So no, changing the engines is a bad bad idea. With that said however, how a 31 engine cluster on a 9 meter vehicle will perform, particularly with engines that operate at higher pressures than anything ever seen before in the history of liquid rocketry, how that will behave is a big series of questions.
And to here and say "oh its still less complex than the a vehicle that is built out of flight proven hardware and engines (FH)" is absolutely ludicrous.
Quote from: corneliussulla on 09/29/2017 07:55 amI would think DOD is his most likely customer for this 150 tonnes plus anywhere on earth in under 60 mins. If DOD had 10 such craft they could have 5000 men and equipment at any base on earth within a day. Got to be appealing to some military types. I personally doubt this is ever used in regular flights tourist type flight between spots on earth but I expect space tourism would get a huge boost. What about 300 people spending $40,000 for a trip of a lifetime spending 4 earth orbits in space. That's 120 mill in revenue. I think u could fill that once a week for many years. You would take off and land in the same spot. That's $6 bill in revenue right there with no satellites etc. Plenty of potential revenue from different sources without putting Boeing, airbus and all the airlines out of business, which for all sorts of reasons is never going to happen.You can't land "anywhere on earth" unless you are prepared to leave the ship behind. You need a booster and a pad at the other end to get home.
I would think DOD is his most likely customer for this 150 tonnes plus anywhere on earth in under 60 mins. If DOD had 10 such craft they could have 5000 men and equipment at any base on earth within a day. Got to be appealing to some military types. I personally doubt this is ever used in regular flights tourist type flight between spots on earth but I expect space tourism would get a huge boost. What about 300 people spending $40,000 for a trip of a lifetime spending 4 earth orbits in space. That's 120 mill in revenue. I think u could fill that once a week for many years. You would take off and land in the same spot. That's $6 bill in revenue right there with no satellites etc. Plenty of potential revenue from different sources without putting Boeing, airbus and all the airlines out of business, which for all sorts of reasons is never going to happen.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/29/2017 11:03 amAnd to here and say "oh its still less complex than the a vehicle that is built out of flight proven hardware and engines (FH)" is absolutely ludicrous. The problem with FH is not just its complexity, but the untestable interaction between the three booster stages in flight. The BFR design has no such dynamic mode.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/29/2017 11:15 amQuote from: FinalFrontier on 09/29/2017 10:22 amQuoteDon't you just love it when just two or three concern trolls manage to fill an entire page on this thread with sticking feathers up each others *ss?Technical reality is not concern trolling. Don't you just love when some folks claim to know better than the folks that are actually working on BFR? And don’t you just love it when constructive commentary is dismissed out of hand by those drinking the Space X Kool-Aid.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/29/2017 10:22 amQuoteDon't you just love it when just two or three concern trolls manage to fill an entire page on this thread with sticking feathers up each others *ss?Technical reality is not concern trolling. Don't you just love when some folks claim to know better than the folks that are actually working on BFR?
QuoteDon't you just love it when just two or three concern trolls manage to fill an entire page on this thread with sticking feathers up each others *ss?Technical reality is not concern trolling.
Don't you just love it when just two or three concern trolls manage to fill an entire page on this thread with sticking feathers up each others *ss?