..... I'm never been so excited for the future of aerospace.
Let's hope that is the case, but bear in mind most of what you wrote could have have been written about the Space Shuttle.
If you desperately want an escape pod on BFS, it would make more sense to build the crew stations into it, and make it part of the OML, F-111 or B-1 style. Something like embedding a Dream Chaser in the nose.On the other hand, a small in-space crew/cargo shuttle could well be handy for docking in tight spaces, and general work.
I still like the idea but I think of it not so much as a quickfix, as a difficult but worthwhile problem for another variant.* Cargo variant* Crew variant (actually, passengers as cargo)* A Shuttle on steroids variant. 6-ish crew, some workspace, lots of cargo.This is a variant for actually doing work in. Also exploration missions where there is not backup and support at the other end, such as an asteroid mission. (Asteroids have the real risk of debris that could damage heatshields as well so there are multiple safety advantages. Additionally the Dragon could be an exploration module)
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/10/2017 12:04 pmIn the medium term a Dragon has no place in a BFS architecture. It means carrying a vehicle with plenty of hypergolic propellant.Please have that conversation here instead: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43438.0...in fact I will quote it there and reply to it there now.
In the medium term a Dragon has no place in a BFS architecture. It means carrying a vehicle with plenty of hypergolic propellant.
Why there? I am in no way talking about a LES-system but my understanding was that Dragon could become a utility vehicle around BFS. I argued that Dragon is not good for that purpose.
...
Just design the cargo version first and launch it at least few dozen times (Ideally a few hundred if the launch rate is as good as advertized) before you ever attempt a manned launch. Once cargo BFR is in operation, you can drop the Falcon 9 for anything that isn't a dragon launch so your stock of F9 rockets will last for a while. The cargo BFR could also be used for in-space breadboard testing of the manned BFS systems since it has downmass capability.
Quote from: Nilof on 10/11/2017 01:15 amJust design the cargo version first and launch it at least few dozen times (Ideally a few hundred if the launch rate is as good as advertized) before you ever attempt a manned launch. Once cargo BFR is in operation, you can drop the Falcon 9 for anything that isn't a dragon launch so your stock of F9 rockets will last for a while. The cargo BFR could also be used for in-space breadboard testing of the manned BFS systems since it has downmass capability.Agreed. That seems like the most reasonable course of action that both gets SpaceX experience and, hopefully, profits from the BFR, yet keeps them in the NASA human space flight world.
Do you assume a stock of unused first stages for crew or do you assume that NASA will be OK with reuse for manned flight?
Getting up and down from that height isn't particularly unsafe with a vehicle the size of BFS, if it has a large hatch and crane as depicted. You just use the crane to lower and raise a large basket (no need for rappelling down the side of the vehicle)
Quote from: biosehnsucht on 10/12/2017 07:29 amGetting up and down from that height isn't particularly unsafe with a vehicle the size of BFS, if it has a large hatch and crane as depicted. You just use the crane to lower and raise a large basket (no need for rappelling down the side of the vehicle)On a vehicle that could be landing on a lean? I think a smaller vehicle and a ladder would be a better idea at first. Once a landing pad is developed then perhaps a crane would work.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 10/12/2017 07:42 amQuote from: biosehnsucht on 10/12/2017 07:29 amGetting up and down from that height isn't particularly unsafe with a vehicle the size of BFS, if it has a large hatch and crane as depicted. You just use the crane to lower and raise a large basket (no need for rappelling down the side of the vehicle)On a vehicle that could be landing on a lean? I think a smaller vehicle and a ladder would be a better idea at first. Once a landing pad is developed then perhaps a crane would work.Don't we have enough hi-res imagery of the moon (LRO among others) that we can identify a nearly flat, boulder-free, plane to land on?
I'm not sure landing the BFS itself on the Moon is a good idea since it will have a lot of mass that won't do any good on the moon, e.g. airframe, heat shield, Earth return fuel, tanks, second stage engines. Why waste the fuel needed to get all that mass to a soft landing on the Moon, and then lift it back off?...