Pivot to BFR

[inonepiece]

The ship itself is designed to land at many different speeds and many different atmosphere densities.

Ship... This does feel like the first "real space ship".

Yes, I know, there are many steps along the way, in the past and the future, yes any of them could be described that way.

But those words have meaning to us, the unwashed general public.  This ship, I can see flying me to space, or the other side of the world, or even the moon, and flying the first plucky few to Mars.  That freedom seems like what was meant by those words in the 20th century.  And this ship I can just now see existing.

Now seems like a time to reflect on that.

[Negan]

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

More like 2019 at the earliest. Also we have no idea what kind of latitude is in the contract as far as performance. Considering both Dragon and FH haven't even flown yet, I bet there is quit a bit.

[su27k]

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.

Except it won't be 3 years, it would be at least 5 years. First BFR would be unmanned cargo version, it would take some additional time to build the manned version.

Also for SpaceX, being the first to send humans beyond LEO is a huge PR win, they would be insane to delay this.

[sanman]

I think they need investors for the satellite constellations. They need to convince them that BFR will help with cost efficiency in deployment, so part of that money can go into BFR development.

Yes, but in the general case, imagine saying we are going to build the worlds biggest rocket and make it fully reusable, so that the operational cost is lower than the smallest orbital rocket, and fly it so often that it beats everyone else in reliability and safety. Crazy? That's what they said about landing and reusing the F9 S1.

Once you have a rocket that can send payloads to the Moon and Mars, when almost nobody else can do this, then why waste your efforts competing against others on the low-end in sending payloads to LEO, when you can be like Google and tower over them all with your unique infrastructure that almost nobody else can compete with?

I'm wondering why Musk doesn't get with Bigelow, to have them offer up a BA5000 (5000m^3) space hab module to NASA for the Deep Space Gateway, which only SpaceX could then deliver to lunar orbit for them.

Anyway, with Musk stacking his poker chips and anteing up with this big pivot, then will other competitors now be forced to react by revising their plans? Will they now have to "Go Bigger, or Go Home"?

[Lampyridae]

When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. Whatever ULA manage to cook up to replace their Atlas / Delta rockets
4. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
5. Russia, China, Japan, India with expendables
6. The smallsat launchers which are popping up like weeds

So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

I imagine there would be quite the logjam with pad access and six or seven different comsat customers wanting access to their payloads.

[francesco nicoli]

When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
4. Everyone else with expendables

all of these are notional vehicles not yet developed. Hence, I'd include Reaction Engines' Skylon in the list.

[QuantumG]

... and it's not like Blue Origin is moving any faster than Reaction Engines

[sanman]

So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

I guess I'm just now realizing that's maybe why he mentioned that 9-year anniversary at the top of his speech -- because he was framing this Pivot to BFR in similar terms -- ie. the Make It Or Break It Moment Of Truth.

Fortune favors the bold -- and so do the rest of us, too.

[Lampyridae]

When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

1. SpaceX and BFS - 150 tonnes
2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes
3. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes. It will still compete with the Falcon 9 as the US is restartable and can deliver the payload directly to GEO
4. Everyone else with expendables

all of these are notional vehicles not yet developed. Hence, I'd include Reaction Engines' Skylon in the list.

I edited the list a bit. I guess there's also Stratolauncher which I forgot about. Skylon is unlikely to fly as is, but something using SABRE technology is a definite possibility.

[neoforce]

So SpaceX is creating its own "build it and they will come" market whilst still competing comfortably with everyone else with the lowest cost access to space with F9. It will take a good ten years for anyone else to even field a reusable 20 tonne launcher, and only ESA has even started

"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

I guess I'm just now realizing that's maybe why he mentioned that 9-year anniversary at the top of his speech -- because he was framing this Pivot to BFR in similar terms -- ie. the Make It Or Break It Moment Of Truth.

Fortune favors the bold -- and so do the rest of us, too.

Yup, the man is a gambler. Been obvious in all of his business ventures he is not afraid to fail. For the folks here, in the space enthusiasts community, this is a win/win. If Musk and SpaceX succeed, we have a future of rockets that we could barely even dream of 10 years ago. If they fail, we still (hopefully) have New Glenn coming with capabilities, while not as big as BFR, have the same long term potential path with New Armstrong.

I want Musk to succeed, but I do feel as if Blue Origin gives us a hedge bet if SpaceX "long shot" gamble fails.

[DreamyPickle]

When you look at the firm players in the reusable market, there's the following:

2. Blue Origin with New Glenn - 50 tonnes

Partially reusable, only the first stage is going to land.

4. ESA with partial reusability on Ariane 6 - 20 tonnes.

Current plans are not reusable at all.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The recover the engines plan only works when your engines cost >2/3 of the booster. But what if like in F9 case the engines are <50% or close to 30% of the cost of the booster. The recovery of just the engines saves close to 0 vs keeping the vehicle simpler and expendable.

So the basic advice to the future booster builders out there, just make the engines a lot cheaper. You will save/reduce costs just as much as trying to do engine recovery of expensive engines.

For Vulcan with BE-4s the engines are likely to be ~30% the cost of the booster. But with AR-1s the engines are likely to be ~50% the cost of the booster. Recovering the engines in the AR-1 case makes economic sense but not in the BE-4 case.

[Negan]

Except it won't be 3 years, it would be at least 5 years. First BFR would be unmanned cargo version, it would take some additional time to build the manned version.

They might be able dock Dragon with the cargo version and use it instead of a FH. The big unknown with FH is what it will take to get the launch license for this mission. What will the FAA require? Many here think it will require a test mission first so the choice might be between two FH Flights or one F9 and one BFR flight (this could be a test flight out of many that will be done).

[groknull]

[ nested quotes snipped ]

Yup, the man is a gambler. Been obvious in all of his business ventures he is not afraid to fail. For the folks here, in the space enthusiasts community, this is a win/win. If Musk and SpaceX succeed, we have a future of rockets that we could barely even dream of 10 years ago. If they fail, we still (hopefully) have New Glenn coming with capabilities, while not as big as BFR, have the same long term potential path with New Armstrong.

I want Musk to succeed, but I do feel as if Blue Origin gives us a hedge bet if SpaceX "long shot" gamble fails.

If SpaceX goes belly up, several thousand young, energetic, adventurous and (now) experienced space enthusiasts will be looking for what to do next*.

In addition to talent available to legacy** aerospace and existing NewSpace companies, several hundred startups would also appear.

* very different from "looking for a new job"
** slightly less offensive than OldSpace, but still belittles the enormous contribution of those companies, employees and individuals

[IainMcClatchie]

Elon has been thinking about this BFR for two years, and in the meantime his team has been struggling with Falcon Heavy.  How long ago was it clear to him that Falcon Heavy required something like a new vehicle design?

With a dozen successful landings in a row now, SpaceX can claim to be good at first stage recovery.  Perhaps not first stage reuse yet.  Their expectation of reuse of the next booster they design substantially changes the economics of that booster.  SpaceX will want to concentrate on reducing the operating cost, even if incurring increased capital cost per vehicle.  SpaceX will also want to reduce the number of vehicles they develop.

Elon must have wanted to cancel Falcon Heavy in favor of a BFR first stage for at least a year if not 18 months.  I'm astonished that he hasn't cancelled Falcon Heavy long ago, in favor of a BFR first stage with an adaptor that carries an existing Falcon upper stage.  Yes, it's overkill for that upper stage but it doesn't matter.  It will get the job done and get SpaceX building what they want to build.

None of the existing Falcon Heavy manifest actually needs a Heavy.  Three of the four can get by with a falcon expendable, which is not a problem -- SpaceX has a bunch of Block 4 cores they should use up.  The Air Force STP-2 mission doesn't even require a Heavy and could use a normal Falcon 9, although I suspect they might just postpone to use the flight to shake down a BFR-based launch.

Once they have BFR + FUS working, they'll have gobs of extra performance (even vs any 20+ tonne payloads) to try upper stage recovery.  That leads to a fork which I dislike.
  * The option Elon will want is to design the BFS.
  * The option I'd like to see is far more boring: a Raptor upper stage very similar to what was in the SpaceX video years ago.  Full 9 m diameter, huge seperately recoverable fairing, heat shield on the top (end-on re-entry), and gas/gas methalox thrusters for precision landing.  Optimize this thing for delivery to 1100 km circular orbit with multiple restarts.

[Coastal Ron]

"build it and they will come" - what some would call the "Blue Ocean strategy"

That's not what "Blue Ocean Strategy" is. From Wikipedia:

...Kim & Mauborgne argue that companies can succeed by creating "blue oceans" of uncontested market space, as opposed to "red oceans" where competitors fight for dominance...

Musk/SpaceX already have a "Blue Ocean" of uncontested market space with the Falcon 9 expendable, and were already cementing their market position with reusability.

The BFR/ITS does not change their "Blue Ocean" market space position, since they don't have competition that is forcing them to change their behavior. Maybe that will change if Blue Origin starts winning significant orders away from them, but otherwise no one else is positioned to compete head-to-head with SpaceX for the current commercial launch marketplace.

This latest Pivot to BFR seems like Musk's biggest gamble since that time when he went all-in for that Falcon-1 launch 9 years ago -- the one which finally made it, and made his gamble pay off. And once it did succeed, Falcon-1 was soon quickly retired.

Definitely a big gamble to disrupt your own products. I see the Falcon 1 evolution to Falcon 9 as just becoming more knowledgeable about how many customers there really were for "small-sat" vs "large-sat".

[envy887]

STP-2 requires a number of inclination and altitude changes with multiple payloads, I rather doubt F9 could do it - even expendable. And F9 definitely can't throw Dragon 2 around the Moon. And it can't compete for most DoD direct to GSO missions.

Also, the F9 upper stage is woefully undersized for BFR; you would end up wasting almost all of the booster's potential while getting about the same payload as FH. Classic LEGO rocket.

[nacnud]

Musk/SpaceX already have a "Blue Ocean" of uncontested market space with the Falcon 9 expendable, and were already cementing their market position with reusability.

The BFR/ITS does not change their "Blue Ocean" market space position, since they don't have competition that is forcing them to change their behavior. Maybe that will change if Blue Origin starts winning significant orders away from them, but otherwise no one else is positioned to compete head-to-head with SpaceX for the current commercial launch marketplace.

I think Blue has a big part to play in how SpaceX decided fund BFR. Blues business model shows that another company can be a real competitor and if SpaceX does not respond to New Glenn then SpaceXs competitive advantage is going to go away, and with it hopes of using those profits to fund the next generation of vehicles

A fully reusable BFR keeps this advantage but time is short to develop it before their profits gets nibbled away. To wait until revenues fall is too late.

[GWH]

Blue's business model is being a hobby project for a billionaire.

[sanman]

Definitely a big gamble to disrupt your own products. I see the Falcon 1 evolution to Falcon 9 as just becoming more knowledgeable about how many customers there really were for "small-sat" vs "large-sat".

Well, that's the thing - the ROI for F9R is now supposed to be achieved through BFR and not primarily through F9R itself. So F9R will simply end up as a stepping stone to to the "greater good" of BFR.

(Until another 5 years from now, when BFR could get ousted by an even Bigger BFR, if the pattern holds up)