It's interesting how close Richard Heidmann came in his analysis:http://planete-mars.com/mars-colonization-transport-main-findings-of-our-analysis/
Great first post to start tne new thread. But I'm not ready to give as much credit as you, the general outline was already known at the time of this study and the OML is going to be basically bullet shaped.... Also the study includes an "emergency capsule" which I think we know is out.
Can anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation? He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 04:16 pmCan anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation? He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning. - Ed KyleBy expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 04:18 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 04:16 pmCan anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation? He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning. - Ed KyleBy expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 05:03 pmQuote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 04:18 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 04:16 pmCan anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation? He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning. - Ed KyleBy expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered? - Ed KyleExpending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.
Is anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.
Quote from: QuadmasterXLII on 10/06/2017 04:23 pmIs anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.Yes, but fortunately they don't need to fly people on BFR for quite a while yet, a dedicated cargo version and automated landing helps a lot.
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/06/2017 05:04 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 05:03 pmQuote from: envy887 on 10/06/2017 04:18 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/06/2017 04:16 pmCan anyone explain this slide in Elon's presentation? He skipped over it quickly and didn't discuss its meaning. - Ed KyleBy expending the booster it can get 250 tonnes to LEO.Booster and "Ship" both expended versus Booster and "Ship" both recovered? - Ed KyleExpending both is my assumption, otherwise the comparison to expendable F9/FH makes less sense.I think it is an attempt to allow apples-to-apples comparison with all other (expendable) rockets. Believe that at SpaceX there is neither an interest in ever expending any stage(s), nor is the BFR architecture at all optimized for throw-away launches... that said, this vehicle is approximately equivalent to a pair of SLS Block II vehicles in IMLEO if one must compare throw-away throw weight.By the way, this payload corresponds to a payload mass fraction of 5.68% (250/4400t). Saturn V was 3.88%; Energia was 3.96%; F9 FT is 4.15% IIRC. (!)
Quote from: QuadmasterXLII on 10/06/2017 04:23 pmIs anyone else spooked by all this talk of "no need for an escape system, we'll be safe like an airline?" The parallels with the shuttle program seem almost too obvious.The missing factoid is that the BFR/BFS will fly the same vehicle repeatedly to build up not only a statistical data base on the launch system's reliability, but also on that specific flight hardware. Recall that shuttle flew for 30 years, and the only disasters were associated with the launch system -- not reusable vehicle related.