Pivot to BFR

[Ludus]

So they're just going to churn out enough F9Rs to meet the existing schedule of launch commitments, and then completely abandon that production line by converting it into the BFR production line?

The Falcon 9 and BFR/ITS production lines will be completely different. The Falcon 9 is built from aluminum and 3.7m in diameter, whereas the BFR and ITS are built out of composites and are 9m in diameter. Even a different size paint shop.

As a complete guess, I wouldn't be surprised if they move the Falcon 9 production tooling to MacGregor - just in case they need to build new ones.

What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

Flying the Falcon Heavy for 4-5 years could be worthwhile. Musk thinks it's worthwhile, so we'll have to see if it turns out that way...

That all makes sense. I’d expect there is quite a bit in common for production of Raptor vs Merlin.

[groundbound]

The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway. R&D, process improvements, tooling have to have been a substantial portion of the running costs over the last few years.

But all those things are winding down or about to wind down for F9, FH, and Dragon. And with re-use starting to grow, their total production material and labor costs will be flat or declining in almost all those things.

No one outside the company knows the exact details of their finances but they have clearly not been losing lots of money these past few years while they have been doing all that R&D, tooling, and production ramp up on their existing products. So just shift all those people, tooling $$, etc over to BFR and continue to spend exactly like before.

In one way of looking at it, F9 suddenly gets much more "profitable" because it has "much less overhead." All of that profit funds BFR development. But in a lot of ways it is much simpler than that: keep all the people and budgets that were running the company near break even before, and shift most of it to BFR now that Falcon doesn't need it so much.

[su27k]

What will it take to pull off such a radical pivot maneuver successfully?
Are there any past historical precedents that can be referenced for comparison?
Is this the best way forward, or are we likely to see some compromises in what pans out? If so, in what ways?

SpaceX themselves have done several pivots like this, for example the move from F9 v1.0 to v1.1 is basically the introduction of a whole new launch vehicle. I remember there were some skepticism about that move too, some people think SpaceX should just fly v1.0 for a while instead of switching to a new vehicle. NASA LSP was also concerned about their Jason-3 contract and insists SpaceX keeps the v1.0 tooling around until v1.1 flies successfully.

In retrospect the switch to v1.1 is critical to their success, it opens up the GTO market to them and move them that much closer to 1st stage reuse. Of course it didn't quite get them to where they want to be in terms of capability and reuse, thus the need for v1.2 and its blocks. I fully expect the same will happen with BFR, they won't get everything out of it in the first try, there will be iterations. But as long as they can get the first version flying it would open up NASA BLEO funding to them, this would give them more cushions to continue the work.

And so the proven F9R is being abandoned for a BFR that hasn't even flown yet. Alas, poor F9R, we hardly knew ye.

F9 revenue is what is supporting BFR, so it's not abandoned at all, it's the critical piece of the pivot. In fact one way this pivot may fail is they mess up F9's reliability.

What's the point of even going forward with launching the FalconHeavy, if it'll likely never fly again? Will it at least serve as a test-flight validation of new technologies that may be used on the BFR?

They need FH to compete for DoD launches, they already lost missions to ULA because F9's direct GEO injection capability is too low. The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

[MikeAtkinson]

The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

[jpo234]

The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

With an A380 worth of pressurized space, that could actually be fun (instead of just exciting beyond words)!

[biosehnsucht]

There's probably enough room on the BFS, and enough fuel to enter Lunar orbit for a while (rather than merely free return), to build a replica Apollo command module at 1:1 scale and have the ultimate Apollo 8 recreation for the rich enthusiast.

[MikeAtkinson]

There's probably enough room on the BFS, and enough fuel to enter Lunar orbit for a while (rather than merely free return), to build a replica Apollo command module at 1:1 scale and have the ultimate Apollo 8 recreation for the rich enthusiast.

Certainly enough with refueling in LEO.

[vanoord]

I still don't see an F9 S2 being fully reusable in the foreseeable future, other than as a scaled down BFT S2 technology demonstrator.

Even with a fleet of 20 F9 S1 cores flying ten times each - and assuming something like 50% reuse of S2s, that's still 100ish new S2s required, so the production line will have to run.

And if the production line is still running, why not bypass stockpiling 20 S1s (and having them sit around unused for a long time between flights, needing expensive buildings and expensive care & maintenance) - and build a couple a year as required?

Those (entirely imaginary) figures, of course, leave out the prospect of flying some stages in expendable mode (might or might not be necessary depending on engine upgrades) and the inevitable unexpected loss of failed landings (see BulgariaSat for a near-miss).

Then there's the fundamental question of whether an F9 core can indeed launch ten times or more? So far, we've seen two cores fly twice, a third one flying shortly - but nothing more in prospect for several months.

Granted, we've not seen Block 5 fly (which is meant to be really reusable), but until one of those cores has perhaps 5 flights under its belt (without others falling by the wayside after a couple of flights), it's surely not possible to talk of shutting down the production line and trashing the equipment?

What I could imagine is SpaceX starting to build BFRs elsewhere (IIRC they're in the process of acquiring more space at Hawthorne) and - once they've got BFR flying, starting to shut down F9 production (particularly of S2s) and ultimately discontinue use.

That - of course - doesn't even consider that they need a launch pad or two to fly BFR from...

As a rough prediction/guess, I doubt we'll see the F9 production line shut down for about a decade; and the first BFR won't fly for 6-8 years.

[Dave G]

I think they'll make the F9 upper stage reusable ...

According to Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX will not make the F9 second stage reusable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/72vluq/gwynne_shotwell_speaking_at_mit_road_to_mars/

[Semmel]

The Pivot to BFR production is very logical. What else should they do with all the manufacturing capacity? If F9 B5 is reusable 100 times with 10 refurbishings in between, they dont need many. If they continue to churn out 10 per year, where should all these stages go? They would have to lay off plenty of talented people, not a good prospect. Moving all of them over to BFR production is a wise move. I didnt expect them to shut down F9 completely before it stops flying but thats how they will do it. again, airplanes do not stop flying just because no new ones of one particular model are produced any more. Its just so unexpected because things like that dont happen in rocket business usually. But it does not look so crazy when seen from the airplane perspective.

[Ludus]

The Pivot to BFR production is very logical. What else should they do with all the manufacturing capacity? If F9 B5 is reusable 100 times with 10 refurbishings in between, they dont need many. If they continue to churn out 10 per year, where should all these stages go? They would have to lay off plenty of talented people, not a good prospect. Moving all of them over to BFR production is a wise move. I didnt expect them to shut down F9 completely before it stops flying but thats how they will do it. again, airplanes do not stop flying just because no new ones of one particular model are produced any more. Its just so unexpected because things like that dont happen in rocket business usually. But it does not look so crazy when seen from the airplane perspective.

They’ve been ramping up production rates toward over 30 cores per year at the same time as redesigning F9 to Block 5 with a dozen rapid reuses. If they don’t pivot to building BFR while still flying F9 they’re in a crisis of overcapacity. Both this pivot and creating internal launch demand with the Starlink Constellation are their answer to this crisis caused by succeeding at rapid reuse.

[ceauke]

The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway.

This is why I found this part of the announcement underwhelming. I thought they solved the funding issue with something new rather than coming to the conclusion that tweaking the 'natural' process of product lifecycle. Surely they knew this a year ago already.
A devil's advocate may phrase this as "we got nothing new, so we'll finish the anticipated needed production - and then put all eggs in one basket"
Without other sources of funding F9s were always going to have to fund it all.

[Semmel]

The other thing that has not been mentioned here is that a substantial portion of the pivot happens naturally and would have happened soon anyway.

This is why I found this part of the announcement underwhelming. I thought they solved the funding issue with something new rather than coming to the conclusion that tweaking the 'natural' process of product lifecycle. Surely they knew this a year ago already.
A devil's advocate may phrase this as "we got nothing new, so we'll finish the anticipated needed production - and then put all eggs in one basket"
Without other sources of funding F9s were always going to have to fund it all.

The realization was that they need nothing ELSE but natural processes and concentration of resources to fund it without any magic. I would not have thought it possible. I am still in doubt about BFS docking to ISS and taking over D2s role in the CCtCAP contract. I dont think the design fulfils the requirement and I dont think ISS can technically handle a docked BFS. But maybe I am wrong on this and it might work. I am also a bit in doubt that they can quickly launch BFR from Vandenberg. The would need a completely new pad there. This will take a long time. So for Vandenberg launches and for ISS resuply/crew launches I dont see BFR taking over F9 business within the next 10 years. But they dont need to.

On all other launches BFR is a solid replacement for F9, hence I think the plan is good. It just takes a lot of balls to make the decision to shut down F9 production. Thats all.

[stcks]

I am also a bit in doubt that they can quickly launch BFR from Vandenberg. The would need a completely new pad there. This will take a long time. So for Vandenberg launches and for ISS resuply/crew launches I dont see BFR taking over F9 business within the next 10 years. But they dont need to.

I think it should be possible, with on-orbit refueling, to launch from the cape and change inclination into polar orbit. Someone can verify.

[Rogerstigers]

I discuss this in my article here:

Fly Me To The Moon (and Other Things)

SpaceX is a large company filled with very talented engineers, technicians, and scientists. They have done amazing things with the Falcon and Dragon programs. However, having them split among multiple vehicles and programs is not the most effective way of building a large, ambitious system like the BFR. So SpaceX is planning on retiring the Falcon and Dragon programs and dedicating the staff from those programs on BFR development — just not right way.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The hardest asset to acquire is experience personnel. The resource Musk was talking about is the F9 production line personnel not tooling, money or even floor space.

By swapping some experienced personnel from the F9 line onto a limited BFR production by replacing them on the F9 line with new hires, spaceX will be able to get the BFR line started rolling slowly. Once the BFR line needs to ramp up which should immediately follow a successful BFR demo flight The F9 line will ramp down and the BFR line will ramp up as more and more personnel transition. In order to do this both lines have to be fairly close (can be separate buildings but in same city) because relocation costs of a few thousand employees is very expensive.

[hkultala]

The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.

They cannot just move it 5 years forward. The customer would be gone and they would get zero profits from the non-existent flight.

The profits from the lunar flyby on FH/D2 is exactly on of those things that is FUNDING the development of the BFR/BFS. And they need the money NOW to do the development, not "maybe after 5 years". They will have plenty of income WHEN the BFR/BFS is ready, but they need the money to DEVELOP IT

[jpo234]

The lunar flyby mission will also need FH.

There is a reasonable chance that the lunar flyby will move to BFS.

Advantages: not a dead end, cheaper, helps expand the envelope of BFS.
Disadvantages: delay.

The lunar flyby is scheduled for 2018 and it has a paying customer, and a clear contract.

They cannot just move it 5 years forward. The customer would be gone and they would get zero profits from the non-existent flight.

The profits from the lunar flyby on FH/D2 is exactly on of those things that is FUNDING the development of the BFR/BFS. And they need the money NOW to do the development, not "maybe after 5 years". They will have plenty of income WHEN the BFR/BFS is ready, but they need the money to DEVELOP IT

If I was the lunar customer and I got to choose between flying around the moon in a cramped capsule or a veritable space cruise ship, I would wait 3 more years and pick the cruise ship.

[Maestro19]

SpaceX look set to commodify access to LEO, in BFR-sized chunks.

In LEO-GTO space, I think there's a logical progression to implementation of related enabling technologies -
- space tugs e.g. to GTO and back
- debris-collection systems
- on-orbit servicing & disposal systems
- bigger & better ion drives
- activity hubs at ISS or new locations

.. all of which will be implemented without concern for operation in atmospheric regimes.

I hope we'll see lots of development in these areas over the next several years.

[inonepiece]

If I was the lunar customer and I got to choose between flying around the moon in a cramped capsule or a veritable space cruise ship, I would wait 3 more years and pick the cruise ship.

We don't know how old those specific customers are and how they feel about waiting 3 years.