Why use an ACES? A hydogen upper stage would make integration hugely complex and expensive. An expendable BFR upper stage cannot be that expensive in comparison. But with refuellling in LEO I guess it would be possible to send a spacecraft into a high energy orbit and still return the upper stage. Maybe with a simple storable fuel booster that provides extra kick and/or orbit insertion at the destination.
We've been debating awhile now just how Spacex's BFR & the MCT will get us to Mars and how best to accomplish colonization with them. ... There must be other profitable missions and tasks these vehicles could do for Spacex. ... Aside from possibly transforming space tourism, such vehicles might also make lunar bases and/or lunar tourism a real possibility. Or they might enable asteroid mining on a previously unimagined scale. For purely scientific missions, you might see the BFR enabling things like a Europa orbiter and lander mission, or a Titan orbiter and lander mission, or, my personal favorite, an orbiter and lander mission to Pluto.
So let's sound off and debate just what we think the MCT and BFR will be used for besides going to Mars.
My own preference, and I don't expect it to be widely shared, (in addition to an eventual program of asteroid colonization), would be a solar-system wide constellation of 8m-class optical telescopes networked to form a giant multi-source optical interferometer. Getting a 6 a.u. or so baseline would allow us to map just about every star and planet in the galaxy down to a gnat's butt.
There's the perennial favourite of orbital solar-power; though all studies to date show you get more (even 24-hour) power for the same money with ground-based solar, so far as I know none of these have taken reusable launchers and the concomitant reduction of launch costs into account.
Probably we need an Elon v. 2 to revolutionize production methods for space probes and space telescopes!
Maybe propellant shipments for moving asteroids around for Planetary Resources type operations.Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 09/14/2014 11:46 amThere's the perennial favourite of orbital solar-power; though all studies to date show you get more (even 24-hour) power for the same money with ground-based solar, so far as I know none of these have taken reusable launchers and the concomitant reduction of launch costs into account. Also, the lack of winds etc. may allow thinner solar panels to be used. Has anybody done a solar power satellite study assuming 25 um thick panels (that's what IKAROS uses)? Assuming the density is about 2 g/cm^3 that's about 20,000 square meters per metric ton (for the panels alone, not the power wires/cables or the transmitter...) At 10% efficiency and Earth's distance from the sun that 20,000 square meters would produce about 2.7 megawatts* (though I don't know how efficient the transmission to Earth would be).And you might be able to go even thinner than that.
Without a big enough actual collecting area, a huge aperture size only helps for extremely bright sources, like blackhole accretion disks, etc. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
1. I think that will be a result of cheaper launch costs - right now the launch is a significant part of the cost of a "cheap" science mission (especially since they aren't launching them on Falcon 9). If you could make it $10 million in exchange for much less reliability, that may not be worth it if the launch is $100 million plus. 2. But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).3. As launches get cheaper the "cubesat"/smartphone electronics 'cheap' satellite mentality will be applied to bigger and more capable spacecraft, at some point overlapping with at least the lower end of 'official' science spacecraft (Discovery class etc.)
1. That is only for a small portion of the missions.
2. Nonsense. Saving a few million isn't enough for more spacecraft.
3. that mentality doesn't hold water.
Quote from: geza on 09/14/2014 07:08 pmProbably we need an Elon v. 2 to revolutionize production methods for space probes and space telescopes!We can stop with this type of nonsense
Quote from: Vultur on 09/14/2014 10:56 pm1. I think that will be a result of cheaper launch costs - right now the launch is a significant part of the cost of a "cheap" science mission (especially since they aren't launching them on Falcon 9). If you could make it $10 million in exchange for much less reliability, that may not be worth it if the launch is $100 million plus. 2. But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).3. As launches get cheaper the "cubesat"/smartphone electronics 'cheap' satellite mentality will be applied to bigger and more capable spacecraft, at some point overlapping with at least the lower end of 'official' science spacecraft (Discovery class etc.)1. That is only for a small portion of the missions.2. Nonsense. Saving a few million isn't enough for more spacecraft.3. that mentality doesn't hold water.
But if the launches were much cheaper... you might be able to make 3 cheaper spacecraft instead of 1 more reliable one, and make up for lack of reliability with redundancy (send 3 copies of the same probe).
landing on the Moon cargo capability was a disappointing 8 MT, and other Moon specific requirements may not be worth it.
@sheltonjrVery interesting.Quotelanding on the Moon cargo capability was a disappointing 8 MT, and other Moon specific requirements may not be worth it.Not disappointing to me at all. It would be enough to do both crew and supply transport to a base. If necessary for station building a tanker could be sent along to refuel after TLI. The tanker needs little fuel for direct earth return after a loop around the moon. That should enable landing of large habitats and other big equipment.What are those other moon specific requirements? Engine throttling for landing in lunar gravity may be a problem. Environmental problems may be mitigated by landing early in the moon day and departing before night.
Before the Mars Colonial Transport vehicle can make its first crewed mission to mars, it will have to be well tested and proven for at least the same duration as a full two way trip. That means it will have to be fully crewed in LEO for more than a year, with multiple lunches and landings on earth to prove that its systems are space worthy.This research and development will have to be self funded because launch revenues wont suffice.The more I think of it, theres just no way around it -If MCT is pursued, SpaceX will maintain their own private space station in LEO based on a precorsur MCT design and BFR.
You could probably do direct injection to anything within, say, Saturn's orbit, and minimize the gravity assist flybys on missions to Uranus and beyond. Alternatively, you could still use flybys liberally and just have an absurdly huge mass budget for your spacecraft.
I have imagined what the future could look like. . . 2020 - Property rights in space are developed
Quote from: Dudely on 09/16/2014 11:52 amI have imagined what the future could look like. . . 2020 - Property rights in space are developedThis is going to be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.
Quote from: Jet Black on 09/16/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: Dudely on 09/16/2014 11:52 amI have imagined what the future could look like. . . 2020 - Property rights in space are developedThis is going to be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.No, I'm serious.If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much .
Quote from: Dudely on 09/17/2014 12:00 pmQuote from: Jet Black on 09/16/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: Dudely on 09/16/2014 11:52 amI have imagined what the future could look like. . . 2020 - Property rights in space are developedThis is going to be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.No, I'm serious.If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much . If what is on asteroid is worth recovering for the price of BFR development, actually plenty of people would willing to spend the money. :/
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 12:33 pmQuote from: Dudely on 09/17/2014 12:00 pmQuote from: Jet Black on 09/16/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: Dudely on 09/16/2014 11:52 amI have imagined what the future could look like. . . 2020 - Property rights in space are developedThis is going to be a really odd one; rights are only as useful as your ability to defend and enforce them. It's also rather off topic so I won't go into it.Edit/CR: Yes, developing property rights is hardly a mission for the BFR or MCT! Others to note.No, I'm serious.If you had no BFR or if everyone had a BFR then you would have a point. But the BFR is exactly what will enable property rights for the same reason sturdy wooden ships enabled north american property rights. If a BFR delivered a mining operation to an asteroid in NEO who is going to physically stop them from claiming it as their own? There would be no one willing to spend the money.Of course, the colonization of the Americas didn't exactly go smoothly so maybe that's not saying much . If what is on asteroid is worth recovering for the price of BFR development, actually plenty of people would willing to spend the money. :/No, they wouldn't, because here is how the actual real-life conversation would go:Engineer1: "Hey there is an asteroid with some valuable stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it?"Investor: "Sure, what's your plan?"Engineer1: *shows nice plan*Investor: "Ok, here is some money"*Mining operation is launched*Engineer2: "Hey there is an asteroid with some cool stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it? Only problem is there is already someone there mining it."Investor: "Why don't you just pick a different asteroid? I won't give you any of my money to bicker over space dirt. Get out of my office."
No, they wouldn't, because here is how the actual real-life conversation would go:Engineer1: "Hey there is an asteroid with some valuable stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it?"Investor: "Sure, what's your plan?"Engineer1: *shows nice plan*Investor: "Ok, here is some money"*Mining operation is launched*Engineer2: "Hey there is an asteroid with some cool stuff on it, want to give me money to go get it? Only problem is there is already someone there mining it."Investor: "Why don't you just pick a different asteroid? I won't give you any of my money to bicker over space dirt. Get out of my office."
Yeah...and piracy and conflict diamonds are just a myth and never happened in history!! Fairy tales like the flood and gorgons!!*seriously, if your plan for an investor is - if i just go into an undefended territory that has no space army or space police or clear laws and take some stuff... and no one is going to stop me! - you'll get kicked out of his office faster. Places that are without an effective formal state, do form a sort of property rights, or turf defended at the the point of a gun. See the Mexican Cartels for reference.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 01:22 pmYeah...and piracy and conflict diamonds are just a myth and never happened in history!! Fairy tales like the flood and gorgons!!*seriously, if your plan for an investor is - if i just go into an undefended territory that has no space army or space police or clear laws and take some stuff... and no one is going to stop me! - you'll get kicked out of his office faster. Places that are without an effective formal state, do form a sort of property rights, or turf defended at the the point of a gun. See the Mexican Cartels for reference.Seriously you're really overthinking the issue at hand there Darkseraph It's not going to be the "wild-west" up there no matter how much some people want it to be. The simple act of suviving and extracting resources is going to be challenge enough. There won't be any battles between wild-cat miners over a platinuim asteroid for a very long time if ever because the "resources" matter and not the "Land" itself. About the only conflict the BFR/MCT is going to enable is dueling lawers over points of space law. Property "rights" are a chimera and myth that people keep grabbing onto in the hopes that "real-estate" speculation could boot-strap a space economy while never leaving Earth. It's a dead end better off forgotten to deal with the reality of the situation and left to history and on Earth. Out in space you own what you build, what you mine, and what you harvest under the current law. I never understand why people think its required you make someone "pay" for the privilages they already have by requireing they also "own" some abstract of "property" rather than the reality they already own...Randy
Oh I know it won't be a wild west nor would i desire it to be. I just think Dudley example is absurd, that a company will go up there just to take stuff, and its plan is...eh no one will stop it (nation states, other companies, the US congress) That's not a good plan. Bob Bigelow doesn't think that's a great idea, and wants a regime enacted that would provide clarity and protection of the property rights of companies in space. By the time it becomes relevant (ie they find something profitable to do in space with energy and material there), a regime will be put in place to make sure countries or companies don't steal from each other or create other sorts of problems. Human history until very recently was just various armed groups stealing from each other with very little growth. There are precedents for it already though in things that aren't even material, but need to be coordinated to avoid chaos. For example electromagnetic spectrum allocation, as well as orbital slots in GSO.But I suppose this conversation is drifting a bit...
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 02:02 pm...But I suppose this conversation is drifting a bit...A "bit"? On NSF? Threads NEVER drift here! What are you implying? Randy
...But I suppose this conversation is drifting a bit...
Now back on topic! Out of curiosity, does anyone know if a ~300 t to LEO methalox monster would have the capacity to put an orbiter around Pluto? I've always wondered if that was within the realm of possibility.
A ~300 ton BFR would probably not be used to lift 70-100 ton BA-2100's. The BA-2100 is a Powerpoint-stage concept based on Bigelow's research into the largest feasible private-sector rocket. A rocket 4x as large, with a 15m payload fairing, would engender a new design, likely a design with ~10x as much habitable volume.
Quote from: Burninate on 09/14/2014 05:04 pmA ~300 ton BFR would probably not be used to lift 70-100 ton BA-2100's. The BA-2100 is a Powerpoint-stage concept based on Bigelow's research into the largest feasible private-sector rocket. A rocket 4x as large, with a 15m payload fairing, would engender a new design, likely a design with ~10x as much habitable volume.That's engineering for performance instead of cost. If the 70-100 ton station is what the mission requires, and the reusable BFR gets it into orbit cheaply, who cares? If you decide to ship a product cross country by FedEx, do you redesign it so that you use up every spare cubic inch inside the truck?No. It'll be SpaceX's problem to try and pack the BFR full. But the customer should design to the mission, not the launcher. And what will bring down launch costs, especially for a reusable launcher, is using the same design to handle a large range of payloads.
Exploring the solar system is great, but there's not nearly as much money in it as in launching communications satellites. And it would be really nice if BFR could pay back its own development costs even without some entity other than SpaceX deciding to go to Mars, or being dependent on NASA's robotic exploration program.So I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...Has that been modelled yet? If not, would it be possible to do that, Hyperion5 and Dmitri? I think it would help us assess how feasible BFR is financially.
exploration by SpaceX itself wouldn't pay
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/21/2014 04:46 pmexploration by SpaceX itself wouldn't payNot necessarily true. Entertainment is big business. Successful feature films, for instance, routinely produce over $1 billion in revenue. And once people find a franchise they like, they keep coming back to it. Game of Thrones somehow makes money spending upwards of $50 million to film each episode.Where NASA has fallen flat in generating widespread public interest since Apollo is that the public wants to watch exploration, not science or practice.Take the moon, for instance. It's not just a place, it's a whole planet full of places to explore, but you've got to travel over the planet to explore them. A duplication of the Apollo program might meet with public yawns, but a reality show about prospecting on the moon could be the hit of the century.Even unmanned probes can provide quality entertainment if they're doing something genuinely new (the first lander on Mars to take pictures of the landing area and scoop dust samples was big news to the public, the first rover on Mars to take pictures around the landing area and scoop dust samples was small news, a somewhat larger rover on Mars to take pictures near the landing area and scoop dust samples was non-news), if you have good cameras on them, and if you dig up enough human drama with clips from the control room and the people who built the thing, and good editing. When something dramatic happens, you need to capture it on camera. It's not enough to just know that it happened from instrument readings. And you need to seek out the most visually impressive vistas, not just get a good enough picture to be able to analyse what's in it.For exploration as entertainment, it's much better to aim for amazing things and fail dramatically sometimes than it is to progress by conservative little steps. A dramatic failure is still drama.Context matters, too. People sitting in a room in space is a lot less interesting if that room isn't hurtling toward Mars for the first time.
Quote from: Lourens on 09/21/2014 04:33 pmExploring the solar system is great, but there's not nearly as much money in it as in launching communications satellites. And it would be really nice if BFR could pay back its own development costs even without some entity other than SpaceX deciding to go to Mars, or being dependent on NASA's robotic exploration program.So I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...Not technically true. I mean exploration by SpaceX itself wouldn't pay, but launching exploration missions is lucrative, even more so than launching commercial commsats. Operators of commsats make a lot of money, but not SpaceX doing the launches. And it has to price itself at the moment lower than competition because it has less of a track record. SpaceX going to the point of suing the Airforce over the block buy shows just how important government missions are to it.
Exploring the solar system is great, but there's not nearly as much money in it as in launching communications satellites. And it would be really nice if BFR could pay back its own development costs even without some entity other than SpaceX deciding to go to Mars, or being dependent on NASA's robotic exploration program.So I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...
Why would exploration missions be more lucrative than comsats? They'd pay the same price for the same rocket. But there are many more comsats than exploration missions, so total revenue would be higher for comsats.
The Air Force block buy doesn't include exploration missions, those are GPS satellites, spy satellites and military comsats. Maybe BFR could deploy a bunch of spy satellites into polar SSO in one mission in the same way as I suggested above. And the spy satellites could include much bigger optics.
So, the magnitude of the delta v to stop is enormous (from memory, it's close to 10 km/s for NH).
Not necessarily true. Entertainment is big business. Successful feature films, for instance, routinely produce over $1 billion in revenue. And once people find a franchise they like, they keep coming back to it. Game of Thrones somehow makes money spending upwards of $50 million to film each episode.Where NASA has fallen flat in generating widespread public interest since Apollo is that the public wants to watch exploration, not science or practice.
Take the moon, for instance. It's not just a place, it's a whole planet full of places to explore, but you've got to travel over the planet to explore them. A duplication of the Apollo program might meet with public yawns, but a reality show about prospecting on the moon could be the hit of the century.
But the Moon is not interesting to most people.
No documentary has pulled in as much as a Transformers movie, even two of the highest grossing documentaries of all time, that were about space didn't go anywhere near a 5th of that revenue.
QuoteNo documentary has pulled in as much as a Transformers movie, even two of the highest grossing documentaries of all time, that were about space didn't go anywhere near a 5th of that revenue. This is why I was looking here and checking out all the revenues to compare. Yeah, but is that because of content, or presentation? And was the distribution/advertising/etc as big?If you're going to make this work it needs to be multimedia, heavily advertised, lots of spinoffs (apps, games, merchandise, books).. everyone needs to know it's out there.
No documentary has pulled in as much as a Transformers movie, even two of the highest grossing documentaries of all time, that were about space didn't go anywhere near a 5th of that revenue. This is why I was looking here and checking out all the revenues to compare.
Quote from: Lourens on 09/22/2014 11:22 pmWhy would exploration missions be more lucrative than comsats? They'd pay the same price for the same rocket. But there are many more comsats than exploration missions, so total revenue would be higher for comsats.Your basic assumptions miss a major point though: The BFR/MCT system in and of itself allows a MUCH higher flight rate avialable for such "exploration" missions at a much lower price.
Note also that "industry" thinking along these lines has indicated that IF such a high payload to LEO/GTO/GEO was available that the "standard" comm-sat would become obsolete and that larger, modular platforms in GEO would be much more cost and operationally effective. Meaning there would be far fewer "comm-sat" launches but more "component" launches and maintenance and operations launchs as well. And that in and of itself is "supposed" to lead to more space industrialization AND the R&D and explortation required to support that. In the end (as the "plan" goes at any rate ) we're supposed to see the "comm-satellite" market disappear into a general "infratructural" industry base and expansion, exploration, exploitation hugely increase to "keep up" with that expansion.QuoteThe Air Force block buy doesn't include exploration missions, those are GPS satellites, spy satellites and military comsats. Maybe BFR could deploy a bunch of spy satellites into polar SSO in one mission in the same way as I suggested above. And the spy satellites could include much bigger optics.Ahh but you're "assuming" that nothing really changes given the much greater access granted by the BFR and the like
So I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...
That doesn't increase NASA's budget though. They may be able to do more science for the same amount of money, but that doesn't make it more lucrative to SpaceX.
Your argument that the comsat market will morph into a more general space infrastructure actually supports my point that comsats are (and/or will be) more lucrative than exploration missions.
And I know that Mars is the Roman god of war, but I don't think that that's enough for the USAF to start launching exploration missions to it, even if they become much cheaper.
Quote from: Lourens on 09/21/2014 04:33 pmSo I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...So, it turns out that this was modelled, I just didn't see it. According to sheltonjr's calculations, it can do about 30 tonnes to GEO fully reusably, if I understand correctly. That's a nice chunk of that space infrastructure, or if the market doesn't develop at the same speed as SpaceX, about 6 current size comsats.
With a projected global market of around 100 comsats per year (270kB PDF), that'd give more than a flight per month, assuming they capture most of the market, and that's without any disruptive changes or price elasticity.SpaceX would of course also want to have the military market, and the exploration missions. I can see them earning back the development costs and then make a nice profit for Elon to retire to Mars .
Probably a bit less than half that [mass] if they have to deliver [multiple payloads] to different "slots" which they will. Still very nice
No. It'll be SpaceX's problem to try and pack the BFR full. But the customer should design to the mission, not the launcher. And what will bring down launch costs, especially for a reusable launcher, is using the same design to handle a large range of payloads.
Quote from: Norm38 on 09/17/2014 04:27 pmNo. It'll be SpaceX's problem to try and pack the BFR full. But the customer should design to the mission, not the launcher. And what will bring down launch costs, especially for a reusable launcher, is using the same design to handle a large range of payloads.Yeah.The reality is that there's a lot of nations interested in space activities, as we can see from robotic missions and ISS participation. If the budget for a significant manned mission can be brought close to current budgets for robotic missions or other stuff like national Antarctica programs, I think it would be completely reasonable to expect to see manned Moon missions or bases, for example.
Only problem I see with that is the MCT lander's design really won't be optimized for the Moon, AC. I believe Sheltonjr calculated that a possible MCT lander would only be able to put 8 mt of payload down on our lunar neighbor. Perhaps a better role for it would be to fly people over to the reusable landers in Polar orbit? The MCT after all will be designed much better for landing and ascending from Mars compared to the Moon.
QuoteQuote from: Lourens on 09/21/2014 04:33 pmSo I'm wondering, how much would the fully reusable BFR be able to lift to GEO? I'm thinking that going only to GTO like Ariane 5 won't work too well with more than two satellites to drop off. So instead, I'd think that BFR would launch its second stage including the payloads into an orbit just below GEO, and then just drop off the satellites one by one as it passes the correct orbital slot. After dropping off all payloads, the second stage would deorbit and be reused. Provided of course that it has a useful amount of payload for such a mission...So, it turns out that this was modelled, I just didn't see it. According to sheltonjr's calculations, it can do about 30 tonnes to GEO fully reusably, if I understand correctly. That's a nice chunk of that space infrastructure, or if the market doesn't develop at the same speed as SpaceX, about 6 current size comsats.Probably a bit less than half that if they have to deliver them to different "slots" which they will. Still very nice
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 09/17/2014 03:27 pmNow back on topic! Out of curiosity, does anyone know if a ~300 t to LEO methalox monster would have the capacity to put an orbiter around Pluto? I've always wondered if that was within the realm of possibility. Yes.But the question you should ask is "How long would it take to get there?" The problem with taking a New Horizons-like trajectory to Pluto is that the spacecraft's velocity vector is almost perpendicular to Pluto's heliocentric velocity vector. So, the magnitude of the delta v to stop is enormous (from memory, it's close to 10 km/s for NH). To get around that with standard rockets, you really need to approach Pluto on a non-escape trajectory, bound heliocentric orbit with an aphelion at Pluto. That's great, but it would take around 70 years to reach Pluto. Not so great.Non-chemical rockets are the real answer, and a nuclear reactor-ion engine system is the most plausible Pluto orbiter that could reach the destination before everyone on the mission team dies of old age. But nuclear-electric is a whole different can of worms to a super-large rocket.