Quote from: Nomadd on 10/19/2016 08:53 pmQuote from: envy887 on 10/19/2016 08:51 pmIt doesn't matter when designing parts in CAD. But when you build and test a dev article, bigger is definitely much more expensive. Filling that 12m LOX tank for a single cryo test would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only if you throw away the LOX when you're done.Throwing the LOX away is what is usually done. They won't have a tank big enough to store it. Unless they build 2 test tanks and keep pumping the LOX between them, only replacing boiloff losses. I think if they had two they would have mentioned it.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/19/2016 08:51 pmIt doesn't matter when designing parts in CAD. But when you build and test a dev article, bigger is definitely much more expensive. Filling that 12m LOX tank for a single cryo test would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only if you throw away the LOX when you're done.
It doesn't matter when designing parts in CAD. But when you build and test a dev article, bigger is definitely much more expensive. Filling that 12m LOX tank for a single cryo test would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/19/2016 08:40 pmExactly. Musk skipped the "Exploration" phase vehicle with equal capability and went straight to "Colonization" phase with greater CAPACITY. I think that substantially increases the risk that it will never be built, unfortunately.A 1/6th scale upper stage launched on Falcon Heavy could prove every ITS concept for something like 1/10th the dev and testing cost.Maybe size doesn't matter as to the development cost. Most of the development is the same whether big or small.
Exactly. Musk skipped the "Exploration" phase vehicle with equal capability and went straight to "Colonization" phase with greater CAPACITY. I think that substantially increases the risk that it will never be built, unfortunately.A 1/6th scale upper stage launched on Falcon Heavy could prove every ITS concept for something like 1/10th the dev and testing cost.
For those who worry about the difference is scale between the Falcon 9 and ITS, and have forgotten their history, I give you the difference in scale between gemini and Saturn 5, and the difference in scale between Falcon 9 and ITS.
remember the rule - every experiment should be finished before death of the experimentator. musk do not have time for subscale multi year approach company.
Besides, if they went this route with the mini ITS there would be a good chance (build it in to the design from the get go) it could function as a reusable upper stage for F9/FH for regular launches and allow for rapid development and design iterations and building up to repeated reuse like they have done with F9 up till now - while using paid for launches to do so.
Requiring F9/FH to test mini ITS is not necessarily a good thing, it means modification of existing pad, range approval and fees, interrupting their commercial launches, and risk of taking out their existing pad if something went wrong.
Somehow people don't seem to get that developing any generation of spaceship is extremely expensive. The concept is relatively cheap, it's those thousands of hours of detailed engineering for everything from a fuel line to a nose fairing that will not be recoverable for the later vehicle. All those simulations, all the documentation, etc...If it then goes to just a few vehicles, it's crazy from a business viewpoint.
Quote from: lamontagne on 10/20/2016 12:40 amFor those who worry about the difference is scale between the Falcon 9 and ITS, and have forgotten their history, I give you the difference in scale between gemini and Saturn 5, and the difference in scale between Falcon 9 and ITS.Whats all those things between Gemini and Saturn V?
From the left: Mercury-Redstone; Mercury-Atlas 2; Gemini-Titan II; Apollo-Saturn IB; Apollo-Saturn V.
In the recent reddit Elon was asked: "What level of completion is the interior habitable area layout of ITS at, and when might we expect to see renderings of it?"His reply was: "Will aim to release details of the habitation section when we have actual live mockups. Maybe in a year or two."Not willing to wait that long I decided to try my hand at layouts for 3 decks of the habitation section, which I have posted to the the L2 Level: SpaceX F9/FH/ITS Renderings http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35307.0. As that forum is mainly for images rather than extended discussion, I created this post instead (hopefully that's OK to do).
Quote from: DOCinCT on 10/25/2016 07:18 pmIn the recent reddit Elon was asked: "What level of completion is the interior habitable area layout of ITS at, and when might we expect to see renderings of it?"His reply was: "Will aim to release details of the habitation section when we have actual live mockups. Maybe in a year or two."Not willing to wait that long I decided to try my hand at layouts for 3 decks of the habitation section, which I have posted to the the L2 Level: SpaceX F9/FH/ITS Renderings http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35307.0. As that forum is mainly for images rather than extended discussion, I created this post instead (hopefully that's OK to do).Only 42 berths? It does seem a little small for 100 people, or perhaps I have misunderstood the quantities?
Quote from: lamontagne on 10/25/2016 07:56 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 10/25/2016 07:18 pmIn the recent reddit Elon was asked: "What level of completion is the interior habitable area layout of ITS at, and when might we expect to see renderings of it?"His reply was: "Will aim to release details of the habitation section when we have actual live mockups. Maybe in a year or two."Not willing to wait that long I decided to try my hand at layouts for 3 decks of the habitation section, which I have posted to the the L2 Level: SpaceX F9/FH/ITS Renderings http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35307.0. As that forum is mainly for images rather than extended discussion, I created this post instead (hopefully that's OK to do).Only 42 berths? It does seem a little small for 100 people, or perhaps I have misunderstood the quantities?It's reasonable for early missions. Musk did say 100 (or more) eventually. Space starts to get tight as you go up levels. In a linear design as in a sub, you can pack more in. I see upper levels being flight crew and infirmary and then more recreation space.
Quote from: DOCinCT on 10/25/2016 08:26 pmQuote from: lamontagne on 10/25/2016 07:56 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 10/25/2016 07:18 pmIn the recent reddit Elon was asked: "What level of completion is the interior habitable area layout of ITS at, and when might we expect to see renderings of it?"His reply was: "Will aim to release details of the habitation section when we have actual live mockups. Maybe in a year or two."Not willing to wait that long I decided to try my hand at layouts for 3 decks of the habitation section, which I have posted to the the L2 Level: SpaceX F9/FH/ITS Renderings http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35307.0. As that forum is mainly for images rather than extended discussion, I created this post instead (hopefully that's OK to do).Only 42 berths? It does seem a little small for 100 people, or perhaps I have misunderstood the quantities?It's reasonable for early missions. Musk did say 100 (or more) eventually. Space starts to get tight as you go up levels. In a linear design as in a sub, you can pack more in. I see upper levels being flight crew and infirmary and then more recreation space.Wonder if the ITS Spaceship design is stretchable, rather like an aircraft, or if it's a whole new design of you add a few meters to the length? Three more floors would do wonders for living space, at the cost of about 7.5m in extra length...