Author Topic: Should Starship (BFS) have a launch escape system?  (Read 231889 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #360 on: 10/21/2018 12:58 am »
Given that the skydiver design is relatively new...
>

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46395.msg1860063#msg1860063

Langley, 1959. Skip to 1:20



Edited:

I saw it back when originally posted. It was a tiny lightweight model in very subsonic, fully dense flow.  It was as relevant as Goddard's rockets to an F9...

Nobody claimed SpaceX invented vertical landings either - but I didn't see any geniuses here suggest the skydiver as an option for BFS, or even recognize it for what it was when shown it on a slide before the 2018 talk.

So the point stands, even in light of that video. (Which is awesome on its own merit)

And since it is new, I expect next years update to still be a large step, and am especially curious as to the breakdown into Mars/p2p/tanker/deployer variants.

 

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 03:42 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #361 on: 10/21/2018 01:21 am »
At least for the short term a BFS boost away is probably the best that can be achieved with the current design. The one good thing is that with the current engine design it does have enough thrust to break away even if slower than a conventional LAS.

Beyond that the best temporary option is likely to be send crew up on Dragon to dock with an orbiting BFS. This approach also has the advantage that if BFS does suffer heat shield damage on takeoff the crew can use the same Dragon they came up on to get back down.

In fact that's a huge potential safety advantage for BFR as a system. If necessary, SpaceX could provide Dragon lifeboats for early missions and it would provide both an LAS for takeoff and a second heat shield for reentry if needed.

Putting Dragon on BFR/BFS in a way that it could function as an LAS is completely infeasible.  It would be an enormous design change, and it would increase risk more than it would decrease it.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #362 on: 10/21/2018 01:30 am »
Some people seem to think putting a LAS on BFR/BFS is comparable to putting it on a capsule design where the capsule is at the top of a rocket with two or more other stages.

It's not comparable.  The design of BFR/BFS is so much different that any sort of "LAS" on BFR/BFS would be so much different from an Apollo-style LAS that it's really not very useful to compare them.

There are a lot of ways to achieve safety.  A system like Saturn V/Apollo had certain risks that it made sense to mitigate with a tower on top of the capsule.  That only made sense because (1) the Saturn V had risks that couldn't be mitigated other ways; and (2) the fact that there was a very small, already separate, vehicle on the top of the stack made this kind of LAS reasonable in terms of additional cost and risk.

Neither of those is true of BFR/BFS.  Trying to apply the same solution to a very different situation isn't a good idea.

The primary question shouldn't be "should BFR have a launch escape system".  The primary question should be "what is the best way to mitigate risk on BFR/BFS"?

Offline moreno7798

Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #363 on: 10/21/2018 02:41 am »
"Should the BFR have a launch escape system?"

Short answer.... No.

BFS IS THE ESCAPE SYSTEM. An "additional" escape system would mean no boots on Mars until the 2040's.
The only humans that make no mistakes are the ones that do nothing. The only mistakes that are failures are the ones where nothing is learned.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #364 on: 10/21/2018 02:48 am »
Some people seem to think putting a LAS on BFR/BFS is comparable to putting it on a capsule design where the capsule is at the top of a rocket with two or more other stages.

It's not comparable.  The design of BFR/BFS is so much different that any sort of "LAS" on BFR/BFS would be so much different from an Apollo-style LAS that it's really not very useful to compare them.

There are a lot of ways to achieve safety.  A system like Saturn V/Apollo had certain risks that it made sense to mitigate with a tower on top of the capsule.  That only made sense because (1) the Saturn V had risks that couldn't be mitigated other ways; and (2) the fact that there was a very small, already separate, vehicle on the top of the stack made this kind of LAS reasonable in terms of additional cost and risk.

Neither of those is true of BFR/BFS.  Trying to apply the same solution to a very different situation isn't a good idea.

The primary question shouldn't be "should BFR have a launch escape system".  The primary question should be "what is the best way to mitigate risk on BFR/BFS"?
Agreed you can't LAS the BFS, since it's an entire second stage...

But a p2p vehicle can be built so the cabin is separable, and then using the rather large guidance thrusters that are already required for landing the whole BFS in wind - the numbers don't prohibit it.

You'd end up escaping and parachuting a 30-ish ton cabin, but that's not impossible.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #365 on: 10/21/2018 12:39 pm »
Agreed you can't LAS the BFS, since it's an entire second stage...

But a p2p vehicle can be built so the cabin is separable, and then using the rather large guidance thrusters that are already required for landing the whole BFS in wind - the numbers don't prohibit it.

You'd end up escaping and parachuting a 30-ish ton cabin, but that's not impossible.

p2p is not a useful context for this thread.
The reason it came up at all is:
1. we need a cheep launch system that can transport ~100 people to Mars.
2. we need it to be vastly more reliable, otherwise people wouldnt go.

So IF we have a system that satisfies 1. and 2., what else can it do? Its practically an airliner to Mars. Well.. it it can go to Mars and it practically cant fail.. it can also BE an aircraft replacement on earth. So p2p was born. It is not a design goal for BFR, its a consequence of the _assumption_ that all design requirements can be satisfied. Thats a lot of assumptions. And an LAS/LES (can we please settle for ONE acronym?) is structurally not part of the discussion. In fact, if a LAS is not needed for Mars, and 1. and 2. are satisfied, LAS is not needed for p2p either. If a LAS is needed to satisfy 1. and 2., it will be needed for p2p and will be included.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #366 on: 10/21/2018 02:55 pm »
I know this thread is long and some may not have read all. What I proposed was a "launch/entry escape cabin" multiple abort modes from launch to entry, some try to twist that fact.... Please refrain from thinking of the Apollo methodology and replace it with the "saucer separation of the Enterprise" in philosophy; just as "Elon was inspired by Tintin" in his redesign... Sci-fi visionaries have moved many to push the limits of rigid-thinking...
« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 03:04 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #367 on: 10/21/2018 03:30 pm »
I know this thread is long and some may not have read all. What I proposed was a "launch/entry escape cabin" multiple abort modes from launch to entry, some try to twist that fact.... Please refrain from thinking of the Apollo methodology and replace it with the "saucer separation of the Enterprise" in philosophy; just as "Elon was inspired by Tintin" in his redesign... Sci-fi visionaries have moved many to push the limits of rigid-thinking...
Sadly you can't both ask the question and dictate the answer...


Semmel -

A mars ship is designed for months of travel, it has cabins, and a common area upfront.  It has an ECLSS. It has mars-surface provisions.

A P2P vehicle is designed for hour-long flights. It has seats packed up like in a jetliner, and a luggage/cargo area.

Once you have a p2p vehicle, you can't send people to Mars with it. Even 12 hours flights in a jetliner are hard to take.   But 3 months?

My observation is that the p2p requirements are much more amenable to a LAS, since the cabin area is compact.

A stage-wide LAS even if were possible would also have the issue of how to land a fueled stage in an unknown site.  If its just the cabin, there's a smaller issue with post landing fire and tip over.

And, you can call it star trekky, but it's just a variation on capsule separation which is a proven thing.  Based on a 737 mass breakdown, I called it ~20-30 tons.  That's not insane.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 03:31 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #368 on: 10/21/2018 03:30 pm »
Given that the skydiver design is relatively new...
>

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46395.msg1860063#msg1860063

Langley, 1959. Skip to 1:20


Saw it back when originally posted. Tiny lightweight model in very subsonic fully dense flow.  As relevant as Goddard's rockets to an F9...

Nobody claimed SpaceX invented vertical landings either - but I didn't see any geniuses here suggest the skydiver as an option for BFS, or even recognize it for what it was when shown it on a slide before the 2018 talk.

So yeah, skydiver is completely new for BFS, and the rest of my post stands, even in light of that video. (Which is awesome on its own merit, before being unearthed to show nothing SpaceX does is original)

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Please refrain from trying to imply a negative motivation and agenda to my posting of the video. It was posted to demonstrate the the control methodology was investigated looked sound and SpaceX's variation for BFS is a great concept... We all stand on the shoulders of giants... Leave pride out of it...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #369 on: 10/21/2018 03:32 pm »
Given that the skydiver design is relatively new...
>

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46395.msg1860063#msg1860063

Langley, 1959. Skip to 1:20


Saw it back when originally posted. Tiny lightweight model in very subsonic fully dense flow.  As relevant as Goddard's rockets to an F9...

Nobody claimed SpaceX invented vertical landings either - but I didn't see any geniuses here suggest the skydiver as an option for BFS, or even recognize it for what it was when shown it on a slide before the 2018 talk.

So yeah, skydiver is completely new for BFS, and the rest of my post stands, even in light of that video. (Which is awesome on its own merit, before being unearthed to show nothing SpaceX does is original)

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Please refrain from trying to imply a negative motivation and agenda to my posting of the video. It was posted to demonstrate the the control methodology was investigated looked sound and SpaceX's variation for BFS is a great concept... We all stand on the shoulders of giants... Leave pride out of it...
Fair enough. No argument on that part - I'll edit above... And done.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
« Last Edit: 10/21/2018 03:43 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #370 on: 10/21/2018 07:59 pm »
Semmel -

A mars ship is designed for months of travel, it has cabins, and a common area upfront.  It has an ECLSS. It has mars-surface provisions.

A P2P vehicle is designed for hour-long flights. It has seats packed up like in a jetliner, and a luggage/cargo area.

Once you have a p2p vehicle, you can't send people to Mars with it. Even 12 hours flights in a jetliner are hard to take.   But 3 months?

My observation is that the p2p requirements are much more amenable to a LAS, since the cabin area is compact.

A stage-wide LAS even if were possible would also have the issue of how to land a fueled stage in an unknown site.  If its just the cabin, there's a smaller issue with post landing fire and tip over.

And, you can call it star trekky, but it's just a variation on capsule separation which is a proven thing.  Based on a 737 mass breakdown, I called it ~20-30 tons.  That's not insane.

I know, and your logic is sound, no argument from me. But I dont think p2p is a design driver for BFR. Therefore it cannot be used to decide whether a LAS is needed or not. If it was design driving, Musk might risk to compromise the Mars goal with BFR. I dont think he would do that. Obviously it is an assumption on my part that p2p is not a design driver, it was never explicitly stated. But then, making it a design driver is inconsistent with the presentations we have got. And I am happy to change my view, in light of better evidence when and if we get it. I hope the soon(tm) to be held AMA on reddit shines some light onto it.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #371 on: 10/21/2018 08:10 pm »
Semmel -

A mars ship is designed for months of travel, it has cabins, and a common area upfront.  It has an ECLSS. It has mars-surface provisions.

A P2P vehicle is designed for hour-long flights. It has seats packed up like in a jetliner, and a luggage/cargo area.

Once you have a p2p vehicle, you can't send people to Mars with it. Even 12 hours flights in a jetliner are hard to take.   But 3 months?

My observation is that the p2p requirements are much more amenable to a LAS, since the cabin area is compact.

A stage-wide LAS even if were possible would also have the issue of how to land a fueled stage in an unknown site.  If its just the cabin, there's a smaller issue with post landing fire and tip over.

And, you can call it star trekky, but it's just a variation on capsule separation which is a proven thing.  Based on a 737 mass breakdown, I called it ~20-30 tons.  That's not insane.

I know, and your logic is sound, no argument from me. But I dont think p2p is a design driver for BFR. Therefore it cannot be used to decide whether a LAS is needed or not. If it was design driving, Musk might risk to compromise the Mars goal with BFR. I dont think he would do that. Obviously it is an assumption on my part that p2p is not a design driver, it was never explicitly stated. But then, making it a design driver is inconsistent with the presentations we have got. And I am happy to change my view, in light of better evidence when and if we get it. I hope the soon(tm) to be held AMA on reddit shines some light onto it.
... unless the LAS is only implemented on p2p...  Not as an afterthought, but as one of the differentiators.

After all, p2p is supposed to launch people really often.

Tanker, cargo, and deployer never will.

BFS mars will carry people, but will operate on a two year (minimum) cycle, and will involve people undertaking the risks of Mars.

Since p2p will be transporting regular folk on a scheduled service, the whole concept of risk is different.  It really has to be as safe as a plane. 

I don't mind if BFS flies without a LAS, but once p2p exists, I can't see why not use it for earth ascent, with BFS launching just full of mars-bound cargo.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #372 on: 10/21/2018 08:15 pm »
Semmel -

A mars ship is designed for months of travel, it has cabins, and a common area upfront.  It has an ECLSS. It has mars-surface provisions.

A P2P vehicle is designed for hour-long flights. It has seats packed up like in a jetliner, and a luggage/cargo area.

Once you have a p2p vehicle, you can't send people to Mars with it. Even 12 hours flights in a jetliner are hard to take.   But 3 months?

My observation is that the p2p requirements are much more amenable to a LAS, since the cabin area is compact.

A stage-wide LAS even if were possible would also have the issue of how to land a fueled stage in an unknown site.  If its just the cabin, there's a smaller issue with post landing fire and tip over.

And, you can call it star trekky, but it's just a variation on capsule separation which is a proven thing.  Based on a 737 mass breakdown, I called it ~20-30 tons.  That's not insane.

I know, and your logic is sound, no argument from me. But I dont think p2p is a design driver for BFR. Therefore it cannot be used to decide whether a LAS is needed or not. If it was design driving, Musk might risk to compromise the Mars goal with BFR. I dont think he would do that. Obviously it is an assumption on my part that p2p is not a design driver, it was never explicitly stated. But then, making it a design driver is inconsistent with the presentations we have got. And I am happy to change my view, in light of better evidence when and if we get it. I hope the soon(tm) to be held AMA on reddit shines some light onto it.
... unless the LAS is only implemented on p2p...  Not as an afterthought, but as one of the differentiators.

After all, p2p is supposed to launch people really often.

Tanker, cargo, and deployer never will.

BFS mars will carry people, but will operate on a two year (minimum) cycle, and will involve people undertaking the risks of Mars.

Since p2p will be transporting regular folk on a scheduled service, the whole concept of risk is different.  It really has to be as safe as a plane. 

I don't mind if BFS flies without a LAS, but once p2p exists, I can't see why not use it for earth ascent, with BFS launching just full of mars-bound cargo.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Then you have a second problem: you need to design the LAS such that it is both non-interfeering with the Mars BFR design AND optional. So a capsule nose for instance is not possible, it would require a completely different structural design than one that does not have a capsule nose. But thats off topic for this thread, where technical solutions are beside the point of whether the LAS is needed or not.

Online rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #373 on: 10/21/2018 08:26 pm »
Doesnt BFS only need 3 engines to safely land?

So the other 4 engines ARE the abort system.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #374 on: 10/21/2018 08:27 pm »
Semmel -

A mars ship is designed for months of travel, it has cabins, and a common area upfront.  It has an ECLSS. It has mars-surface provisions.

A P2P vehicle is designed for hour-long flights. It has seats packed up like in a jetliner, and a luggage/cargo area.

Once you have a p2p vehicle, you can't send people to Mars with it. Even 12 hours flights in a jetliner are hard to take.   But 3 months?

My observation is that the p2p requirements are much more amenable to a LAS, since the cabin area is compact.

A stage-wide LAS even if were possible would also have the issue of how to land a fueled stage in an unknown site.  If its just the cabin, there's a smaller issue with post landing fire and tip over.

And, you can call it star trekky, but it's just a variation on capsule separation which is a proven thing.  Based on a 737 mass breakdown, I called it ~20-30 tons.  That's not insane.

I know, and your logic is sound, no argument from me. But I dont think p2p is a design driver for BFR. Therefore it cannot be used to decide whether a LAS is needed or not. If it was design driving, Musk might risk to compromise the Mars goal with BFR. I dont think he would do that. Obviously it is an assumption on my part that p2p is not a design driver, it was never explicitly stated. But then, making it a design driver is inconsistent with the presentations we have got. And I am happy to change my view, in light of better evidence when and if we get it. I hope the soon(tm) to be held AMA on reddit shines some light onto it.
... unless the LAS is only implemented on p2p...  Not as an afterthought, but as one of the differentiators.

After all, p2p is supposed to launch people really often.

Tanker, cargo, and deployer never will.

BFS mars will carry people, but will operate on a two year (minimum) cycle, and will involve people undertaking the risks of Mars.

Since p2p will be transporting regular folk on a scheduled service, the whole concept of risk is different.  It really has to be as safe as a plane. 

I don't mind if BFS flies without a LAS, but once p2p exists, I can't see why not use it for earth ascent, with BFS launching just full of mars-bound cargo.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Then you have a second problem: you need to design the LAS such that it is both non-interfeering with the Mars BFR design AND optional. So a capsule nose for instance is not possible, it would require a completely different structural design than one that does not have a capsule nose. But thats off topic for this thread, where technical solutions are beside the point of whether the LAS is needed or not.

It's hard to discuss one without the other....

I think the structural difference would be similar to that between "the chomper" and a regular vanilla flavored cargo ship.

Everything up to the cabin area remains the same across all variants, and everything forward of the tanks is variant-specific, though some components (e.g. the forward fins) are still common.

Actually, whereas the chomper has to open and close in orbit, a detachable cabin means the cabin is sealed before lift-off and no in-space motion occurs.  It's actually probably simpler.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lemurion

Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #375 on: 10/21/2018 08:59 pm »
At least for the short term a BFS boost away is probably the best that can be achieved with the current design. The one good thing is that with the current engine design it does have enough thrust to break away even if slower than a conventional LAS.

Beyond that the best temporary option is likely to be send crew up on Dragon to dock with an orbiting BFS. This approach also has the advantage that if BFS does suffer heat shield damage on takeoff the crew can use the same Dragon they came up on to get back down.

In fact that's a huge potential safety advantage for BFR as a system. If necessary, SpaceX could provide Dragon lifeboats for early missions and it would provide both an LAS for takeoff and a second heat shield for reentry if needed.

Putting Dragon on BFR/BFS in a way that it could function as an LAS is completely infeasible.  It would be an enormous design change, and it would increase risk more than it would decrease it.


It's also not what I suggested.

My suggestion was to launch the crew separately on Dragon, which already has an LAS. Dragon would then dock with BFS in orbit and the crew would transfer. They could then either return on BFS or via Dragon--

It provides an LAS on the way up and a potential lifeboat for a second way back. At no time does it include strapping a Dragon to BFS as an LAS.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #376 on: 10/26/2018 07:11 am »
My suggestion was to launch the crew separately on Dragon, which already has an LAS. Dragon would then dock with BFS in orbit and the crew would transfer. They could then either return on BFS or via Dragon--

It provides an LAS on the way up and a potential lifeboat for a second way back. At no time does it include strapping a Dragon to BFS as an LAS.

Way too expensive for mars colonization. Would require of tens of Falcon 9 / dragon launches (probably with expendable upper stage) to fill a BFS.

« Last Edit: 10/26/2018 07:12 am by hkultala »

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #377 on: 10/26/2018 04:03 pm »
My suggestion was to launch the crew separately on Dragon, which already has an LAS. Dragon would then dock with BFS in orbit and the crew would transfer. They could then either return on BFS or via Dragon--

It provides an LAS on the way up and a potential lifeboat for a second way back. At no time does it include strapping a Dragon to BFS as an LAS.

Way too expensive for mars colonization. Would require of tens of Falcon 9 / dragon launches (probably with expendable upper stage) to fill a BFS.

Could another BFS retrieve both the Dragon and the second stage?

Offline wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #378 on: 10/27/2018 01:20 am »
My suggestion was to launch the crew separately on Dragon, which already has an LAS. Dragon would then dock with BFS in orbit and the crew would transfer. They could then either return on BFS or via Dragon--

It provides an LAS on the way up and a potential lifeboat for a second way back. At no time does it include strapping a Dragon to BFS as an LAS.

Way too expensive for mars colonization. Would require of tens of Falcon 9 / dragon launches (probably with expendable upper stage) to fill a BFS.

Certainly not too expensive for the earliest shakeout flights of BFS when there will likely only be minimal crew.  This might also be a good idea for very early test flights of BFS in NEO where BFS goes up unpiloted and does extended on-orbit stays to test out life support, refuelling, heating & cooling, and all the other things it's going to have to do in space for nearly a year. 

There's zero chance the first time an inhabited BFS spends 2 years in vacuum will be the first flight to mars.  They're going to park a couple of these in orbit and monitor and test systems near home for extended periods of time.  BFS space stations are going to be a thing if for no reason beyond testing before Mars.

Dragon is an absolutely excellent way to put people on & off BFS in the earliest test phases until a proven flight history exists.  Once the numbers show it's not needed, you stop doing it.


« Last Edit: 10/27/2018 01:21 am by wes_wilson »
@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Should the BFR have a launch escape system?
« Reply #379 on: 10/27/2018 01:49 pm »
My suggestion was to launch the crew separately on Dragon, which already has an LAS. Dragon would then dock with BFS in orbit and the crew would transfer. They could then either return on BFS or via Dragon--

It provides an LAS on the way up and a potential lifeboat for a second way back. At no time does it include strapping a Dragon to BFS as an LAS.

Way too expensive for mars colonization. Would require of tens of Falcon 9 / dragon launches (probably with expendable upper stage) to fill a BFS.

Certainly not too expensive for the earliest shakeout flights of BFS when there will likely only be minimal crew.  This might also be a good idea for very early test flights of BFS in NEO where BFS goes up unpiloted and does extended on-orbit stays to test out life support, refuelling, heating & cooling, and all the other things it's going to have to do in space for nearly a year. 

There's zero chance the first time an inhabited BFS spends 2 years in vacuum will be the first flight to mars.  They're going to park a couple of these in orbit and monitor and test systems near home for extended periods of time.  BFS space stations are going to be a thing if for no reason beyond testing before Mars.

Dragon is an absolutely excellent way to put people on & off BFS in the earliest test phases until a proven flight history exists.  Once the numbers show it's not needed, you stop doing it.

Why would you need people on board at all during the early (and not so early) test flights?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0