Quote from: SpacedX on 09/27/2017 03:33 amQuote from: ChaoticFlounder on 09/26/2017 11:27 pm... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...Wow. Scary thought.Surely you can't build rockets without having thoroughly understood the advantages of thorough documentation. And not just to meet contractual requirements. Edit/Lar: Fixed quotes. Use the preview button, people! I LEFT the selective quoting (which changes the sense of what was said) on purpose, because it's a bad practice.(mod)SpacedX: you have selective quoted to amplify the original poster's concern trolling and make it even more concern-trollish in appearance. Don't selective quote. If you have actual knowledge, that's interesting and you should bring it up. But posts that read like concern trolling aren't that helpful.
Quote from: ChaoticFlounder on 09/26/2017 11:27 pm... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...Wow. Scary thought.Surely you can't build rockets without having thoroughly understood the advantages of thorough documentation. And not just to meet contractual requirements. Edit/Lar: Fixed quotes. Use the preview button, people! I LEFT the selective quoting (which changes the sense of what was said) on purpose, because it's a bad practice.
... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...
My specific knowledge is a hitech manufacturing career starting in the 80s. I saw the transformative results of the introduction of increasingly detailed process documentation. Based on that history, I imagine every rocket manufacturer understands that thorough documentation is a key to success.
Quote from: Lar on 09/27/2017 03:07 pmQuote from: SpacedX on 09/27/2017 03:33 amQuote from: ChaoticFlounder on 09/26/2017 11:27 pm... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...Wow. Scary thought.Surely you can't build rockets without having thoroughly understood the advantages of thorough documentation. And not just to meet contractual requirements. Edit/Lar: Fixed quotes. Use the preview button, people! I LEFT the selective quoting (which changes the sense of what was said) on purpose, because it's a bad practice.(mod)SpacedX: you have selective quoted to amplify the original poster's concern trolling and make it even more concern-trollish in appearance. Don't selective quote. If you have actual knowledge, that's interesting and you should bring it up. But posts that read like concern trolling aren't that helpful.OK, and apologies and I am a little unsure of concern trolling....Based on that history, I imagine every rocket manufacturer understands that thorough documentation is a key to success.
I don't want to speak for Lar here, but I think the issue with concern trolling was that you took ChaoticFlounder's very much unsubstantiated assertion (no matter how much he personally "guarantees it"), assumed it was true, and then decided to run with it. Some statements should be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote from: speedevil on 09/22/2017 01:49 pm'Do I want to fly on Ariane 6, which has had two flights at 100% success in 12 months, or do I want to fly on the same ITSy which did 12 test flights on one month'.If you honestly think SpaceX (or anyone) could launch 12 test flights in one month...It is unlikely that ITS will fly before Ariane 6. But it's irrelevant, F9 will continue to be the SpaceX workhorse for years to come.
'Do I want to fly on Ariane 6, which has had two flights at 100% success in 12 months, or do I want to fly on the same ITSy which did 12 test flights on one month'.
If BFR is to land on Mars in 2022, that implies ~20-40 flights by booster+tanker, within one month, in order to refuel in orbit.
Quote from: speedevil on 09/29/2017 02:59 pmIf BFR is to land on Mars in 2022, that implies ~20-40 flights by booster+tanker, within one month, in order to refuel in orbit.2 x (1 Ship + 5 Tankers) = 12
Quote from: jpo234 on 09/29/2017 03:03 pmQuote from: speedevil on 09/29/2017 02:59 pmIf BFR is to land on Mars in 2022, that implies ~20-40 flights by booster+tanker, within one month, in order to refuel in orbit.2 x (1 Ship + 5 Tankers) = 125 tankers per vehicle seems optimistic - if you're to launch 1100 tons of fuel into a high orbit, with 150 tons/ 85 tons dry for the vehicle. Though checking the video at 34:18, the graphic indicates four tankers, so perhaps not.So, ten booster flights and booster/tanker reentries in one month, in two groups, plus any test flights, plus two vehicle launches.I find it hard to believe that they'd do no test flights, meaning that by the end of 2022, even with no other flights, BFR could be at >15 flights, with at the least several multiply reused boosters and tankers, as well as demonstrated landing on Mars.
Well, the question in the title has been answered!SpaceX will compete with SpaceX.Cannibalizing their own F9, FH and Dragon product lines.
They can do it because Apple hasn’t optimized its organization to maximize profit. Instead, it has made the creation of value for customers its priority. When you do this, the fear of cannibalization or disruption of one’s self just melts away. In fact, when your mission is based around creating customer value, around creating great products, cannibalization and disruption aren’t “bad things” to be avoided. They’re things you actually strive for — because they let you improve the outcome for your customer.
BFR seems to be a reaction to New Glenn as Blue Origin is emerging today as the most aggressive competitor for SpaceX from 2020 onwards.
. If Blue doesn't have a clearly apparent path to reach that cost level, before SpaceX cuts costs even further, Bezos may get to the point of saying 'no mas' on dumping money into the company.
Quote from: Mike Jones on 09/30/2017 07:28 pmBFR seems to be a reaction to New Glenn as Blue Origin is emerging today as the most aggressive competitor for SpaceX from 2020 onwards.Perhaps. Just because they have nearly unlimited funds doesn't mean they will be successful. Right now they are roughly where SpaceX was in 2008 in terms of vehicle design and production but without validated and all-up tested main propulsion. The radio silence since the BE-4 incident on the test stand doesn't give much confidence on that front, but they are moving full speed ahead on building the factory. I think at best they are 5 years away from getting to where Space X is now in terms of cadence of flight rate, recovery and reuse. But by then SpaceX very well may launching a fully reusable BFR at a very low price. If Blue doesn't have a clearly apparent path to reach that cost level, before SpaceX cuts costs even further, Bezos may get to the point of saying 'no mas' on dumping money into the company.
