BFR and the space industry

[Robotbeat]

It's not just down range recover ops cost, it's a completely different approach. To do down range landing and shipping back takes a long time and then needs an enormous crane to move the booster back to the launch pad. To do down range landing and then flyback means you essentially need TWO launch sites (and then do you put something on top of the booster to cover that hole/interstage?) and means the booster has to go through two mission cycles. That takes longer.

For RTLS, you can do more orbital launches in a day than either of those approaches.

[Athrithalix]

If P2P transport is planned to be a thing, there should be plenty of launch/landing pads dotted around, could it be possible to launch from one, have the booster land at the next one round, and cycle across them?

Would the spacing of launch/landing pads prohibit this, or would it result in some sites having more boosters landing than they can handle, or is there some other obvious problem I've not spotted?

[jded]

If P2P transport is planned to be a thing, there should be plenty of launch/landing pads dotted around, could it be possible to launch from one, have the booster land at the next one round, and cycle across them?

Would the spacing of launch/landing pads prohibit this, or would it result in some sites having more boosters landing than they can handle, or is there some other obvious problem I've not spotted?

P2P starts making sense >~5000 km distance, and the downrange landing point would be much closer.

[IainMcClatchie]

It's not just down range recover ops cost, it's a completely different approach. To do down range landing and shipping back takes a long time and then needs an enormous crane to move the booster back to the launch pad. To do down range landing and then flyback means you essentially need TWO launch sites (and then do you put something on top of the booster to cover that hole/interstage?) and means the booster has to go through two mission cycles. That takes longer.

I'm suggesting the fairing is part of BFR, not BFS.  It lands on the launch cradle -- there is no crane.  You are right that down range recovery and flyback requires twice as many cycles.  If the BFR requires maintenance between every recovery and relaunch, that's a problem.  But BFR is operating in a well-proved part of the flight envelope and requires nothing expendable, unlike BFS or even BF2.  My sense is that the launch back can literally be gas-n-go, and maintenance happens before you restack it with BF2.

And you are assuming that SpaceX cannot profit sufficiently from downmass.

Yup.  I've seen nothing even close to a business case.  Anything involving people or even tonne-quantity downmass can use a Dragon (whatever rev is current at that time).

I'll suggest something further.  They should build their launch/recovery systems on semisubmersibles (not quite the barge shown in their video), and forgo launching from land altogether.  Just standardize on one launch system, and build them in one drydock, and tow them into position.  This is going to simplify GSE engineering because there are not multiple site specific versions, and there is no real estate commitment problem.  (What happens when SPI says they want only 20 launches next year?)

[guckyfan]

And you are assuming that SpaceX cannot profit sufficiently from downmass.

Yup.  I've seen nothing even close to a business case.  Anything involving people or even tonne-quantity downmass can use a Dragon (whatever rev is current at that time).

Elon said more downmass will be useful for point to point on earth. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[envy887]

And you are assuming that SpaceX cannot profit sufficiently from downmass.

Yup.  I've seen nothing even close to a business case.  Anything involving people or even tonne-quantity downmass can use a Dragon (whatever rev is current at that time).

I'll suggest something further.  They should build their launch/recovery systems on semisubmersibles (not quite the barge shown in their video), and forgo launching from land altogether.  Just standardize on one launch system, and build them in one drydock, and tow them into position.  This is going to simplify GSE engineering because there are not multiple site specific versions, and there is no real estate commitment problem.  (What happens when SPI says they want only 20 launches next year?)

Dragon isn't really designed for rapid reuse, especially with hypergol RCS, parachutes, and water landing. I doubt SpaceX will want to put major dev efforts into a legacy system when BFS offers more capability and simpler operations.

I think simply retrieving the payload dispenser for constellation sats is enough of a business case to justify adding the downmass capability. Plus there is potential for orbital tourism, P2P, and orbital manufacturing to close, even 10+ years from now when BFR/BFS is highly proven.

I agree that a semi-submersible platform would be pretty ideal in the near future, even if it only goes from the port of Brownsville or Port Canaveral to about 20 miles out for launch, and returns to get a new upper stage stacked.

[kaiser]

And you are assuming that SpaceX cannot profit sufficiently from downmass.

Yup.  I've seen nothing even close to a business case.  Anything involving people or even tonne-quantity downmass can use a Dragon (whatever rev is current at that time).

I'll suggest something further.  They should build their launch/recovery systems on semisubmersibles (not quite the barge shown in their video), and forgo launching from land altogether.  Just standardize on one launch system, and build them in one drydock, and tow them into position.  This is going to simplify GSE engineering because there are not multiple site specific versions, and there is no real estate commitment problem.  (What happens when SPI says they want only 20 launches next year?)

Dragon isn't really designed for rapid reuse, especially with hypergol RCS, parachutes, and water landing. I doubt SpaceX will want to put major dev efforts into a legacy system when BFS offers more capability and simpler operations.

I think simply retrieving the payload dispenser for constellation sats is enough of a business case to justify adding the downmass capability. Plus there is potential for orbital tourism, P2P, and orbital manufacturing to close, even 10+ years from now when BFR/BFS is highly proven.

I agree that a semi-submersible platform would be pretty ideal in the near future, even if it only goes from the port of Brownsville or Port Canaveral to about 20 miles out for launch, and returns to get a new upper stage stacked.

This makes a good point -- downmass business case may also be partially fueled by insurance costs.

If a fairing fails to open, or a sat dispenser jams, a stage underperforms, or, or ,or....you may be able to bring the payload back down and try again.  That would eventually have to have an effect on insurance rates I would imagine, particularly in the beginning on an unproven system -- the fact that a mulligan is at least a possibility reduces risk.

[speedevil]

This makes a good point -- downmass business case may also be partially fueled by insurance costs.

If a fairing fails to open, or a sat dispenser jams, a stage underperforms, or, or ,or....you may be able to bring the payload back down and try again.  That would eventually have to have an effect on insurance rates I would imagine, particularly in the beginning on an unproven system -- the fact that a mulligan is at least a possibility reduces risk.

Or you could even have checkout in orbit, by your own engineers before throwing it out the airlock.

(This does limit to a 3.6*3.6*8m or so single payload size)

[guckyfan]

Downmass capability was already given at 50t, which is plenty except for point to point.

[gosnold]

Big news in satellite communications today: SES (one of the biggest GEO satellite operators, and owner of the O3b MEO constellation too), has announced the design or its future GEO sats:
- fully digital, for completely flexible spectrum/footprint allocation
- use of less expensive commercial components
- low mass, at 2000kg
- low volume, to launch up to 4 at a time (stacked)
- short lifetime, less than 7 years
- cheap, at less than 50M$ to build
- 18 month from contract to GEO slot (vs more than 30 currently)

That's the same philosophy as for the next-gen O3b constellation built by Boeing: fully digital with a phased-array antenna for maximum flexibility

The source is Peter B. de Selding:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-tells-satellite-builders-prepare-total-rethink-business/

Quick and cheap launch are essential for those satellites, so BFR should fare well if this is the new market. If BFR does injection into GEO and consequently saves 4 months of electric orbit raising + the cost of high-power electric thrusters, it could become especially interesting.

[envy887]

Big news in satellite communications today: SES (one of the biggest GEO satellite operators, and owner of the O3b MEO constellation too), has announced the design or its future GEO sats:
- fully digital, for completely flexible spectrum/footprint allocation
- use of less expensive commercial components
- low mass, at 2000kg
- low volume, to launch up to 4 at a time (stacked)
- short lifetime, less than 7 years
- cheap, at less than 50M$ to build
- 18 month from contract to GEO slot (vs more than 30 currently)

That's the same philosophy as for the next-gen O3b constellation built by Boeing: fully digital with a phased-array antenna for maximum flexibility

The source is Peter B. de Selding:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-tells-satellite-builders-prepare-total-rethink-business/

Quick and cheap launch are essential for those satellites, so BFR should fare well if this is the new market. If BFR does injection into GEO and consequently saves 4 months of electric orbit raising + the cost of high-power electric thrusters, it could become especially interesting.

I wonder if they could fit 3 stacks of 4 into cargo BFS. 12 birds, 24 tonnes straight to GTO in a single launch with full reuse.