Author Topic: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism  (Read 87124 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #20 on: 05/15/2018 03:38 pm »
I for one, hope it works as planned.  Carbon fiber will make it lighter. 
No. Carbon fiber makes it possible at all.
Quote from: spacenut
As mentioned SpaceX has landing covered, and engine reuse covered, and very well made engines. 
For the booster stage.
Remember they want to land the US on a fully loaded booster stage. That's never been done anywhere ever.
Quote from: spacenut
Solar power for long duration missions of course.  They still have to master bringing the whole ship back from space, and land.   I think this will be done many times before allowing people to fly.
And I'd agree with you.
This is inaccurate.

Methalox is BETTER for an VTOL SSTO than LH2. It's denser and permits much better TWR.

And one-use SSTO is easy. Falcon 9 boosters/FH side boosters can already do it, with aluminum structures and gas-generator low pressure engines.
Good to see proper use of qualifications in that statement about SSTO. Too many people don't use them.

Quote from: envy887
The SSME was designed in the 1970s. Later blocks had updates for better reusability.

Merlin is reusable without rebuilding. Raptor will be built to the same goals. And FFSC methalox is easier on the turbines than FRSC hydrolox.
Hopefully it will do better but the fact it's a completely different design at much higher chamber pressure (and IIRC development cost scales at about the Pch^3 ) suggests that while the concepts used may be transferable detail engineering will be very different.
Quote from: envy887
This is the major outstanding question for BFS. PICA-X is certainly up to the reentry task, but will it last many flights? And how durable is it on the ground?
Actually what's shown is it's up to the task for small, highly loaded areas, where the rest of the vehicle is much cooler and in shadow, where the mass hit is tolerable.

All rockets have quite high aspect ratios. It's shown it can survive on the short axis. We have no real idea how it would handle being slapped on the whole of a half cylinder (and the wings) and how much weight it'll add. The fact Musk talked about some new TPS when discussing the Block 5 F9 suggests there are issues with PICAX in high frequency F9 usage already.

Quote from: envy887
Fly lots of flights, obviously. BFR is designed for turnaround and reflight in hours. It could in principle fly more in 3 months than the Shuttle did in 30 years.
Perhaps it's time NASA embraced this new fangled Weibull statistics the car industry used to work out if they can make 10 million cars without a fault, without actually building them.
Quote from: envy887
Shuttle was limited by power from the fuel cells and reaction control hydrazine, neither of which could be replenished in space.
Actually IIRC the real mission ending event was when the APU's ran out of MMH and (I did not know this) they had to be running (at idle) continuously


Quote from: envy887
BFS will use solar panels for power (unlimited endurance) and boiloff from the main tanks for RCS (unlimited, with orbital refueling).
In principle this leads to duration only limited by main tank propellants, like IVF, but without the patent infringing features.

The question then becomes what other cumulative effects (either stuff running out or stuff building up)  would end the life of a BFS?

I'm guessing the biggie is wheather there is continuous low(ish) level TPS damage in interplanetary space, or wheather it's mostly in LEO.

If the latter then the sooner it leaves LEO the better. If not then there will be a time when it will simply not be safe to try a reentry with crew on board the BFS.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #21 on: 05/15/2018 03:39 pm »
...

1.  SSTO
Doesn't matter, just eases BFS testing without BFR

Quote
2. Engine reuse.

Ahead of everyone else and pulling away.
Raptor is designed from ground up to be reusable; methalox a huge advantage over kerolox; thrust to weight ratio will be highest ever attained (>200).

Quote
3. Thermal protection system:

PicaX is most advanced TPS available and they are the experts in its use.

Quote
4. Safety.
Fly the same vehicle a lot... like an airplane, qualify the airframe.
Hardest part might be the carbon composite fatigue predictions in heat/stress/radiation parameter space.

Quote
5. Remain in space time
Most trivial of the challenges.

Quote
The hubris around BFR is a bit like that around the shuttle in the 1970s.

Agreed.
But the BFR/BFS builder uses iteration and spiral development, whereas the Shuttle was one-and-done design. 
The inability to pivot and/or iterate made it a dead end.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 03:39 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #22 on: 05/15/2018 03:40 pm »
The hubris around BFR is a bit like that around the shuttle in the 1970s.

the BFR is NOTHING like what we were thinking of doing back in the 60's & 70's.

You do realize that when the Shuttle was being conceptualized and designed that spaceflight was still relatively new? Not even one generation of rocket scientists had gone by.

Today we are 50-60 years wiser, with materials that are far more proven and understood than back in the 60's & 70's.

Is the BFR a big bet? Yes. And lots could go wrong. But it is not as big a leap as the Shuttle was at the time it was built.

Quote
Hopefully SpaceX can overcome these issues and launch BFR/BFS around the same time as SLS  :) They can prove me wrong like they proved most people wrong with Falcon 9. But how?

In reality, who cares when the BFR/BFS becomes operational? Unlike with the SLS, U.S. Taxpayers are not footing the bill for the BFR/BFS, so there is no competition.

Quote
And of course, even if, like the shuttle, BFR/BFS ends up 10 times the target price, it's still competitive with every launch system apart from Falcon 9 Block 5 (and New Glenn and Skylon).

The BFR/BFS have a very specific goal - to help humanity to become multi-planetary. And SpaceX has shown they understand how to build transportation systems with an eye towards cost, so if they can get them to fly I think they will hit their cost goals.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #23 on: 05/15/2018 03:46 pm »
As mentioned SpaceX has landing covered, and engine reuse covered, and very well made engines. 
For the booster stage.
Remember they want to land the US on a fully loaded booster stage. That's never been done anywhere ever.

No, that is most certainly not what they want.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #24 on: 05/15/2018 03:47 pm »
Remember they want to land the US on a fully loaded booster stage. That's never been done anywhere ever.

Wait, what? Where are you getting this from? That's absurd.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #25 on: 05/15/2018 04:07 pm »
Can we get Nathan Koga to do one of his famous renders?

"BFS tanker returns to Earth, setting down on its fully-fueled BFB..."  <BOOM>

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #26 on: 05/15/2018 04:09 pm »
I fail to see how the expressed skepticism is helpful and for whom it is helpful. 
This topic seems like a re-phrasing of risk assessment topics discussed previously.
Anyhow, going with the topic  given how BFS/BFR is all about engineering and no use of unobtanium, I see the risks as or I'm most skeptical/concerned about...

1. Funding BFR/BFS
Will ongoing NASA contracts, launch revenue and external private investment provide R&D cash sufficient to meet aspirational schedules?
I say likely not quite enough, such that development will be cash constrained.  Not a real "Problem" except resultant schedule delays  frustrate us amazing peoples & girls.

2. RUD(s)
Can't afford RUD(s) as they pole huge holes in revenue streams.  Related to issue #1.  I expect something(s) to go awry between now & 2022 aspirational causing delays.  RUDs are worse now with higher #s of employees to pay.

3. Generic re-use without major refurb (affects cost/flight)
Biggest risk here in my opinion is not Raptor engines but TPS.  How many re-entries before ablative systems like PICA-X+ need something substantive done?  I have no idea.  Maybe they're looking at alternative approaches.  Technical risk higher with approaches at lower TRLs.

Regarding long term Mars plans beyond one or two oppositions I'm back to funding issues again.  If the Skynet, I mean StarLink, program doesn't produce many billions of revenue, ongoing Mars missions face financial starvation.

As a financial aside, I'd like Musk to sell Tesla to say Apple, and then focus on SpaceX and have liquid billions to self fund SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 04:15 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline whitelancer64

Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #27 on: 05/15/2018 04:10 pm »
*snip*

1. SpaceX claim that their BFS (without booster) will be able to make it to orbit and back with a tiny payload. This is an extraordinary claim as SSTO has been a dream for many decades, and often regarded as unachievable.

*snip*

Just a technical point.

There have been several rocket first stages capable of doing SSTO - as early as the 1960s, with the Titan II. I've heard the Atlas V booster could do so as well, as could the F9 first stage.

The issue is useful payload, which is small to non-existent.

The SSTO "dream" is something like the VentureStar, or Skylon - capable of taking a payload to orbit, but also returning again, for full reuse of the LV, which reduces launch costs.

Of course, If you can do that with a TSTO (two stage to orbit), it's actually more efficient because you're not cutting into your payload capacity as much by flying the entire thing into orbit.

The Shuttle had a similar issue, as a rocket system it had an enormous payload capacity, but the Shuttle took up so much of it.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #28 on: 05/15/2018 04:11 pm »
Remember they want to land the US on a fully loaded booster stage. That's never been done anywhere ever.

Soyuz sort-of-does, though backwards.
The second stage lights before the booster stage cuts off, and vents exhaust out the side, without the first stage being destroyed.

(aside from the fact that others have commented on that SpaceX have never, ever said this.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #29 on: 05/15/2018 04:21 pm »
*snip*

1. SpaceX claim that their BFS (without booster) will be able to make it to orbit and back with a tiny payload. This is an extraordinary claim as SSTO has been a dream for many decades, and often regarded as unachievable.

*snip*

Just a technical point.

There have been several rocket first stages capable of doing SSTO - as early as the 1960s, with the Titan II. I've heard the Atlas V booster could do so as well, as could the F9 first stage.

The issue is useful payload, which is small to non-existent.

The SSTO "dream" is something like the VentureStar, or Skylon - capable of taking a payload to orbit, but also returning again, for full reuse of the LV, which reduces launch costs.

Of course, If you can do that with a TSTO (two stage to orbit), it's actually more efficient because you're not cutting into your payload capacity as much by flying the entire thing into orbit.

The Shuttle had a similar issue, as a rocket system it had an enormous payload capacity, but the Shuttle took up so much of it.

Heck, take this a step farther.  Pretty much every first stage is a SSTO by itself.



Good points - if the payload drops to 50 tons, the cost per kg triples.

What a world we live in where getting 50 tons to orbit at less then a million per ton is the pessimistic take.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4430
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #30 on: 05/15/2018 04:30 pm »
I fail to see how the expressed skepticism is helpful and for whom it is helpful. 
This topic seems like a re-phrasing of risk assessment topics discussed previously.
Anyhow, going with the topic  given how BFS/BFR is all about engineering and no use of unobtanium, I see the risks as or I'm most skeptical/concerned about...

1. Funding BFR/BFS
Will ongoing NASA contracts, launch revenue and external private investment provide R&D cash sufficient to meet aspirational schedules?
I say likely not quite enough, such that development will be cash constrained.  Not a real "Problem" except resultant schedule delays  frustrate us amazing peoples & girls.

2. RUD(s)
Can't afford RUD(s) as they pole huge holes in revenue streams.  Related to issue #1.  I expect something(s) to go awry between now & 2022 aspirational causing delays.  RUDs are worse now with higher #s of employees to pay.

3. Generic re-use without major refurb (affects cost/flight)
Biggest risk here in my opinion is not Raptor engines but TPS.  How many re-entries before ablative systems like PICA-X+ need something substantive done?  I have no idea.  Maybe they're looking at alternative approaches.  Technical risk higher with approaches at lower TRLs.

Regarding long term Mars plans beyond one or two oppositions I'm back to funding issues again.  If the Skynet, I mean StarLink, program doesn't produce many billions of revenue, ongoing Mars missions face financial starvation.

As a financial aside, i'd like Musk to sell Tesla to say Apple, and then focus on SoaceX and have liquid billions to self fund SpaceX.


1. Funding prediction: SpaceX will have the means to develop and build BFR+BFS, but not the means (or full ability) to outfit them for crewed Mars expeditions. For this they'll need to draw on the expertise and funds of other entities.

2. RUDs are to be expected in the development of any new vehicle, especially one this ambitious. Are you saying they can't afford any RUDs, ever, or only once the vehicle becomes operational? If the latter, the question shifts to a ratio of accidents amidst a given flight campaign. Honestly, if you're searching for something along these lines to center concern upon, a loss of crew specifically seems far more likely to impact and delay the program.

3. Good point, and agree that it's a risk, but there is nuance. We have three TPS concerns: booster, tanker, and spaceship. SpaceX must obtain reuse with minimal refurb for the first two only, as they'll both fly an order of magnitude more than the BFS. SpaceX have and will continue to prove out booster TPS with Falcon and Block 5. Tanker will be tricker, but it's only returning from LEO and, again, SpaceX will be learning from its Falcon US return+reuse efforts.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #31 on: 05/15/2018 04:43 pm »
Announcing crazy, ‘aspirational’, goals is standard operating procedure for Elon, but SpaceX has shown that they can execute with Falcon 9.

I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical of any hard numbers right now (when BFS will fly, how much payload it will carry, how much it will cost, etc) but to be confident that the overall vision/concept will be eventually achieved in some way or another, and that is pretty dang exciting!

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #32 on: 05/15/2018 04:57 pm »
Announcing crazy, ‘aspirational’, goals is standard operating procedure for Elon, but SpaceX has shown that they can execute with Falcon 9.

I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical of any hard numbers right now (when BFS will fly, how much payload it will carry, how much it will cost, etc) but to be confident that the overall vision/concept will be eventually achieved in some way or another, and that is pretty dang exciting!
Absolutely. I think the points made by above are that even if they miss their targets, it's still going to be revolutionary.

For people who grew up post Apollo, and got used to ever spiralling costs and the space program going nowhere, this is pretty exciting.

Hopefully, what Rickover (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover) said about nuclear reactors - and could be applied to most rockets - won't apply to BFR:

Quote
An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8 ) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8 ) It is complicated.



Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #33 on: 05/15/2018 05:47 pm »
I fail to see how the expressed skepticism is helpful and for whom it is helpful. 
This topic seems like a re-phrasing of risk assessment topics discussed previously.
Anyhow, going with the topic  given how BFS/BFR is all about engineering and no use of unobtanium, I see the risks as or I'm most skeptical/concerned about...

1. Funding BFR/BFS
Will ongoing NASA contracts, launch revenue and external private investment provide R&D cash sufficient to meet aspirational schedules?
I say likely not quite enough, such that development will be cash constrained.  Not a real "Problem" except resultant schedule delays  frustrate us amazing peoples & girls.

2. RUD(s)
Can't afford RUD(s) as they poKe huge holes in revenue streams.  Related to issue #1.  I expect something(s) to go awry between now & 2022 aspirational causing delays.  RUDs are worse now with higher #s of employees to pay.

3. Generic re-use without major refurb (affects cost/flight)
Biggest risk here in my opinion is not Raptor engines but TPS.  How many re-entries before ablative systems like PICA-X+ need something substantive done?  I have no idea.  Maybe they're looking at alternative approaches.  Technical risk higher with approaches at lower TRLs.

Regarding long term Mars plans beyond one or two oppositions I'm back to funding issues again.  If the Skynet, I mean StarLink, program doesn't produce many billions of revenue, ongoing Mars missions face financial starvation.

As a financial aside, i'd like Musk to sell Tesla to say Apple, and then focus on SoaceX and have liquid billions to self fund SpaceX.


1. Funding prediction: SpaceX will have the means to develop and build BFR+BFS, but not the means (or full ability) to outfit them for crewed Mars expeditions. For this they'll need to draw on the expertise and funds of other entities.

2. RUDs are to be expected in the development of any new vehicle, especially one this ambitious. Are you saying they can't afford any RUDs, ever, or only once the vehicle becomes operational? If the latter, the question shifts to a ratio of accidents amidst a given flight campaign. Honestly, if you're searching for something along these lines to center concern upon, a loss of crew specifically seems far more likely to impact and delay the program.

3. Good point, and agree that it's a risk, but there is nuance. We have three TPS concerns: booster, tanker, and spaceship. SpaceX must obtain reuse with minimal refurb for the first two only, as they'll both fly an order of magnitude more than the BFS. SpaceX have and will continue to prove out booster TPS with Falcon and Block 5. Tanker will be tricker, but it's only returning from LEO and, again, SpaceX will be learning from its Falcon US return+reuse efforts.

To clarify, on RUDs I was focused on F9 RUDs that would impact revenue during any possible stand downs.

Yes, they can afford such and can afford BFS loss.  Just exacerbates finances and delays the To Mars timeframes.

Not gonna even think about Loss of Crew.   :(   I'm an optimist.

FULL SEND!!!!

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: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #34 on: 05/15/2018 10:53 pm »
First off, I'm a fan of SpaceX....
Quote
The hubris around BFR ...
(firmly wearing my fan hat)
Almost stopped reading when I saw the first quoted part, as usually people who start posts saying they are a fan of Z ... aren't fans of Z

But I stuck it out till I saw the second quoted part.  Really?    Fan me has now dismissed the opening post as completely not value added.

(mod hat)
How is this different than umpteen prior threads? Also, looks like all the objections have been addressed, no?
"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 QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #35 on: 05/15/2018 11:02 pm »
I'm probably the most critical guy on Elon's nonsense who still claims the title of huge fan. In a way, I'm like those people who write to serial killers in prison  :-[

My opinion on BFR is: wow! I wouldn't design anything like it. I'm amazed that it's actually being built (and yes, it is!) and I simply can't wait to see it flying (and I think it will!)

Will it hit all the targets that Elon has suggested it will? No way. I feel perfectly safe making that prediction - it's Elon's way to overpromise and underdeliver, usually with a schedule that's massively different to what he claims. The fact that Elon has already downgraded his original claims (twice?) is evidence, to me, that he'll do it again.

Still, a fully reusable rocket doesn't exist yet. The idea that one* will soon exist is going to change everything, even if only 50% of Elon's aspirations come to fruition.

* Two? Yes, SpaceX are experimenting with recovering the upper stage of the Falcon family and may actually reuse it too. Amazing!


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #36 on: 05/15/2018 11:13 pm »
First off, I'm a fan of SpaceX....
Quote
The hubris around BFR ...
(firmly wearing my fan hat)
Almost stopped reading when I saw the first quoted part, as usually people who start posts saying they are a fan of Z ... aren't fans of Z

But I stuck it out till I saw the second quoted part.  Really?    Fan me has now dismissed the opening post as completely not value added.

(mod hat)
How is this different than umpteen prior threads? Also, looks like all the objections have been addressed, no?

What does 'hubris' even mean here? Has SpaceX frakked off the vindictive launch gods with the BFR?

I mean, it's engineering: you establish design targets based on past experience and physics, you set a development path and iterate to reach your goals... If your design isn't up to the goals you make changes and repeat again and again until you either succeed or give up and change your goals. There's no 'hubris', but a lot of bad possible designs for every good one.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #37 on: 05/15/2018 11:41 pm »
I'm probably the most critical guy on Elon's nonsense who still claims the title of huge fan. In a way, I'm like those people who write to serial killers in prison  :-[

My opinion on BFR is: wow! I wouldn't design anything like it. I'm amazed that it's actually being built (and yes, it is!) and I simply can't wait to see it flying (and I think it will!)

Will it hit all the targets that Elon has suggested it will? No way. I feel perfectly safe making that prediction - it's Elon's way to overpromise and underdeliver, usually with a schedule that's massively different to what he claims. The fact that Elon has already downgraded his original claims (twice?) is evidence, to me, that he'll do it again.

Still, a fully reusable rocket doesn't exist yet. The idea that one* will soon exist is going to change everything, even if only 50% of Elon's aspirations come to fruition.

* Two? Yes, SpaceX are experimenting with recovering the upper stage of the Falcon family and may actually reuse it too. Amazing!

I'd say possibly 2 with Blue Origin's New Glenn.
I don't expect SpaceX to do 2nd stage recovery & re-use.  It's an engineering study project to learn.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 11:42 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #38 on: 05/15/2018 11:46 pm »
I'd say possibly 2 with Blue Origin's New Glenn.
I don't expect SpaceX to do 2nd stage recovery & re-use.  It's an engineering study project to learn.

New Glenn isn't even intended to be fully reusable... so that seems unlikely.

It's interesting for some projects Elon promises the moon (or Mars  :P ), but for other projects they sandbag.
 
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: BFR and a bit of (hopefully) helpful scepticism
« Reply #39 on: 05/15/2018 11:48 pm »
I'd say possibly 2 with Blue Origin's New Glenn.
I don't expect SpaceX to do 2nd stage recovery & re-use.  It's an engineering study project to learn.

New Glenn isn't even intended to be fully reusable... so that seems unlikely.

It's interesting for some projects Elon promises the moon (or Mars  :P ), but for other projects they sandbag.

New Glenn will be fully reusable eventually. Probably sooner if BFR succeeds.

Tags:
 

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