flights/year and a LOC (crew and passengers) event of 1 in 1,000,000 flights.

The key here is that a highly fully reusable vehicle (1000 gas-n-go) is possible to achieve these reliability numbers but a expendable and a low level partial or even fully reusable vehicle (10 reuses) would not reach the reliability levels needed to be airline like safety levels. The expendable and partial reusable and low reusability fully reusability vehicle does not have the engineering safety margins to get high reliability. These vehicles would still be much like an experimental aircraft with the similar LOC number values requiring some sort of crew escape.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #5 on: 10/06/2017 04:18 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.

Offline QuadmasterXLII

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #6 on: 10/06/2017 04:23 pm »
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #7 on: 10/06/2017 04:32 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
It puts the fully reusable payload to EXPD (expendable) payload at the 60% value. Something we have known for quite awhile for efficient fully reusable designs vs a same size vehicle expendable design as the best case possibility for a fully reusable vehicle vs that same vehicle used as an expendable.

In general not something from this graph, as the vehicle gets smaller this factor gets worse. For F9 it has been hypothesized that this value between a fully reusable F9 and a EXPD F9 would be 40%. So on a 22mt EXPD payload to LEO you would get only a max of 8mt of payload with a fully reusable F9 without any margins (margins here are mainly for engine out which reduces significantly the payload). With margins the payload could be as low as 30% that of EXPD F9.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #8 on: 10/06/2017 05:01 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle

Looks like expendable payload numbers to a low earth orbit. (It matches the known 22t to LEO for expendable F9)

An interesting comparison, but not that meaningful since the plan is to always reuse.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #9 on: 10/06/2017 05:04 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered?

 - Ed Kyle

Expending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 05:04 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #10 on: 10/06/2017 05:09 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered?

 - Ed Kyle

Expending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.

Although in practise you could presumably refuel the ship in orbit and bring it back anyway.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #11 on: 10/06/2017 05:12 pm »
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.

Yes, but fortunately they don't need to fly people on BFR for quite a while yet, a dedicated cargo version and automated landing helps a lot.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #12 on: 10/06/2017 05:13 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered?

 - Ed Kyle

Expending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.

I think it is an attempt to allow apples-to-apples comparison with all other (expendable) rockets.  Believe that at SpaceX there is neither an interest in ever expending any stage(s), nor is the BFR architecture at all optimized for throw-away launches... that said, this vehicle is approximately equivalent to a pair of SLS Block II vehicles in IMLEO if one must compare throw-away throw weight.

By the way, this payload corresponds to a payload mass fraction of 5.68% (250/4400t).  Saturn V was 3.88%; Energia was 3.96%; F9 FT is 4.15% IIRC.  (!)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 05:23 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #13 on: 10/06/2017 05:27 pm »
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.

Yes, but fortunately they don't need to fly people on BFR for quite a while yet, a dedicated cargo version and automated landing helps a lot.
A item would be to get the gas-n-go reuse rate to over 50 ideally to 100 or more. This creates a very mature design with a individual unit statistical database on failures and causes of failures. At lower reuse rates (5 to 20) the statistical data is less precise and can be full of assumptions and miss critical items. The other item is total flights of the system in the 100's before significant numbers of persons flying on any one flight. Number of passengers kept artificially low like a dozen for LEO, Lunar, and Mars initial manned flights. To get the high total flights in 100's could take as long as 10 years from the first successful flight of a Cargo/Tanker.

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #14 on: 10/06/2017 05:29 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered?

 - Ed Kyle

Expending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.

I think it is an attempt to allow apples-to-apples comparison with all other (expendable) rockets.  Believe that at SpaceX there is neither an interest in ever expending any stage(s), nor is the BFR architecture at all optimized for throw-away launches... that said, this vehicle is approximately equivalent to a pair of SLS Block II vehicles in IMLEO if one must compare throw-away throw weight.

By the way, this payload corresponds to a payload mass fraction of 5.68% (250/4400t).  Saturn V was 3.88%; Energia was 3.96%; F9 FT is 4.15% IIRC.  (!)
Using the above expendable figures and other 2017 presentation numbers...
Can we possibly deduct the empty weight and tank volume sizes of the Booster?...  ???
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 05:31 pm by John Alan »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #15 on: 10/06/2017 05:45 pm »
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.

The missing factoid is that the BFR/BFS will fly the same vehicle repeatedly to build up not only a statistical data base on the launch system's reliability, but also on that specific flight hardware.  Recall that shuttle flew for 30 years, and the only disasters were associated with the launch system -- not reusable vehicle related. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #16 on: 10/06/2017 06:48 pm »
Maybe the ship mass includes the mass of the cabins and other crew accommodations that wouldn't be there in the satellite launcher variant?

Offline schaban

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #17 on: 10/06/2017 06:55 pm »
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation?  He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning.

 - Ed Kyle
By expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered?

 - Ed Kyle

Booster is expended (run to depletion) and I think there will be no "Ship" just big non-returnable structure, like space station, but could be big equipment to lend on moon/mars/etc.

edit:typos
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 07:00 pm by schaban »

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #18 on: 10/06/2017 06:56 pm »
Ref Ed Kyle posting up above

I'm starting to wonder if the stated 85 metric ton BFS dry weight (2017 presentation slides) was for the pictured Mars manned transport configuration same slide...

If the dry empty weight of a BFS configured to carry 250 tons was less... say 70 tonnes dry empty...
...would the Math work?...

On edit...
I think the 250 tonnes payload into orbit math now works...
(on a bone dry BFS that could be then be saved with a tanker flight BTW)...

The 150 tonnes reusable figures... something else assumed is off there maybe... 
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 07:31 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 3 (Post Speech)
« Reply #19 on: 10/06/2017 07:00 pm »
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.

The missing factoid is that the BFR/BFS will fly the same vehicle repeatedly to build up not only a statistical data base on the launch system's reliability, but also on that specific flight hardware.  Recall that shuttle flew for 30 years, and the only disasters were associated with the launch system -- not reusable vehicle related.

The real lesson from STS is not "have an escape system". It's "don't normalize deviance" especially for flight-critical systems. If something isn't working as expected, figure out why and don't wait until it kills someone.

It's much harder to verify that this lesson is actually being followed.

Tags:
 

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