Author Topic: Speculation: SFR (mini-BFR) as fully reusable Falcon Heavy replacement  (Read 173417 times)

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 781
Cannot see that. The next gen rocket is probably 8 years away before it's reliable.
It took them 10 years to get from founding to supplying cargo to the ISS for the first time. I would assume that they can do develop new tech A LOT faster nowadays than back then. They have more experience, more funding and more people, all the infrastructure in place needed for development and they already have an engine that is pretty far down the development path. I think 4 years is a better estimate with a first flight much earlier than that.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
I think 8-10 years is realistic, but you'll need to start the clock whenever they started testing Raptor components at Stennis or wherever. 2012? 2013?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 31
I think 8-10 years is realistic, but you'll need to start the clock whenever they started testing Raptor components at Stennis or wherever. 2012? 2013?

Hmm.   I recall being laughed at when i suggested that.

I agree with you.  We may only see the FH fly 8 to 12 times before a fully reusable two-stage MethaLOx stack takes it's place.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
I don't think they'll abandon FH immediately. Even after ITSy flies, they'll need it for legacy customers.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6578
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1690
  • Likes Given: 1601
I am thinking of crew Dragon. Can they put it on top? They can deploy a cargo Dragon out of the payload bay, but a crew Dragon needs the ability to abort.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27790
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7670
  • Likes Given: 5113
I am thinking of crew Dragon. Can they put it on top? They can deploy a cargo Dragon out of the payload bay, but a crew Dragon needs the ability to abort.
We don't know yet whether ITSy will use Shuttle-like payload bay or if it'll use traditional fairing. Both directions have supporting arguments. For the latter, it should be relatively straightforward to put crew Dragon on top, although ITSy will need to be totally qualified for human spaceflight and integration into Dragon's abort systems. That's expensive, so SpaceX may just keep Falcon 9 and Heavy around for that purpose until the actual (subscale?) BFS is ready (which likely will take longer than ITSy herself).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: