Author Topic: SpaceX suborbital shuttle - Anywhere on Earth in 25 minutes?  (Read 89435 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
And doing P2P flights with the BFR design doesn't make much sense: you don't need the vacuum raptors or the header tanks, so it really needs a different vehicle. And once you are designing a new vehicle, you might as well optimize the pax capacity for the market, which probably means a smaller vehicle altogether.

The high performance of the vacuum Raptor would provide high-efficiency in the transition to suborbital cruise (a long burn will be needed after booster separation to get the horizontal velocity - a high-Isp engine would do nicely). Yes, the interior of the Shuttle would be different from the ITS. I'd expect the tanks to be smaller and for there to be a larger cargo bay and passenger cabins.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html

It's almost obligatory that I should post the above link. Much of the problems described within apply to the scheme Musk suggested today. In the era of North Korean nuclear weapons and ISIS, the federal government will be somewhat cautious about the idea of globe trotting reusable passenger ICBMs landing near cities. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say this scheme will never happen, the proven reliability of any rocket vehicle is currently orders of magnitude worse than ordinary aviation.

However, something like this would provide interesting global access options for exploration of the Moon and Mars. They don't have aviation or automotive industries to compete with there yet.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
How about a U-shaped underwater hyperloop.. Spit the upper stage out at 1000km/h :)

Come to think of it, then you could board on land too.. Has Elon ever mentioned Hyperloop underwater?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
How about a U-shaped underwater hyperloop.. Spit the upper stage out at 1000km/h :)

Search 'Terrahawks Hawkwing launch' on YouTube. Like so much else, Gerry Anderson was there 20-30 years before Elon was!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13982
  • UK
  • Liked: 3968
  • Likes Given: 220
We should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 09:34 am by Star One »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1330
  • Likes Given: 173
Quote
What does everyone think?

That it's utterly ridiculous and pointless. There are so many reasons why the point to point system will never, ever, work economically speaking that it is almost not worth discussing. Covered some of these in my post in the main IAC speech thread.

With that said, if the question is can you technically do this? The answer is yes. From a design and technical standpoint I don't see very many or any problems of using a vehicle this size like this. You would probably not even need anywhere near a full fuel load for the "ship" part, and there are no obvious technical reasons why it wouldn't work, it is essentially the same technology F9 uses when it lands downrange on a drone-ship, scaled up and with higher delta-v in order to go further "downrange" and get there somewhat faster. So in a technical sense there is no real reason it wouldn't work.

In an economic and risk sense, there is every single reason imaginable why it won't work. Not the least of which the airlines, global shipping companies, and many others would use every single lobbying power in the book to stop it if it ever got close to having a chance of entering operation.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1330
  • Likes Given: 173
We should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.
Electric propulsion is also fantasy. What is going to power your electric jet? Batteries? What sort of batteries now exist that have the energy density to weight ratio necessary and won't burst into flame? I could go on but it would be outside the scope of the thread.

Equally fantastic. Actually more fantastic as at least the technological basis exists for point to point travel with a rocket, where as constructing a functional electric large high speed aircraft is outside of existing technology at this time.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13982
  • UK
  • Liked: 3968
  • Likes Given: 220
We should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.
Electric propulsion is also fantasy. What is going to power your electric jet? Batteries? What sort of batteries now exist that have the energy density to weight ratio necessary and won't burst into flame? I could go on but it would be outside the scope of the thread.

Equally fantastic. Actually more fantastic as at least the technological basis exists for point to point travel with a rocket, where as constructing a functional electric large high speed aircraft is outside of existing technology at this time.

Guess you’ve never heard of solid state batteries, or look up NASA’s developments in electric propulsion before making pronouncements on things.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-solid-state-battery-toyota-dyson




Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1330
  • Likes Given: 173
We should be looking to further develop electric propulsion in air transport as NASA are hoping to do in the X Plane program not wasting time on flights of fantasy like this.
Electric propulsion is also fantasy. What is going to power your electric jet? Batteries? What sort of batteries now exist that have the energy density to weight ratio necessary and won't burst into flame? I could go on but it would be outside the scope of the thread.

Equally fantastic. Actually more fantastic as at least the technological basis exists for point to point travel with a rocket, where as constructing a functional electric large high speed aircraft is outside of existing technology at this time.

Guess you’ve never heard of solid state batteries, or look up NASA’s developments in electric propulsion before making pronouncements on things.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-solid-state-battery-toyota-dyson

Ask Boeing how well it went putting large numbers of untested battery technology on an aircraft the first time around.
Also check the article. You are talking about a battery designed for vehicles operating at highway speeds on the ground. You are not talking about a battery which has to power a jet or turbofan engine on an aircraft moving at high velocities under high stress at high altitude. And the article you cited even states the technology is untested and still being developed and cites the earliest use of it being sometime in 2020.

You are orders of magnitude into the fantastic making the leap of this from what it is right now to a large aircraft particularly one which caries people. Drones are a different story.

I will believe this when I see it.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 09:50 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
I think I am just more cynical and untrusting than everybody else. Elon Musk is a show man. I think the airplane thing is misdirection.. even if entirely true.

It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 09:58 am by KelvinZero »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1330
  • Likes Given: 173
I think I am just more cynical and untrusting than everybody else. Elon Musk is a show man. I think the airplane thing is misdirection.. even if entirely true.

It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.
Obviously you aren't the only cynic then I am thinking the exact same thing right now. The point to point thing made me question the logic of the entire proposal. He would have done well to leave that out of it.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
Won't ITAR cause issues for this?
I was thinking of that when the destination shown in the video was China...
Don't assume ITAR is restricted to just rockets. Aircraft manufactured in the USA are equipped with multiple ITAR-ed items. They fly to China (and back) on a regular bases (airlines). It's not as if SpaceX is going to export BFR to China. BFR will fly there, and then back again. Similar to airlines, however mostly above the atmosphere in stead of in it.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2279
  • Likes Given: 2184
It's not as if SpaceX is going to export BFR to China. BFR will fly there, and then back again. Similar to airlines, however mostly above the atmosphere in stead of in it.

What about the booster? It doesn't fly around the world like the ship. It stays at the launch site.
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 Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.

Actually, I'm seeing an echo of the Dragon v.1 to Dragon v.2 step strategy here: The ITS hull plan and BFR booster are proven in ETO and lunar access then later in suborbital P2P and Mars access. The point is that, the more the vehicle is used for more and more people and more and more applications, the more people will have confidence in the system.

For example, I suspect that the first P2P suborbital application will be ultra-fast cargo and document delivery. FedEx and UPS might be very interested in offering a service that reduces urgent document and parcel delivery times from 6-12 hours to about 1-3 hours (factoring in customs & border checks). Yes, it would be expensive but there could be cargoes and package delivery tasks for which some customers would be willing to consider that expenditure.

On another subject: Looking at the spacecraft configuration, could one reasonable abort scenario be a horizontal water landing then pumping sea water into the prop tanks to bring the vehicle up into a horizontal configuration with the egress hatches close to the water-line for easy transfer over to rescue boats?

What about the booster? It doesn't fly around the world like the ship. It stays at the launch site.

That depends on exactly how the launch site is handled. If it's an offshore platform (outside the national waters limit), then it could be handled under the same laws as oil rigs with the flag country (the USA in this case) being responsible for safety and crewing. Then it would simply be a matter of ensuring that any locally-sourced crews pass a security clearance.

[EDIT]
So, putting my amazing people rose-tinted specs for a moment, let's go racing down 'What if...?' Boulevard.

Musk is quoting 150t IMLEO. Assuming a 50/50 split between dry cargo and passengers, that would be basically two SLS launches, one with a 70t cargo hauler and one with a 50-seat passenger shuttle in a single launch. IFR as a starting design feature means that you don't need a space station to rendezvous with and transfer payload over to the orbit-to-orbit interplanetary transfer vehicle that is being serviced and resupplied there.

Here's something that occurs to me: According to that artwork, the LEO/Lunar version of ITS will have lateral payload doors. Fit it with a RMS and could it be used to build a space-station? Just consider that: Two or three flights per day from LC-39A and Boca Chica, Structural assembly could be done in weeks and the long pole will become the systems check-out and commissioning process.

To summarise: In concert with lower-cost inflatable pressurised modules, ITS could make it possible to build space stations larger than the ISS at a rate of several per year. It's a paradigm shifter that would necessarily change LEO exploitation beyond recognition.

I can't help but see the ghosts of Tsilkovsky, Von Braun and Korolev standing next to Elon as he delivers these presentations. Flights of fantasy? I'm not enough of an expert to tell but they're the sort of dreams that, IMO at least, an increasingly insular and cynical world needs.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 10:33 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • UK
  • Liked: 854
  • Likes Given: 1928
I think short term cynicism is entirely justified.  Long term though, if you can overcome legislative and vested interest issues it gives you something to do with a spaceship stockpile between Mars Transit windows.

SpaceX were ramping up to 46 F9 cores per year.  Assume that they can make a minimum or 10 BFR or Spaceships a year when they switch production fully.  If you're targeting P2P travel for later in the 2020's that's a healthy starter fleet. 

Also, having these things chucking themselves daily between cities will normalise spaceflight on a Moon or Mars cruise.  Customers already rough idea what it's like.


« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 11:09 am by Cheapchips »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
I think I am just more cynical and untrusting than everybody else. Elon Musk is a show man. I think the airplane thing is misdirection.. even if entirely true.

It is not what is important. Whether it is justifiable or not, it obviously could only come about long after ITSy was a mundane tool for space, which accepts much higher risks and can begin with only a single launch pad. The battle for ITSy would be won so this is automatically in the idle speculation category, IMO.
Obviously you aren't the only cynic then I am thinking the exact same thing right now. The point to point thing made me question the logic of the entire proposal. He would have done well to leave that out of it.
This is something I admit to knowing nothing about. Is he actually harmed by loss of confidence by his fans at this point? Scares can cause a temporary dip in shares in whichever of his companies actually have shares. Im not sure if that is harm or opportunity though.. though I suspect there are laws against that sort of opportunity.

The Point to point thing will probably make a lot more publicity in the general media, and grab the attention of a public who do not care about mars one bit. This tale, fictional or not, makes ITS apply to them. There is a saying that all publicity is good publicity. This is a promise he does not need to make good on till after he has already won.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 11:02 am by KelvinZero »

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 15
It's the most minute of the details, but I think typical to the Musk approach:

The video says "Paris to New York 30 minutes"

Where in (near) Paris would he launch a BFR-sized rocket? CNES must feel like idots shipping Ariane to Kourou all the years when they could just lift-off from Paris-Orly Terminal 1.  :o

It can be a few tens of miles outside of Paris (like many modern large commercial airports). Once you remove the need for a safe location to dispose of spent booster stages, the space requirements and debris hazard from a rocket launch site drops down precipitately. There is still a danger from anomalies but this is equally true for those living in the farmland around CDG.

No it requires an evacuated area with a radius of many kms because of noise alone. Then there is the risk of 5000 tonnes of propellant crashing down. A launch over inhabitated areas is not going to happen for many many years in Europe. BFR can land in atlantic ocean near the coast of France or England but not in the European cities.

Also coast to coast in the US is possible but only if you go around the Earth once.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
I think there is more of an economic case to be made for landing cargo and people in ultra-remote places than there is for flying millionaires from one spot to another in less time than it takes to deliver a pizza.

A South Pole operation will cut the time and expense of maintaining that base, while also creating an excellent corollary for Martian and lunar operations.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 03:22 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2343
  • Likes Given: 2056
Just watched the video; amazing concept in addition to regular jet airliners.

I'm guessing that SpaceX is using a smaller version of the ITS booster for ferries to and from certain cities while they are using the full-sized version for trips to Mars and back.
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
I'm guessing that SpaceX is using a smaller version of the ITS booster for ferries to and from certain cities while they are using the full-sized version for trips to Mars and back.

Thanks to in-flight refuelling, not necessarily. All the BFR and ITS needs to do off of the launch pad is get the ITS spacecraft into a stable orbit or into the appropriate ballistic trajectory with sufficient reserve for braking and landing. I wouldn't be surprised if the initial fuel load for both flight plans is similar.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

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