Author Topic: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)  (Read 25375 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28178
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7977
  • Likes Given: 5324
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #120 on: 08/14/2018 02:14 AM »
The Mars 2020 rover is pretty sweet. Love the CO/O2 electrolysis ISRU demo and of course the helicopter. SpaceX is gonna wait until 2022 to send stuff to Mars with BFR. 2020 might be time to do orbital flights with BFR, though.
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 dark55star55

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #121 on: 08/14/2018 04:09 AM »
I think the forum is divided on this, some of us agree with you that bidding F9/FH as "prototype" makes no sense, but others think BFR is too ambitious for Air Force and SpaceX will play it safe so to speak, I guess we'll know soon enough.

An upgraded FH might sort of make sense from a SpaceX perspective.

FH, with stretched S2 would enable:
* Easier reuse of middle core on heavier payloads, and 'trivial' recovery of S2.  (Post 6 ton or so injection of a satellite into GTO, entry burn to come in at 3km/s).
* Operational flexibility for delivery of really large customer payloads to GEO.
* Get payload designers designing for payloads that can be switched to BFR.
* Avoid the risk of others catching up by continuing to develop the falcon in case BFR is extensively delayed.
* Throw a lot at Mars in 2020.

Listen I heard on reddit from someone who recently took a tour of the SpaceX factory that he saw a sealed off room that housed raptor engines, he asked to go in their but the SpaceX employee said only VIP like bigwigs from the government and military are allowed in there. We know the BFS prototype is already being built.

I keep going over this in my mind, "What prototype is SpaceX going to build for this Air Force "launch services agreement"?". This is all I can think about lately, I am super excited about this cause I know it has to be for the BFR, it just has to be! There was that article a couple of weeks ago about that Air Force general who couldn't shut up about the BFR and it's amazing capabilities and how he wanted that for the armed services as soon as possible. My point is, you have generals in the DOD who are aware of Elon Musk and his BFR and want to see it become a reality just like the rest of us SpaceX fans.

Let's look at the facts. It's a fact SpaceX is going to build a launch vehicle "prototype" for the Air Force launch services agreement program (hopefully it's announced this month). But what are they going to build? A Falcon Heavy or BFR/BFS prototype? That's why I can't stop thinking about this! If it turns out to be for the BFR it'll blow up all over the internet cause thats huge news.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #122 on: 08/14/2018 04:20 AM »
I think the forum is divided on this, some of us agree with you that bidding F9/FH as "prototype" makes no sense, but others think BFR is too ambitious for Air Force and SpaceX will play it safe so to speak, I guess we'll know soon enough.

An upgraded FH might sort of make sense from a SpaceX perspective.

FH, with stretched S2 would enable:
* Easier reuse of middle core on heavier payloads, and 'trivial' recovery of S2.  (Post 6 ton or so injection of a satellite into GTO, entry burn to come in at 3km/s).
* Operational flexibility for delivery of really large customer payloads to GEO.
* Get payload designers designing for payloads that can be switched to BFR.
* Avoid the risk of others catching up by continuing to develop the falcon in case BFR is extensively delayed.
* Throw a lot at Mars in 2020.

Listen I heard on reddit from someone who recently took a tour of the SpaceX factory that he saw a sealed off room that housed raptor engines, he asked to go in their but the SpaceX employee said only VIP like bigwigs from the government and military are allowed in there. We know the BFS prototype is already being built.

I keep going over this in my mind, "What prototype is SpaceX going to build for this Air Force "launch services agreement"?". This is all I can think about lately, I am super excited about this cause I know it has to be for the BFR, it just has to be! There was that article a couple of weeks ago about that Air Force general who couldn't shut up about the BFR and it's amazing capabilities and how he wanted that for the armed services as soon as possible. My point is, you have generals in the DOD who are aware of Elon Musk and his BFR and want to see it become a reality just like the rest of us SpaceX fans.

Let's look at the facts. It's a fact SpaceX is going to build a launch vehicle "prototype" for the Air Force launch services agreement program (hopefully it's announced this month). But what are they going to build? A Falcon Heavy or BFR/BFS prototype? That's why I can't stop thinking about this! If it turns out to be for the BFR it'll blow up all over the internet cause thats huge news.

anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8244
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4423
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #123 on: 08/14/2018 07:28 AM »
I think the forum is divided on this, some of us agree with you that bidding F9/FH as "prototype" makes no sense, but others think BFR is too ambitious for Air Force and SpaceX will play it safe so to speak, I guess we'll know soon enough.

An upgraded FH might sort of make sense from a SpaceX perspective.

FH, with stretched S2 would enable:
* Easier reuse of middle core on heavier payloads, and 'trivial' recovery of S2.  (Post 6 ton or so injection of a satellite into GTO, entry burn to come in at 3km/s).
* Operational flexibility for delivery of really large customer payloads to GEO.
* Get payload designers designing for payloads that can be switched to BFR.
* Avoid the risk of others catching up by continuing to develop the falcon in case BFR is extensively delayed.
* Throw a lot at Mars in 2020.

Listen I heard on reddit from someone who recently took a tour of the SpaceX factory that he saw a sealed off room that housed raptor engines, he asked to go in their but the SpaceX employee said only VIP like bigwigs from the government and military are allowed in there. We know the BFS prototype is already being built.

I keep going over this in my mind, "What prototype is SpaceX going to build for this Air Force "launch services agreement"?". This is all I can think about lately, I am super excited about this cause I know it has to be for the BFR, it just has to be! There was that article a couple of weeks ago about that Air Force general who couldn't shut up about the BFR and it's amazing capabilities and how he wanted that for the armed services as soon as possible. My point is, you have generals in the DOD who are aware of Elon Musk and his BFR and want to see it become a reality just like the rest of us SpaceX fans.

Let's look at the facts. It's a fact SpaceX is going to build a launch vehicle "prototype" for the Air Force launch services agreement program (hopefully it's announced this month). But what are they going to build? A Falcon Heavy or BFR/BFS prototype? That's why I can't stop thinking about this! If it turns out to be for the BFR it'll blow up all over the internet cause thats huge news.

anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

Yes sir. Raptor upper stage.

Not that it will ever happen according to some people here.

Time will tell.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2281
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1130
  • Likes Given: 1259
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #124 on: 08/14/2018 09:55 AM »
FH, with stretched S2 would enable:

The problem is these things are just on paper, currently there is no big payloads that require stretched S2, and no plan to throw things at Mars in 2020. If SpaceX continues to develop F9/FH, it needs to be something that brings in additional money which they can use to fund BFR and Starlink, a stretched S2 doesn't do that.
There was no public plan for fairing recovery, and S2 recovery has been on and off again.
BFR/ITS has varied notably, going from 12m/tens of reuses to 9m and thousands. Two to three sea level engines, many millions to under $1M to launch. (for the P2P variant)
There is no public plan for any Mars hardware beyond the most notional sketches.

There is only one plan.
'Put the beginnings of a colony on Mars'.

It may be that they view stretched S2 as doable in well under the contract price, without distracting from BFR.

If everything goes well with BFR, and it's on timeline, there is limited benefit, beyond bringing forward the time at which payload designers may be designing larger payloads up to a couple of years.

If it's not on timeline, it retires pretty much all risks of anyone catching up, and gives them more options for 2022.









Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • Liked: 2284
  • Likes Given: 1309
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #125 on: 08/14/2018 12:01 PM »
I think the forum is divided on this, some of us agree with you that bidding F9/FH as "prototype" makes no sense, but others think BFR is too ambitious for Air Force and SpaceX will play it safe so to speak, I guess we'll know soon enough.

An upgraded FH might sort of make sense from a SpaceX perspective.

FH, with stretched S2 would enable:
* Easier reuse of middle core on heavier payloads, and 'trivial' recovery of S2.  (Post 6 ton or so injection of a satellite into GTO, entry burn to come in at 3km/s).
* Operational flexibility for delivery of really large customer payloads to GEO.
* Get payload designers designing for payloads that can be switched to BFR.
* Avoid the risk of others catching up by continuing to develop the falcon in case BFR is extensively delayed.
* Throw a lot at Mars in 2020.

Listen I heard on reddit from someone who recently took a tour of the SpaceX factory that he saw a sealed off room that housed raptor engines, he asked to go in their but the SpaceX employee said only VIP like bigwigs from the government and military are allowed in there. We know the BFS prototype is already being built.

I keep going over this in my mind, "What prototype is SpaceX going to build for this Air Force "launch services agreement"?". This is all I can think about lately, I am super excited about this cause I know it has to be for the BFR, it just has to be! There was that article a couple of weeks ago about that Air Force general who couldn't shut up about the BFR and it's amazing capabilities and how he wanted that for the armed services as soon as possible. My point is, you have generals in the DOD who are aware of Elon Musk and his BFR and want to see it become a reality just like the rest of us SpaceX fans.

Let's look at the facts. It's a fact SpaceX is going to build a launch vehicle "prototype" for the Air Force launch services agreement program (hopefully it's announced this month). But what are they going to build? A Falcon Heavy or BFR/BFS prototype? That's why I can't stop thinking about this! If it turns out to be for the BFR it'll blow up all over the internet cause thats huge news.

anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

Yes sir. Raptor upper stage.

Not that it will ever happen according to some people here.

Time will tell.

Oh, a Raptor upper stage will definitely happen. Just not on Falcon. Falcon Heavy can already meet all the EELV reference orbits.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Canada
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 549
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #126 on: 08/14/2018 08:16 PM »
....
....
....

anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

Yes sir. Raptor upper stage.

Not that it will ever happen according to some people here.

Time will tell.

Going a bit OT for one post. There is no need for the Raptor upper stage for the Falcon family. A simpler upgrade is to increase the diameter of the upper stage to 5.2 meters to hold more propellants. Think of it as Upper stage ver 2.0.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7470
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1120
  • Likes Given: 7529
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #127 on: 08/14/2018 09:25 PM »
The problem is these things are just on paper, currently there is no big payloads that require stretched S2, and no plan to throw things at Mars in 2020. If SpaceX continues to develop F9/FH, it needs to be something that brings in additional money which they can use to fund BFR and Starlink, a stretched S2 doesn't do that.

But I should clarify that I think SpaceX will bid F9/FH + BFR as a tag team, with BFR handling the heavy launches that requires bigger fairing. I don't think they are crazy enough to propose BFR only for everything. So they may include some F9/FH work in the proposal along with BFR, for example, vertical integration.
Thank you.  :) This is rather more on topic.

WRT to BFR isn't everyone forgetting something?

Starlink needs to deploy 12 000+ satellites to be fully operational.

Sure F9 and FH could do it but that's a lot of satellites (while they are continuing with their customers launches as well).

I've not bothered to do a spreadsheet but swapping from a fully reusable large US to a much smaller expendable US means either
a) A lot more launches, which at some point will exceed the cost of building a BFS due to the the throwaway US.
b) Satellite mass has to drop dramatically to deliver the same capability for the same launch costs.



BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2194
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #128 on: 08/14/2018 09:43 PM »
anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

I would modify that to say it would give them everything they had wanted in the past until very recently.

Musk and BFR is like Steve Jobs and.....well, almost everything he ever envisioned. Jobs knew what people wanted before those people ever knew they wanted those things. He had a way of seeing things that people would crave once they became aware of them. IMHO, now that USAF sees what BFR is capable of, they want the full capability of that LV, not just the ability to put heavy satellites into high energy orbits. I hope that space never becomes an offensive battleground. Nevertheless, if a situation arose which required it, having BFR based abilities already on hand would give the USAF (or that Space Force), not just superiority, but supremacy in the battle space. Having immensely better capability than any potential adversary not only wins conflicts, it helps prevent them (assuming a democracy whose administration is not looking to start wars). Virtually every significant advance in aviation technology was pioneered by military R&D; commercial aviation adapted most of those advancements 10-15 years later. I think the USAF does not want to get left behind by current commercial advances in space technology. My WAG is that forward thinkers in USAF are far more interested in BFR than just a Raptor US for FH.
« Last Edit: 08/14/2018 09:45 PM by TomH »

Online hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #129 on: 08/14/2018 10:01 PM »
....
....
....

anything is possible but more likely it is a methane burner second stage for the heavy...the USAF has wanted that for sometime...it "makes" the Falcon heavy...into everything that the USAF wants...

Yes sir. Raptor upper stage.

Not that it will ever happen according to some people here.

Time will tell.

Going a bit OT for one post. There is no need for the Raptor upper stage for the Falcon family. A simpler upgrade is to increase the diameter of the upper stage to 5.2 meters to hold more propellants. Think of it as Upper stage ver 2.0.

5.2-meter upper stage would need different tooling than the current 3.6-meter, which can be used for both lower and upper stages. So, not going to happen. The only practical way to make the upper stage bigger is making it longer.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1919
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IAC 2017 -- BFR v0.2 - DISCUSSION THREAD 4 (Post Speech)
« Reply #130 on: Today at 08:54 AM »
>
Going a bit OT for one post. There is no need for the Raptor upper stage for the Falcon family. A simpler upgrade is to increase the diameter of the upper stage to 5.2 meters to hold more propellants. Think of it as Upper stage ver 2.0.

5.2-meter upper stage would need different tooling than the current 3.6-meter, which can be used for both lower and upper stages. So, not going to happen. The only practical way to make the upper stage bigger is making it longer.

IIRC, he's recently mentioned another upper stage stretch.
DM

Tags: