Gwynne Shotwell lecture at Stanford 11 Oct 2017

[Helodriver]

I'll be attending Gwynne Shotwell's lecture this Wednesday at Stanford University on behalf of NSF. Questions for the event will be moderated and must be submitted in advance. I have done so already and the rules of the Q&A state that questions with the most upvotes will be given precedence in the asking. (I asked them under my real name Derrick Stamos, so don't look for "helodriver")

So vote early and often so the question about "Poop on Mars" (and there is one) doesn't torpedo the questions session into the crapper.

Anything specific you want asked, comment here and I'll try to add to the queue.

Link to questions.

https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

[Flying Beaver]

My Question. Upvotes grateful, i've been pondering this one recently.

Cameron Byers
Is SpaceX pursuing development of a lander system for delivering crew or payload to the surface of the Moon that could be beneficial to NASA's near term plans?

[vaporcobra]

Great questions so far, Helodriver! Wish I could attend as well.

Shotwell has sure been busy with talks and presentations lately. I'm liking this talkative 2017 SpaceX

[Robotbeat]

Most of the questions I've seen are boring. Try this:
Ask about ISRU:

Have they tested their own Sabatier and electrolysis equipment? What's the status of their mining droids, have any prototypes been tested? What about Mars surface solar arrays, what's the plan, and have any prototypes for that been tested?

[vanoord]

The obvious one is:

Where will BFR be built; and how will it be transported to Florida?


or:

If BFR is to be built at Hawthorne, how will that impact on continued F9 production - and in particular Stage 2 production?

[TaurusLittrow]

Upvoted. Pity it's not possible to vote the Chicago way (early and often).

Here's a potential question:

Architectures for Mars missions by NASA and SpaceX appear to be on parallel tracks with little overlap. Besides COTS-like resupply of the DSG by SpaceX, what areas of potential cooperation exist that could accelerate or facilitate human missions to Mars by either party?

[Lars-J]

My Question. Upvotes grateful, i've been pondering this one recently.

Cameron Byers
Is SpaceX pursuing development of a lander system for delivering crew or payload to the surface of the Moon that could be beneficial to NASA's near term plans?

We already know this. BFR. (the moon base slide in the 2017 IAC presentation)

[Helodriver]

Upvoted. Pity it's not possible to vote the Chicago way (early and often).

Here's a potential question:

Architectures for Mars missions by NASA and SpaceX appear to be on parallel tracks with little overlap. Besides COTS-like resupply of the DSG by SpaceX, what areas of potential cooperation exist that could accelerate or facilitate human missions to Mars by either party?

Good one. Just submitted a reworded version of that. They have a character limit like twitter.

[Semmel]

I think technical questions are not the most useful ones directed to Shotwell. She is certainly knowledgable of the technology but she is in charge of the economics. I would go with an economics question:

How many F9 and FH Rockets does SpaceX plan to stockpile to be able to shut down the production line? Also, what part of the production would you considering to shut down?

@edit: made my question an open question. Better quality answer guaranteed.

[yokem55]

One of the big drivers for closing the business case for BFR is going to be flight rate. With a commercial launch market currently in the neighborhood of 50-60 per year, how will SpaceX get enough flights to make the system worth while? Starlink and other constellations will help, but that will cannibalize other GTO business?

[Robotbeat]

The obvious one is:

Where will BFR be built; and how will it be transported to Florida?


or:

If BFR is to be built at Hawthorne, how will that impact on continued F9 production - and in particular Stage 2 production?

This counts as boring as we already know the answer if you've been paying attention, IMHO.

I know we have forum fights about exactly how sure we are on points like these, but IMHO we should try for NEW info instead of just confirming what we already have.

Besides stuff that might be known in L2 (I'm not sure if there is any, but if you have a subscription, check it out) we have this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888813713800785923

Elon Musk
Elon Musk @elonmusk
Replying to @VoltzCoreAudio @andygen21 and @Teslarati
A 9m diameter vehicle fits in our existing factories ...
1:31 PM · Jul 22, 2017

[Bynaus]

Some of these questions are great, I upvoted many of them. But please don't ask the "airliner" question again. We know the answer to that one. SpaceX will never sell vehicles for others to run.

[Robotbeat]

One of the big drivers for closing the business case for BFR is going to be flight rate. With a commercial launch market currently in the neighborhood of 50-60 per year, how will SpaceX get enough flights to make the system worth while? Starlink and other constellations will help, but that will cannibalize other GTO business?

Might not be a good idea to ask questions which, if answered, would significantly undermine SpaceX's business... They're likely to be ignored.

[yokem55]

One of the big drivers for closing the business case for BFR is going to be flight rate. With a commercial launch market currently in the neighborhood of 50-60 per year, how will SpaceX get enough flights to make the system worth while? Starlink and other constellations will help, but that will cannibalize other GTO business?

Might not be a good idea to ask questions which, if answered, would significantly undermine SpaceX's business... They're likely to be ignored.

Perhaps it might be better to ask 'What kind of annual flight rate for BFR is required to get the per flight price to be cheaper than Falcon 1? How do you get the launch market to grow to meet that supply?'

[vanoord]

The obvious one is:

Where will BFR be built; and how will it be transported to Florida?


or:

If BFR is to be built at Hawthorne, how will that impact on continued F9 production - and in particular Stage 2 production?

This counts as boring as we already know the answer if you've been paying attention, IMHO.

I know we have forum fights about exactly how sure we are on points like these, but IMHO we should try for NEW info instead of just confirming what we already have.

Besides stuff that might be known in L2 (I'm not sure if there is any, but if you have a subscription, check it out) we have this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888813713800785923

Elon Musk
Elon Musk @elonmusk
Replying to @VoltzCoreAudio @andygen21 and @Teslarati
A 9m diameter vehicle fits in our existing factories ...
1:31 PM · Jul 22, 2017

Yes / no.

There's sometimes a difference between what Elon says and what his companies do...

There's also an issue in that F9 S2 isn't recoverable at the moment; and Gwynne Shotwell has (iirc) suggested it may not be. I'm therefore failing to see an option where the S2 production line can be shut down until BFR is flying regularly - in which case either either BFR has to be built elsewhere; or S2 production moved.

I'm not, I'm afraid, going to take one tweet from Elon Musk as gospel!

[Robotbeat]

The stage 2 question is better, IMO. Shotwell didn't imply they weren't going to recover it, she said they would try.

[dror]

I haven't read all the list but here are my suggestions

1.
BFR which was recently presented as targeting near future payloads, is seemingly ovesized for most.
Should we expect a smaller version (or a set of sizes) to be anounced in the future?

2.
Gwynne, you have mentioned interstellar propulsion in the past.
Does your company actively develop any technology in that context?
(Based on: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38356.msg1421453#msg1421453
A simple yey/ney will be good enogh for me, especially a yey )

I would appreciate corrections, spelling and rewording, thanks !

[cartman]

Is the current Raptor being tested at McGregor the same size/thrust that will be used for the BFR?
When will you decide on a proper name for the rocket?

[philw1776]

Gwynne Shotwell you mentioned SpaceX interest in nuclear previously.  In flight or planetary surface?  Could you elaborate on that?

Is SpaceX considering any long range working interest in fusion propulsion systems such as Princeton Satellite Systems, Inc. Direct Fusion Drive?

We know that engineering resources at SpaceX have assisted Tesla in problem areas.  Any details about Tesla/Solar City synergy on Mars surface transport, solar power and storage systems?

[winkhomewinkhome]

We know that engineering resources at SpaceX have assisted Tesla in problem areas.  Any details about Tesla/Solar City synergy on Mars surface transport, solar power and storage systems?

What about a Tesla Rover?  Is any of Tesla "Semi-Truck" development applicable?

[cppetrie]

Is the raptor we’ve seen tested at McGregor the same size as what will be on BFR and so just needs uprating as testing proceeds or will it need to be scaled up?

Submitted this as Chris Petrie. Please upvote.
https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

[Robotbeat]

Gwynne Shotwell you mentioned SpaceX interest in nuclear previously.  In flight or planetary surface?  Could you elaborate on that?

Is SpaceX considering any long range working interest in fusion propulsion systems such as Princeton Satellite Systems, Inc. Direct Fusion Drive?

We know that engineering resources at SpaceX have assisted Tesla in problem areas.  Any details about Tesla/Solar City synergy on Mars surface transport, solar power and storage systems?

I like the first and last ones, but personally I'm generally interested in Surface power and transport whether or not it has anything to do with Tesla.

[TomNTex]

Submitted as Tom :

When will we see the re-launch of a re-used Falcon 9 booster? in other words, the third launch of a single booster? What are the challenges to make that happen?

[RocketmanUS]

1 ) Can the BFS land back on Earth with a 150 t payload? That is can the structure handle this much payload on landing on Earth?

2 ) What is the mass limit of the BFS landing on Earth ( dry mass + unused propellant + payload )?

Edit:
typo, NFS to BFS

[Lars-J]

1 ) Can the BFS land back on Earth with a 150 t payload? That is can the structure handle this much payload on landing on Earth?

2 ) What is the mass limit of the NFS landing on Earth ( dry mass + unused propellant + payload )?

Elon already said that the max landing payload is 50 t. (view 2017 IAC talk again) Please don't ask questions that we already know the answer to, it just limits the amount of new stuff we might learn.

[QuantumG]

Elon already said that the max landing payload is 50 t. (view 2017 IAC talk again) Please don't ask questions that we already know the answer to, it just limits the amount of new stuff we might learn.

I don't think we appreciate how much of a hard ask that is...

we really need a clearing house for questions, or something. Community intelligence is the reason why we keep coming back here.

[darkenfast]

What will be the first two launch pads that the BFR will fly from?

Edit: Posted as question #66.

[speedevil]

Some of these questions are great, I upvoted many of them. But please don't ask the "airliner" question again. We know the answer to that one. SpaceX will never sell vehicles for others to run.

If they get a dominant enough position in any market, there is the potential for anticompetitive investigations, which can do various things that the company would 'never' choose to do.
(Though while Gwynne may have insight into the strategy for avoiding this, it's really unlikely she's going to spill)

[Billium]

Can you ask her to confirm the status of land landings at Vandy?

[RocketmanUS]

1 ) Can the BFS land back on Earth with a 150 t payload? That is can the structure handle this much payload on landing on Earth?

2 ) What is the mass limit of the BFS landing on Earth ( dry mass + unused propellant + payload )?

Elon already said that the max landing payload is 50 t. (view 2017 IAC talk again) Please don't ask questions that we already know the answer to, it just limits the amount of new stuff we might learn.

#2 is not known , I want to know how much mass BFS can handle landing on Earth. It does not matter were it is coming from but how strong the BFS structural is. Commercial airline planes can not land with full tanks for example, they have to dump or burn off fuel before landing.

Lars-J, I believe that 50 t you refer to has to do with the performance ( delta v )  of  the BFS from Mars as it does not refuel in LMO.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Timing of First Block 5 launch?

[Doesitfloat]

When does the "backlog" of flight become just flight reservations?

[Lar]

Upvoted. Pity it's not possible to vote the Chicago way (early and often).

It is of course cheating to vote more than once. And using different browsers, your friends computers, different VMs, etc are all apparently[1] not detected in this voting system so you are on your honor not to do that.

1 - someone told me that. I would never try it myself.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Forgot to post my name:

What new commercial earth-centric markets do you see emerging as a result of cheap launch prices? Will SpaceX try satellite servicing/repair/return with BFR?

[Robotbeat]

Forgot to post my name:

What new commercial earth-centric markets do you see emerging as a result of cheap launch prices? Will SpaceX try satellite servicing/repair/return with BFR?

Didnt Musk already say "yes" during the presentation?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Forgot to post my name:

What new commercial earth-centric markets do you see emerging as a result of cheap launch prices? Will SpaceX try satellite servicing/repair/return with BFR?

Didnt Musk already say "yes" during the presentation?

No, he mentioned clearing space debris and ISS servicing, but nothing on satellite servicing or repair.

[Semmel]

Some economic question: What satellite markets are you hoping to service with BFR that requires it's capabilities and launch cadence?

[RocketmanUS]

1 ) Can the BFS land back on Earth with a 150 t payload? That is can the structure handle this much payload on landing on Earth?

2 ) What is the mass limit of the NFS landing on Earth ( dry mass + unused propellant + payload )?

Elon already said that the max landing payload is 50 t. (view 2017 IAC talk again) Please don't ask questions that we already know the answer to, it just limits the amount of new stuff we might learn.

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth. I did not ask from were the BFS was coming from as it did not matter. What does matter is what the BFS structure can handle on landing. Space shuttle was designed to launch up to 65.000 lb, later revised to launching maximum 50,000 lb. However space shuttle could only land with 35,000 lb of cargo, just like commercial jets can not land with full tanks , the structure can not handle it. Important to know if there is a sub orbital abort or an orbital abort.

[OneSpeed]

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth. I did not ask from were the BFS was coming from as it did not matter. What does matter is what the BFS structure can handle on landing. Space shuttle was designed to launch up to 65.000 lb, later revised to launching maximum 50,000 lb. However space shuttle could only land with 35,000 lb of cargo, just like commercial jets can not land with full tanks , the structure can not handle it. Important to know if there is a sub orbital abort or an orbital abort.

The limitation is not structural. For redundacy, the ship needs to be able to land on a single Raptor SL, which has about 170mT of thrust. If the ship is 85mT, and landing propellant is another 35mT, then 50mT is the maximum payload.

[Robotbeat]

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth. I did not ask from were the BFS was coming from as it did not matter. What does matter is what the BFS structure can handle on landing. Space shuttle was designed to launch up to 65.000 lb, later revised to launching maximum 50,000 lb. However space shuttle could only land with 35,000 lb of cargo, just like commercial jets can not land with full tanks , the structure can not handle it. Important to know if there is a sub orbital abort or an orbital abort.

The limitation is not structural. For redundacy, the ship needs to be able to land on a single Raptor SL, which has about 170mT of thrust. If the ship is 85mT, and landing propellant is another 35mT, then 50mT is the maximum payload.

Of course, for large cargo payloads you can just land on 2.

[Lar]

Of course, for large cargo payloads you can just land on 2.

not redundantly if it only has 2.

[RocketmanUS]

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth. I did not ask from were the BFS was coming from as it did not matter. What does matter is what the BFS structure can handle on landing. Space shuttle was designed to launch up to 65.000 lb, later revised to launching maximum 50,000 lb. However space shuttle could only land with 35,000 lb of cargo, just like commercial jets can not land with full tanks , the structure can not handle it. Important to know if there is a sub orbital abort or an orbital abort.

The limitation is not structural. For redundacy, the ship needs to be able to land on a single Raptor SL, which has about 170mT of thrust. If the ship is 85mT, and landing propellant is another 35mT, then 50mT is the maximum payload.

Thanks.
With a 719 m/s delta v for landing with one engine only that would be correct ( just ran the numbers ). With two of the sea level engines it could land with 150 t, but could the structure handle it?

Could they use one or two vacuum engines with one sea level engine to land? Or would the vacuum engines not work at sea level on landing on Earth.

[Robotbeat]

Of course, for large cargo payloads you can just land on 2.

not redundantly if it only has 2.

That's why I said cargo.

[kdhilliard]

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth.
...

At 17:00 he discusses the BFS specs and says, "And that ship will contain 1,100 tons propellant with an ascent design of 150 tons and return mass of 50."  The side shown at that time says, "Max Ascent Payload 150 t / Typical Return Payload 50 t".  He does not explain the limiting factor. (Transcript)

~Kirk

[RocketmanUS]

Rewatched the presentation, linked from SpaceX website. What Elon said was 20 to 50 t returnable from Mars by the BFS with no booster ( or no LMO refueling , implied ), this is at 35:21.

What I asked was what the BFS is capable of landing back on Earth.
...

At 17:00 he discusses the BFS specs and says, "And that ship will contain 1,100 tons propellant with an ascent design of 150 tons and return mass of 50."  The side shown at that time says, "Max Ascent Payload 150 t / Typical Return Payload 50 t".  He does not explain the limiting factor. (Transcript)

~Kirk

Thanks.
OneSpeed explained it do to engine out.
That limits the point to point to 50 t for crew safety minus unusable propellants.

I still would have liked to know the structural limit on BFS for payload on landing on Earth, ( for Chomper and crew/cargo versions )

[Lars-J]

Of course, for large cargo payloads you can just land on 2.

not redundantly if it only has 2.

That's why I said cargo.

That's using an 'expendable' mindset. They are going to try to reuse these potentially hundreds of time, it is IRRELEVANT whether or not there are people on board.

Does a cargo aircraft push their specs beyond safety margins, just because it carries cargo? No... The aircraft is far more valuable than the cargo.

The safety margins will be essential for the BFS, if for no other reason that it needs to prove the highest amount of reliability. If a BFS craters on landing, people aren't going to say that "it was only cargo" and pretend nothing happened.

[deruch]

Derek F.

Now that your job is much more business related, what part of the day-to-day, hands-on engineering you did earlier in your career do you miss the most/least?


By the way, Helodriver is totally crushing that list.

[speedevil]

That's using an 'expendable' mindset. They are going to try to reuse these potentially hundreds of time, it is IRRELEVANT whether or not there are people on board.

Does a cargo aircraft push their specs beyond safety margins, just because it carries cargo? No... The aircraft is far more valuable than the cargo.

The safety margins will be essential for the BFS, if for no other reason that it needs to prove the highest amount of reliability. If a BFS craters on landing, people aren't going to say that "it was only cargo" and pretend nothing happened.

Only for 'political' reasons.
Airliner reliability is of the order of one death in ten million journeys. (for a given passenger).

Assuming for the moment BFR gets to airliner like reliability on two engines, and this is the only risk involved, that is one chance in ten million of both engines failing, or one chance in 3000 of one engine failing.
For a $300M BFS failing, that's of the order of $100K cost.

That is considerably less than the cost of one BFR launch.


An

[abaddon]

The safety margins will be essential for the BFS, if for no other reason that it needs to prove the highest amount of reliability. If a BFS craters on landing, people aren't going to say that "it was only cargo" and pretend nothing happened.

Agreed.  Not to mention, these things are going to be expensive.

The margin might very well be based on single engine out margin - that makes sense - but they may also design the structural loads based around that assumption, so it could end up being both.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Which vehicle(s) will SpaceX put forward in response to the new AF request?

[leetdan]

Since current F9 cores are only good for a single reuse, what is the business case for recovering the cores on their terminal flight?

[hkultala]

Since current F9 cores are only good for a single reuse, what is the business case for recovering the cores on their terminal flight?

There is no such limitation.

[mikes]

Since current F9 cores are only good for a single reuse, what is the business case for recovering the cores on their terminal flight?

There is no such limitation.

Even if there were:

* post-flight inspection to check component performance and look for potential problems

* practice

[ejb749]

Will there be a webcast of the event? 
Does she know there is a launch scheduled for the exact same time?

[leetdan]

There is no such limitation.

My mistake, I thought this had been explicitly stated somewhere.  It seems implied from the lack of reuse of GTO cores to date.

Engineering analysis is an obvious benefit, but each would tend to reveal less as more cores return for inspection.  Checking out operational changes like the Octagrabber are also evident.  Maybe I should've explicitly asked if any flight hardware has the potential for reuse even if the core as a whole is retired.

[meberbs]

Does she know there is a launch scheduled for the exact same time?

Since there is not a launch scheduled at the same time (it is 3 hours before with a 2 hour window, and should be less than 1 hour to payload deploy from launch), I believe the answer is "no."

(Check your timezones, Stanford is in CA.)

[RocketmanUS]

The safety margins will be essential for the BFS, if for no other reason that it needs to prove the highest amount of reliability. If a BFS craters on landing, people aren't going to say that "it was only cargo" and pretend nothing happened.

Agreed.  Not to mention, these things are going to be expensive.

The margin might very well be based on single engine out margin - that makes sense - but they may also design the structural loads based around that assumption, so it could end up being both.

One of the reasons is abort back to Earth. If there is an issue with BFS after booster separation before getting to orbit it would need to land back on Earth. But could the structure handle landing with some of the propellant mass that was not used that would have been used to get to orbit.  The BFS might be able to use the vacuum engines for extra thrust if needed for landing. This would be a BFS with crew.

[neoforce]

Since it is hosted by Stanford Student Space Initiative, I doubt there will be a live steam. I will anxiously await hellodrivers report after the fact.   https://stanfordssi.org/blog/gwynne-shotwell-road-to-mars

Another interesting tidbit from the website for the talk:  "Q&A session hosted by Steve Jurvetson."  So for those lucky enough to be in attendance you get two powerhouse personalities in the room.

[jpo234]

I will anxiously await hellodrivers report after the fact.

It's helodriver, as in helicopter driver.

[Robotbeat]

Of course, for large cargo payloads you can just land on 2.

not redundantly if it only has 2.

That's why I said cargo.

That's using an 'expendable' mindset. They are going to try to reuse these potentially hundreds of time, it is IRRELEVANT whether or not there are people on board.

Does a cargo aircraft push their specs beyond safety margins, just because it carries cargo? No... The aircraft is far more valuable than the cargo.

The safety margins will be essential for the BFS, if for no other reason that it needs to prove the highest amount of reliability. If a BFS craters on landing, people aren't going to say that "it was only cargo" and pretend nothing happened.

*sigh*
This is tiresome. This is not "expendable mindset."

The context was "what is the maximum landing payload?" I answered that.

Whether they wish to utilize that capability is up to them, but your SPECULATION that SpaceX would be too afraid (Are we talking about the same company???) of public perception of failed landings is off-topic to the question at hand. Additionally, BFR will necessarily be incredibly safe even without engine-out capability.

[IainMcClatchie]

I posted the following question: "The Shuttle heat shield required extensive maintenance due to water contamination. How will the PICA-X shield on BFS avoid this problem?"

One of the things that prevented the Shuttle from turning around quickly was drying and replacing tiles.  They'd get wet just sitting out in the weather waiting for launch.

PICA-X on the Dragon is enclosed between the capsule and the Trunk, and can be protected from atmospheric moisture.  The PICA-X on BFS cannot.  Is the stuff water repellant?

An Inconel shield on the bottom of the BFR should handle moisture well.  I have no doubt they can turn that around quickly.

[Port]

inconel is a metal which conducts heat exceptionally well, also it is not ablative. it's literally a "shield" (in a medieval sense) which will not work in any way, shape or form.

also pica-X and the ceramic tiles of the space shuttle have very little in common except their purpose. Space shuttle tiles are made up mostly of air and silica-fibres (i think this is the reason for their hydrophilicity) while pica is a carbon fibre matrix impregnated with phenol-resin. the resin should stop water mostly, but i'm no specialist in heatshield materials, the info i presented was literally extracted from the corresponding wikipedia articles in 2 minutes time.. you might want to consider checking your questions for trivial answers before asking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#PICA-X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system#High-temperature_reusable_surface_insulation_.28HRSI.29

[Robotbeat]

Ask about ISRU! See if prototypes for Mining droids, Sabatier reactor equipment, etc has been made.

[oiorionsbelt]

Ask about ISRU! See if prototypes for Mining droids, Sabatier reactor equipment, etc has been made.

Yes, ask questions about Mars surface activity.
 Unfurling/setting up solar arrays. What does that look like?

[envy887]

inconel is a metal which conducts heat exceptionally well, also it is not ablative. it's literally a "shield" (in a medieval sense) which will not work in any way, shape or form.

Iain suggested Inconel for the booster (BFR), not the ship (BFS). That should work fine; the Block 5 F9 booster is supposed to have Inconel shields around its base.

[Helodriver]

On site, front row. T-52 minutes.

[TripD]

I am so spoiled now.  Really wish this was live streamed.

[Flying Beaver]

Is it just me or have the questions been reset. Only seeing ones posted within the past half hour... And non of Helodriver's.

https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

[Michael Baylor]

Is it just me or have the questions been reset. Only seeing ones posted within the past half hour... And non of Helodriver's.

https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

It's not just you, and most of the new ones are complete crap. Hopefully, these aren't the ones they gave her. If they are it's a big opportunity wasted.

[meberbs]

Is it just me or have the questions been reset. Only seeing ones posted within the past half hour... And non of Helodriver's.

https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

It's not just you, and most of the new ones are complete crap. Hopefully, these aren't the ones they gave her. If they are it's a big opportunity wasted.

Looks like they asked good ones. No recording was allowed, but some people have posted their notes on reddit. In addition to the OP, Sticklefront and ergzay have detailed comments with their notes. Each has something that the others don't.

Hopefully when Helodriver has time, he can add anything else that they missed, or clarify on some points that the others seem to have understood in different ways.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

@SpaceX Prez @GwynneShotwell & @DFJSteve having fun onstage tonight talking all things Mars and #BFR (she clarified the F is for Falcon).

https://twitter.com/glydstone/status/918345583097556992

[dror]

Is it just me or have the questions been reset. Only seeing ones posted within the past half hour... And non of Helodriver's.

https://app.sli.do/event/idqu1pqo/ask

It's not just you, and most of the new ones are complete crap. Hopefully, these aren't the ones they gave her. If they are it's a big opportunity wasted.

Looks like they asked good ones. No recording was allowed, but some people have posted their notes on reddit. In addition to the OP, Sticklefront and ergzay have detailed comments with their notes. Each has something that the others don't.

Hopefully when Helodriver has time, he can add anything else that they missed, or clarify on some points that the others seem to have understood in different ways.

Other than reaffirming previous data, the only real 'news' seems to be that they are looking to build a new factory for BFR in LA on the water.

[vaporcobra]

Ehhh, check again. There was a ton of very new information. Vague speculation on NSF does not equal straight-from-Shotwell info.

General sampling:
-larger Raptor currently under construction
-hope is for manufacturing facilities at all BFR launch pads
-confirmed that Boca is explicitly for BFR
-suggested that SpaceX could fund BFR and Starlink simultaneously, albeit with a bit longer timeline
-reiterated December for FH and possibly LC-40
-BFR P2P wouldn't be economical for short trips, but could be cheaper than economy flights for long trips
-fairings to be regularly reused by H2 2018
-S2 recovery will not actually attempt recovery, more just explore the orbital reentry regime
-confident that SpaceX can make carbon composite prop tanks operational, BFR could be ready before the stuff needed to live on Mars
-SpaceX will build the Martian infrastructure if they have to, would prefer other companies to start work on it
-not likely a coincidence that Musk started TBC, tunnels will be crucial until domes and terraforming on Mars

And much more.

[woods170]

@SpaceX Prez @GwynneShotwell & @DFJSteve having fun onstage tonight talking all things Mars and #BFR (she clarified the F is for Falcon).

https://twitter.com/glydstone/status/918345583097556992

Emphasis mine.
That has been known since last year, courtesy of the Gallery section of SpaceX.com

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

[jpo234]

-larger Raptor currently under construction

It seems unclear what she meant here. It could either mean a physically larger engine or a engine with upscaled capabilities with the same physical size.

[woods170]

Ehhh, check again. There was a ton of very new information. Vague speculation on NSF does not equal straight-from-Shotwell info.

General sampling:
-larger Raptor currently under construction

There is disagreement in the Reddit thread about Gwynne actually saying that. Larger, in the context of Raptor, is likely to be interpreted as scaling up the thrust levels of Raptor.

[jebbo]

I was struck by the following from the reddit thread:

SpaceX is focused on the transportation part of the Mars problem, but people need somewhere to go once they arrive. I don't think it's an accident that Elon started the Boring Company, tunnels will be very important in the first steps of living on Mars, before we build domes and terraform. We want other companies to start thinking about it and working on it, but we'll do it if we have to. I think the BFR might be ready before these other components of actually living on Mars.

and

Harder than the rocket, though, will be where people are going to live, what will life be like, what will they do there?

Feels like these could significantly delay things, regardless of BFR progress.

--- Tony

[docmordrid]

@SpaceX Prez @GwynneShotwell & @DFJSteve having fun onstage tonight talking all things Mars and #BFR (she clarified the F is for Falcon).

https://twitter.com/glydstone/status/918345583097556992

Emphasis mine.
>
I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

Because Musk has used Big F....g Rocket/Spaceship numerous times, fleshing it out in a Dec. 2015 GQ interview. Until they give it an official name....
..

https://www.gq.com/story/elon-musk-mars-spacex-tesla-interview

[jpo234]

I was struck by the following from the reddit thread:

SpaceX is focused on the transportation part of the Mars problem, but people need somewhere to go once they arrive. I don't think it's an accident that Elon started the Boring Company, tunnels will be very important in the first steps of living on Mars, before we build domes and terraform. We want other companies to start thinking about it and working on it, but we'll do it if we have to. I think the BFR might be ready before these other components of actually living on Mars.

and

Harder than the rocket, though, will be where people are going to live, what will life be like, what will they do there?

Feels like these could significantly delay things, regardless of BFR progress.

--- Tony

These problems won't delay the exploration phase. This is about the actual city/colony.

[Helodriver]

The questions app was indeed reset right before the event started and the questions that were submitted by the audience during the event tended toward the simplistic type as in who goes to Mars first. Steve Jurvetson did have a printed list of questions which included mine and he worked a couple into the general questioning. I will say that in that in general there was a good amount of new information released by Gwen particularly about BFR construction location and launch sites that we had not heard before. BFR gets its own LA harbor factory and launches from Boca Chica among other places.

[wannamoonbase]

-larger Raptor currently under construction

It seems unclear what she meant here. It could either mean a physically larger engine or a engine with upscaled capabilities with the same physical size.

Although the language isn't precise, it must be clear that she's talking about the BFR final scaled engine.  This is very good news and where they need to be going. 

The Mini Raptor was always a step for learning and testing.

[Robotbeat]

-larger Raptor currently under construction

It seems unclear what she meant here. It could either mean a physically larger engine or a engine with upscaled capabilities with the same physical size.

Although the language isn't precise, it must be clear that she's talking about the BFR final scaled engine.  This is very good news and where they need to be going. 

The Mini Raptor was always a step for learning and testing.

Doesnt make sense to call it a mini Raptor. It's most of the way to the one that will be used for BFR. It's a lower thrust development engine, just like Merlin 1D had.

[matthewkantar]

If I understand correctly, the Boca Chica site will be BFR only? I guess that means they will be filing a new or amended EIS sometime?

Matthew

[SmallKing]

If I understand correctly, the Boca Chica site will be BFR only? I guess that means they will be filing a new or amended EIS sometime?

Matthew

AFAIK, Falcon 9 will launch from Boca Chica NET later 2019

[John Alan]

If I understand correctly, the Boca Chica site will be BFR only? I guess that means they will be filing a new or amended EIS sometime?

Matthew

AFAIK, Falcon 9 will launch from Boca Chica NET later 2019

And in my opinion...
There will never be any RP-1 tank farms, or Falcon 9 GSE, HIF's, T/E's, or F9 hardware ever seen at Boca Chica for all eternity...
Yes... I am of the opinion a new EIS is in the works...
I also opine that the first BFR (the booster) static fire will be over that trench in Boca Chica on the actual Launch Mount...
Not 39a...Or anywhere else
My 2 cents on subtopic... 

On edit... I am willing now to wager $$$ on this opinion with any one thinking otherwise...
Reference Texas launch pad thread... and suggest we take further talk of this over there...

On more edit... took it over here...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43026.msg1735941#msg1735941

[Rocket Science]

@SpaceX Prez @GwynneShotwell & @DFJSteve having fun onstage tonight talking all things Mars and #BFR (she clarified the F is for Falcon).

https://twitter.com/glydstone/status/918345583097556992

Emphasis mine.
That has been known since last year, courtesy of the Gallery section of SpaceX.com

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

Probably because it's more of a "Pterodactyl in size" relative to the Falcon...

[vanoord]

The likely location of the factory is a small lesson that what Elon says/tweets isn't necessarily what Gwynne Shotwell will enact as company policy!

It also opens up the possibility that the F9 production line will continue to run at least until BFR has entered service.

[vanoord]

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

Probably because it's more of a "Pterodactyl in size" relative to the Falcon...

I think the joke is that the 'official' name is Big Falcon Rocket, but it can also be taken (by Elon in particular) as standing for Big F*****g Rocket.

The ambiguity is purposeful. No big deal.

[vaporcobra]

One attendee was absolutely adamant (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/do94w0z/) that Shotwell mentioned the construction of a larger Raptor, and that only makes sense. Minor upscaling is arguably necessary to reach the final figure of 1.7-1.9kN, can't be accomplished solely through higher chamber pressures.

I posted this earlier, but here is a picture showing sizes of the Demonstrator engine, the 2016 engine and the new smaller 2017 engine. The 2017 Raptor appears to be about a 15% scale up of the Demonstrator Raptor. Today I re-estimated the demonstrator engine exit diameter from the best picture we have. I think it is closer to .94 m which would make its expansion ratio closer to 25:1 instead of 26:1. I am also working up a Pc = 3000 psi engine.

John

[envy887]

One attendee was absolutely adamant (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/do94w0z/) that Shotwell mentioned the construction of a larger Raptor, and that only makes sense. Minor upscaling is arguably necessary to reach the final figure of 1.7-1.9kN, can't be accomplished solely through higher chamber pressures.

I posted this earlier, but here is a picture showing sizes of the Demonstrator engine, the 2016 engine and the new smaller 2017 engine. The 2017 Raptor appears to be about a 15% scale up of the Demonstrator Raptor. Today I re-estimated the demonstrator engine exit diameter from the best picture we have. I think it is closer to .94 m which would make its expansion ratio closer to 25:1 instead of 26:1. I am also working up a Pc = 3000 psi engine.

John

I agree that's likely, but we can't know for certain without knowing the actual thrust and Pc of the demo Raptor.

[Kabloona]

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

Probably because it's more of a "Pterodactyl in size" relative to the Falcon...

I think the joke is that the 'official' name is Big Falcon Rocket, but it can also be taken (by Elon in particular) as standing for Big F*****g Rocket.

The ambiguity is purposeful. No big deal.

In the construction and mechanical trades, sometimes the hammer one has in one's hand isn't producing the desired result, and a bigger hammer is needed. In those trades, the larger hammer is commonly referred to as a "BFH." And the F there does not mean Falcon.

So Elon/SpaceX has taken the "BFH" moniker and tongue-in-cheekily applied it to a rocket instead of a hammer, with the convenient happenstance that the "F" in BFR can be more ambiguous in polite company.

Just mentioning this for those who have never heard of a BFH.

[jpo234]

It also opens up the possibility that the F9 production line will continue to run at least until BFR has entered service.

That's a known fact.
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/

[gongora]

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

Probably because it's more of a "Pterodactyl in size" relative to the Falcon...

I think the joke is that the 'official' name is Big Falcon Rocket, but it can also be taken (by Elon in particular) as standing for Big F*****g Rocket.

The ambiguity is purposeful. No big deal.

In the construction and mechanical trades, sometimes the hammer one has in one's hand isn't producing the desired result, and a bigger hammer is needed. In those trades, the larger hammer is commonly referred to as a "BFH." And the F there does not mean Falcon.

So Elon/SpaceX has taken the "BFH" moniker and tongue-in-cheekily applied it to a rocket instead of a hammer, with the convenient happenstance that the "F" in BFR can be more ambiguous in polite company.

Just mentioning this for those who have never heard of a BFH.

If you go back 10 years you can find Elon talking about the BFE and BFTS as well, and even back then it had the dual-meaning ("Falcon" in public, but told in a way that made the double entendre obvious).

[vaporcobra]

One attendee was absolutely adamant (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/do94w0z/) that Shotwell mentioned the construction of a larger Raptor, and that only makes sense. Minor upscaling is arguably necessary to reach the final figure of 1.7-1.9kN, can't be accomplished solely through higher chamber pressures.

I posted this earlier, but here is a picture showing sizes of the Demonstrator engine, the 2016 engine and the new smaller 2017 engine. The 2017 Raptor appears to be about a 15% scale up of the Demonstrator Raptor. Today I re-estimated the demonstrator engine exit diameter from the best picture we have. I think it is closer to .94 m which would make its expansion ratio closer to 25:1 instead of 26:1. I am also working up a Pc = 3000 psi engine.

John

I agree that's likely, but we can't know for certain without knowing the actual thrust and Pc of the demo Raptor.

NASASpaceflight publicly quoted it at 1000kN days after the 2016 reveal, and I believe that came from L2 info. There's no reason to doubt that figure, its long been understood that the subscale Raptor is approximately the same size as Merlin 1D.

[Tulse]

In the construction and mechanical trades, sometimes the hammer one has in one's hand isn't producing the desired result, and a bigger hammer is needed. In those trades, the larger hammer is commonly referred to as a "BFH." And the F there does not mean Falcon.

Many video games, especially first-person shooters (like Doom and Quake), have a huge, powerful gun called a "BFG".  Here too, the meaning of the "F" is pretty clear.

And, of course, there is the slang expression "BFD", short for the sarcastic phrase "Big F...... Deal".

More generally, the construction "Big F....... something" is pretty common in popular culture.  So I think it's clear that Elon is just being cheeky calling his rocket the BFR.

[vaporcobra]

Guys... the name is of literally zero consequence. It does not matter. Focus on the aspects related to rocketry rather than nominalism, the dead horse of BFR has been revived and killed many, many times at this point.

[envy887]

One attendee was absolutely adamant (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/do94w0z/) that Shotwell mentioned the construction of a larger Raptor, and that only makes sense. Minor upscaling is arguably necessary to reach the final figure of 1.7-1.9kN, can't be accomplished solely through higher chamber pressures.

I posted this earlier, but here is a picture showing sizes of the Demonstrator engine, the 2016 engine and the new smaller 2017 engine. The 2017 Raptor appears to be about a 15% scale up of the Demonstrator Raptor. Today I re-estimated the demonstrator engine exit diameter from the best picture we have. I think it is closer to .94 m which would make its expansion ratio closer to 25:1 instead of 26:1. I am also working up a Pc = 3000 psi engine.

John

I agree that's likely, but we can't know for certain without knowing the actual thrust and Pc of the demo Raptor.

NASASpaceflight publicly quoted it at 1000kN days after the 2016 reveal, and I believe that came from L2 info. There's no reason to doubt that figure, its long been understood that the subscale Raptor is approximately the same size as Merlin 1D.

1000 kN and same physical size as Merlin D would mean the demo was full size but low pressure, about 15 bar MPa. If run at 20 bar MPa as Elon said the demo was running, it would produce more than 1000 kN. And at 25 bar MPa it would produce in the ballpark of the 1700 kN that Elon quoted in his presentation.

[vaporcobra]

Entirely possible that you're right, but I'd still suggest checking out the last several pages of this thread. livingjw demonstrates a pretty strong understand of rocket propulsion and backs up those charts and claims with data.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41363.msg1733108#msg1733108

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Reddit to the rescue!  Several people took notes, which I compiled here, with some photos too: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/37659376821/. Thanks @glydstone!

https://twitter.com/dfjsteve/status/918560185383133184

[envy887]

Entirely possible that you're right, but I'd still suggest checking out the last several pages of this thread. livingjw demonstrates a pretty strong understand of rocket propulsion and backs up those charts and claims with data.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41363.msg1733108#msg1733108

I trust John's analysis (and have independently confirmed some of them in RPA). But we've never had a solid source for both the chamber pressure and thrust, even in L2. John says so himself in that thread. Without knowing both values for the same operating configuration it's impossible to know exactly how large the engine is physically or what thrust it would get at the quote chamber pressures.

My interpretation is that the demo engine is physically smaller than Merlin D and gets 1000 kN at 20 bar MPa, and that when Shotwell said they were building a larger Raptor right now, when meant physically larger - not just higher pressure. The larger Raptor will run at 25 bar MPa and get 1700 kN at sea level, but it would also get more than 1000 kN at 20 bar MPa.

But it's also plausible that the demo runs at less than 20 to get 1000 kN, and the larger Raptor is the same physical size and just higher pressure.

[high road]

Guys, priorities!

FH still on for this year? As far as we know, her dates are more accurate, no?

[acsawdey]

Entirely possible that you're right, but I'd still suggest checking out the last several pages of this thread. livingjw demonstrates a pretty strong understand of rocket propulsion and backs up those charts and claims with data.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41363.msg1733108#msg1733108

I trust John's analysis (and have independently confirmed some of them in RPA). But we've never had a solid source for both the chamber pressure and thrust, even in L2. John says so himself in that thread. Without knowing both values for the same operating configuration it's impossible to know exactly how large the engine is physically or what thrust it would get at the quote chamber pressures.

My interpretation is that the demo engine is physically smaller than Merlin D and gets 1000 kN at 20 bar, and that when Shotwell said they were building a larger Raptor right now, when meant physically larger - not just higher pressure. The larger Raptor will run at 25 bar and get 1700 kN at sea level, but it would also get more than 1000 kN at 20 bar.

But it's also plausible that the demo runs at less than 20 to get 1000 kN, and the larger Raptor is the same physical size and just higher pressure.

You keep saying 20 bar but I think you mean 200 bar, right?

[envy887]

Entirely possible that you're right, but I'd still suggest checking out the last several pages of this thread. livingjw demonstrates a pretty strong understand of rocket propulsion and backs up those charts and claims with data.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41363.msg1733108#msg1733108

I trust John's analysis (and have independently confirmed some of them in RPA). But we've never had a solid source for both the chamber pressure and thrust, even in L2. John says so himself in that thread. Without knowing both values for the same operating configuration it's impossible to know exactly how large the engine is physically or what thrust it would get at the quote chamber pressures.

My interpretation is that the demo engine is physically smaller than Merlin D and gets 1000 kN at 20 bar, and that when Shotwell said they were building a larger Raptor right now, when meant physically larger - not just higher pressure. The larger Raptor will run at 25 bar and get 1700 kN at sea level, but it would also get more than 1000 kN at 20 bar.

But it's also plausible that the demo runs at less than 20 to get 1000 kN, and the larger Raptor is the same physical size and just higher pressure.

You keep saying 20 bar but I think you mean 200 bar, right?

Yeah, should be MPa not bar...

[raketa]

1/Elon Ask fast refuel from Tanker BFR to Crew/Cargo BFR.
2/Is it possible, if BFR Crew/Cargo is on high elliptical orbit, could quickly meet in low part orbit and refuels.
3/Could  tanker save fuel not to go high elliptical orbit, but match speed for short time?

[192]

1/Elon Ask fast refuel from Tanker BFR to Crew/Cargo BFR.
2/Is it possible, if BFR Crew/Cargo is on high elliptical orbit, could quickly meet in low part orbit and refuels.
3/Could  tanker save fuel not to go high elliptical orbit, but match speed for short time?

If you have matched speed and position, you are in the same orbit and have already spent the fuel. As to saving time by meeting in the low part of the orbit, while theoretically possible, this would involve using lots of fuel at perigee to greatly reduce apogee rather than a little fuel at apogee to slightly reduce perigee and so would be highly inefficient. Any HEO tanker mission will therefore complete at least one orbit.

[vaporcobra]

Entirely possible that you're right, but I'd still suggest checking out the last several pages of this thread. livingjw demonstrates a pretty strong understand of rocket propulsion and backs up those charts and claims with data.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41363.msg1733108#msg1733108

I trust John's analysis (and have independently confirmed some of them in RPA). But we've never had a solid source for both the chamber pressure and thrust, even in L2. John says so himself in that thread. Without knowing both values for the same operating configuration it's impossible to know exactly how large the engine is physically or what thrust it would get at the quote chamber pressures.

My interpretation is that the demo engine is physically smaller than Merlin D and gets 1000 kN at 20 bar MPa, and that when Shotwell said they were building a larger Raptor right now, when meant physically larger - not just higher pressure. The larger Raptor will run at 25 bar MPa and get 1700 kN at sea level, but it would also get more than 1000 kN at 20 bar MPa.

But it's also plausible that the demo runs at less than 20 to get 1000 kN, and the larger Raptor is the same physical size and just higher pressure.

It's totally possible. lol we basically disagreed, only to converge! My main point initially was that the "larger" comment almost certainly implies a physically larger Raptor, probably beginning at the 200 bar they're comfortable with and moving to 250 as the tests continue. Roughly pegging the size just by judging it in comparison with the equipment nearby, it is 100% Merlin sized, maybe +/- 20%.

So I agree, plenty of uncertainty. I hope we get some solid Raptor questions answered this weekend

[CT Space Guy]

Does LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana for the BFR factory?

[AJW]

Gwynne commented that it would cost SPX as much as $2 Million to transport each BFR to the port of Los Angeles.  This would have involved removing lights, signs, etc., so setting up a facility near the port would save them this expense and they could also bring in the experienced teams from Hawthorne.

[clongton]

Does LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana for the BFR factory?

Apparently both. The consensus in another thread is that initially a manufacturing facility will be built in Los Angeles at the docks. The completed BFR will be barged thru the Panama Canal to Boca Chica for test and launch. Later on this will be changed to newer facilities in Louisiana, again on the waterfront. The completed BFR will be barged from there across the gulf to Boca Chica. This will be the permanent facility.

[AdamH]

I've never understood why folks designated some other F-word to the letter 'F'.

It was actually first stated as the F-word by Elon himself, back in 2005 or before. I remember seeing a video where he referenced the BFG 9000 from the video game Doom, but I cannot find it.. Here is something mentioning BFR from 2005:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

Then again, it really doesn't matter what the F stands for. Falcon is more appropriate now that SpaceX is more than a tiny, nearly unheard-of, startup.

[Robotbeat]

The likely location of the factory is a small lesson that what Elon says/tweets isn't necessarily what Gwynne Shotwell will enact as company policy!

It also opens up the possibility that the F9 production line will continue to run at least until BFR has entered service.

More like the lesson that SpaceX and Elon can change their mind.

[mme]

Does LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana for the BFR factory?

Los Angeles. Elon likes engineering and manufacturing to be close to each other, at least during the development phase.  Once the BFR manufacturing kinks are worked out and if they need to crank up production/flight rate they will build a new factory near the launch pad(s).

[Lars-J]

Does LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana for the BFR factory?

Apparently both. The consensus in another thread is that initially a manufacturing facility will be built in Los Angeles at the docks. The completed BFR will be barged thru the Panama Canal to Boca Chica for test and launch. Later on this will be changed to newer facilities in Louisiana, again on the waterfront. The completed BFR will be barged from there across the gulf to Boca Chica. This will be the permanent facility.

No. You are as far as I can tell the only one who thinks that she meant Louisiana.

[meekGee]

In the construction and mechanical trades, sometimes the hammer one has in one's hand isn't producing the desired result, and a bigger hammer is needed. In those trades, the larger hammer is commonly referred to as a "BFH." And the F there does not mean Falcon.

Many video games, especially first-person shooters (like Doom and Quake), have a huge, powerful gun called a "BFG".  Here too, the meaning of the "F" is pretty clear.

And, of course, there is the slang expression "BFD", short for the sarcastic phrase "Big F...... Deal".

More generally, the construction "Big F....... something" is pretty common in popular culture.  So I think it's clear that Elon is just being cheeky calling his rocket the BFR.

I still don't get it.  Can someone please explain the joke yet again?

Edit/Lar: No. No more on this.

[jpo234]

In the construction and mechanical trades, sometimes the hammer one has in one's hand isn't producing the desired result, and a bigger hammer is needed. In those trades, the larger hammer is commonly referred to as a "BFH." And the F there does not mean Falcon.

Many video games, especially first-person shooters (like Doom and Quake), have a huge, powerful gun called a "BFG".  Here too, the meaning of the "F" is pretty clear.

And, of course, there is the slang expression "BFD", short for the sarcastic phrase "Big F...... Deal".

More generally, the construction "Big F....... something" is pretty common in popular culture.  So I think it's clear that Elon is just being cheeky calling his rocket the BFR.

I still don't get it.  Can someone please explain the joke yet again?

From https://www.gq.com/story/elon-musk-mars-spacex-tesla-interview

The rocket that they are working on is referred to internally by the code name BFR. And it doesn't stand for some arcane, smarty-pants science term. It stands for Big frakking Rocket.
...
Musk coined these names himself. "This is a very obtuse video-game reference," he tells me. "In the original Doom, the gun that was like the crazy gun was the BFG 9000 or something like that. So it was sort of named after the gun in Doom. But that's not its official name, of course."

[vanoord]

The likely location of the factory is a small lesson that what Elon says/tweets isn't necessarily what Gwynne Shotwell will enact as company policy!

It also opens up the possibility that the F9 production line will continue to run at least until BFR has entered service.

More like the lesson that SpaceX and Elon can change their mind.

I don't think the two are much more than different ways of looking at it.

Either way, just because Elon tweets something doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Now waiting for the 7.5m BFR...

[Shanuson]

The likely location of the factory is a small lesson that what Elon says/tweets isn't necessarily what Gwynne Shotwell will enact as company policy!

It also opens up the possibility that the F9 production line will continue to run at least until BFR has entered service.

More like the lesson that SpaceX and Elon can change their mind.

I don't think the two are much more than different ways of looking at it.

Either way, just because Elon tweets something doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Now waiting for the 7.5m BFR...

Well more likely to go back to 12m. The current 9m resulted AFAIK from the size that the current Factory could handle. They build a new factory, so that could be sized for any diameter.

[2megs]

Well more likely to go back to 12m. The current 9m resulted AFAIK from the size that the current Factory could handle.

The main goal in my understanding is, "What's small enough to be commercially useful, but big enough to fulfill some of Elon's Mars ambitions without bankrupting the company?"

Going all the way to 12m is doubtful in terms of the business case.

People in other threads here have calculated that the 9m rocket may be too small to launch some GTO payloads with full recovery and without a second tanker launch. If those calculations match reality then going *slightly* bigger could potentially be more profitable, and we may see that. But not 12m bigger until there are paying customers to justify it.

[HIP2BSQRE]

99 percent of the world if you say LA--that means Los Angeles.

[Robotbeat]

If they went 12m, they could just make it shorter and cost about the same.

But they've already ordered tooling, so it's almost certainly ~9m.

[rockets4life97]

People in other threads here have calculated that the 9m rocket may be too small to launch some GTO payloads with full recovery and without a second tanker launch. If those calculations match reality then going *slightly* bigger could potentially be more profitable, and we may see that. But not 12m bigger until there are paying customers to justify it.

I expect we'll see the same thing happen with raptor that has happened to merlin. Raptor will be refined and uprated such that SpaceX will get much higher than expected performance out of a 9m BFR than the current estimates. I wouldn't be surprised if that is part of the calculation in choosing the 9m over a larger diameter.

[Chris Bergin]

I'll be adding relevant recorded quotes into relevant articles as we go. Probably do a standalone. Got to get out of this mass of launches then I'll sit down and pick out the best quotes.

[spacenut]

Where I come from LA means Lower Alabama. 

I always thought they should start with a short 12m, then add engines and stretch for the real BFR.  Kind of like what they did with F9.  It started out as F5, and was stretched and 9 engines added.  Start with a 12m short booster with 31 of the sub-scale engines they are planning with the 9m rocket so it can launch from the cape.  Then stretch and add another ring of engines for 42+ engines.  The work towards FT Raptor engines for one really huge rocket.  Tooling for 12m would never change just a stretch.  Same with the ITS.  Start smaller and stretch.  9m is ok, it is better than anything else coming down the pike.  BO hasn't got New Glenn off the drawing board, much less New Armstrong. 

[Proponent]

BtW, am I correct in guessing that Boca Chica means "lady's mouth" in Spanish?

[philw1776]

Where I come from LA means Lower Alabama. 

I always thought they should start with a short 12m, then add engines and stretch for the real BFR.  Kind of like what they did with F9.  It started out as F5, and was stretched and 9 engines added.  Start with a 12m short booster with 31 of the sub-scale engines they are planning with the 9m rocket so it can launch from the cape.  Then stretch and add another ring of engines for 42+ engines.  The work towards FT Raptor engines for one really huge rocket.  Tooling for 12m would never change just a stretch.  Same with the ITS.  Start smaller and stretch.  9m is ok, it is better than anything else coming down the pike.  BO hasn't got New Glenn off the drawing board, much less New Armstrong.

I agree.  It seems short sighted to downsize tooling to 9m.  The right-sized for other commercial & govt applications Nova class BFR could simply be short & squat and initially use less engines.  Tank stretch and engine adds could come whenever needed.  The big unknown is just what scale of equipment needs to fit in/be carried in a Mars base construction transport.  A wider BFS also has more cargo options for LEO & lunar.  Guess it's that Elon likes his women & rockets long & lean.

[ThereIWas3]

BtW, am I correct in guessing that Boca Chica means "lady's mouth" in Spanish?

"small mouth"

[whitelancer64]

BtW, am I correct in guessing that Boca Chica means "lady's mouth" in Spanish?

"Chica" can also mean "small." In this context, "small mouth" as in the mouth of a river. More specifically, in this case, the Rio Grande.

[RotoSequence]

If memory serves (buyer beware), there was a third party source claiming that SpaceX was getting quotes for A 15 meter carbon fiber loom. If their tool designers have planned ahead for the next few decades, and the tool can weave cf parts of multiple diameters, they should be able to support their manufacturing needs for all carbon fiber launch vehicles in the foreseeable future.

[philw1776]

If memory serves (buyer beware), there was a third party source claiming that SpaceX was getting quotes for A 15 meter carbon fiber loom. If their tool designers have planned ahead for the next few decades, and the tool can weave cf parts of multiple diameters, they should be able to support their manufacturing needs for all carbon fiber launch vehicles in the foreseeable future.

That old rumor plus others drove NSF expectations that the 2016 ITS would be 15 meters.  It was 12.
I think it's well past its shelf date.  I'd like it to be true though.

[RotoSequence]

If memory serves (buyer beware), there was a third party source claiming that SpaceX was getting quotes for A 15 meter carbon fiber loom. If their tool designers have planned ahead for the next few decades, and the tool can weave cf parts of multiple diameters, they should be able to support their manufacturing needs for all carbon fiber launch vehicles in the foreseeable future.

That old rumor plus others drove NSF expectations that the 2016 ITS would be 15 meters.  It was 12.
I think it's well past its shelf date.  I'd like it to be true though.

A large diameter carbon fiber vehicle design did pan out, though 😁

[MP99]

Guys, priorities!

FH still on for this year? As far as we know, her dates are more accurate, no?

FH will be "Falcon" awesome, but BFR / BFS / Mars is where the excitement is at...

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[mlindner]

Does LA stand for Los Angeles or Louisiana for the BFR factory?

Apparently both. The consensus in another thread is that initially a manufacturing facility will be built in Los Angeles at the docks. The completed BFR will be barged thru the Panama Canal to Boca Chica for test and launch. Later on this will be changed to newer facilities in Louisiana, again on the waterfront. The completed BFR will be barged from there across the gulf to Boca Chica. This will be the permanent facility.

No. You are as far as I can tell the only one who thinks that she meant Louisiana.

To people in California (the audience) "LA" can only mean Los Angeles. This is universally understood here. I was also in the audience, for the record. The context was (paraphrased) "we can't build it in the factory because transport by ripping up street lights to the LA docks would cost 2.5 million dollars so we are going to build it directly at the LA docks". It can only mean Los Angeles. Definitely not Louisiana. She later said they would build factories at multiple locations, with the implication being directly at each major launch site.