Author Topic: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?  (Read 4308 times)

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4255
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 3771
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #20 on: 08/17/2018 02:07 AM »
Would there be much passenger traffic between Las Cruces NM and Perth Australia? If so then they could launch from Spaceport America in NM.   ::)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Restless

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #21 on: 08/17/2018 04:28 AM »
To me a floating platform(s) off Boca Chica seem ideal for BFR launches. The ideal starting point would be a semi-submersible drilling platform. The drilling platform would be replaced with a launch platform/flame trench and LOX and LNG storage added below deck. A semi-submersible already has the propulsion and and stabilizing systems to keep the platform rock steady and precisely positioned for launch of the BFR/BFS and return to the launch mount. Plus these rigs have plenty of power generation and sea water pumping capability, not to mention crew quarters. Supply ships would bring out LOX and LNG. The beauty of this approach is the semi's could cruise back to the Port of Brownsville as needed.
With this approach BFR/BFS would NEVER need to be launched from Florida. The whole program would be done at Boca including colonists to Mars through mid-century and beyond......

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #22 on: 08/17/2018 07:19 AM »

I'd have thought they'd go with a custom design for their floating platform, even if they use stock parts like the current droneships stabilising engines.  Seems more cost effective that modifying an expensive oil platform?

You also don't colonise Mars from a single pad.  The need to be able to build quite a few to support their ambitions. 

I can't imagine them not building something in Florida.  At least two of their biggest customers like them launching from there.  A pad conversion would pay for itself in a few launches (assuming that customer prices aren't less than F1 launch for a while)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6777
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1807
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #23 on: 08/17/2018 08:28 AM »

I can't imagine them not building something in Florida.  At least two of their biggest customers like them launching from there.  A pad conversion would pay for itself in a few launches (assuming that customer prices aren't less than F1 launch for a while)

I don't see NASA using BFR before they have proven it can land on Mars.

Airforce I mentioned already. If SpaceX get into EELV-2 a lauch site at the cape will be found. If not, The cape may be out for a while or permanently. SpaceX will want to launch from Florida but not at any cost.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4700
  • Liked: 2611
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #24 on: 08/17/2018 12:53 PM »

I can't imagine them not building something in Florida.  At least two of their biggest customers like them launching from there.  A pad conversion would pay for itself in a few launches (assuming that customer prices aren't less than F1 launch for a while)

I don't see NASA using BFR before they have proven it can land on Mars.

Airforce I mentioned already. If SpaceX get into EELV-2 a lauch site at the cape will be found. If not, The cape may be out for a while or permanently. SpaceX will want to launch from Florida but not at any cost.

"Proving" it can land on Mars is quite different from actually landing on Mars. A couple flights to Earth orbit and back, plus some detailed modeling, would prove that.

SpaceX is definitely looking at using 39A in parallel to Falcon. IMO that would be their first choice at the Cape if they can't get 39B (which I can't see NASA giving up).
« Last Edit: 08/17/2018 12:54 PM by envy887 »

Offline Restless

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #25 on: 08/17/2018 02:55 PM »
Use of semi-submersibles for BFR/BFS at Boca might go as follows:

1. All raptor testing at McGregor.

2. BFS and BFR shipped from LA to Brownsville via Panama Canal.

3. Raptors mounted at Boca or Port of Brownsville (POB).

4. BFS "grasshopper" testing at the onshore site.

5. Two semi-submersibles (SSM) would be converted. One for BFR and one for BFS with a crane for re-mounting on the BFR.

6. BFR would be lifted onto its SSM at POB and go out to sea for initial hold-down testing.

7. BFR would return to POB and BFS would be mounted on.

8. BFR/BFS would go back out along with the BFS SSM.

9. The inaugural flight to LEO would take place with BFR returning to its launch mount on its SSM.

10. BFS would return from orbit, testing the heat shield, and (hopefully) land on its SSM.

11. Additional test launches would take place including BFS return from beyond Earth for full heat shield testing.

12. By 2022 the first cargo flights to Mars would take place with multiple BFR, BFS, and tanker launches from the SSM's.

13. Cruise ships would lay off at a safe location for thousands to witness the spectacle.

14. Two years later the first crewed flights would take place; humanity would rejoice......
 

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6777
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1807
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #26 on: 08/17/2018 03:59 PM »
"Proving" it can land on Mars is quite different from actually landing on Mars. A couple flights to Earth orbit and back, plus some detailed modeling, would prove that.

I doubt NASA would see it that way. They may not even see a single successful landing as proof. The two cargo ships planned for 2022 may do the trick.

SpaceX is definitely looking at using 39A in parallel to Falcon. IMO that would be their first choice at the Cape if they can't get 39B (which I can't see NASA giving up).

I think they will need NASA to agree to the modifications of 39A. I am not very optimistic, that will happen.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4700
  • Liked: 2611
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #27 on: 08/17/2018 05:49 PM »
SpaceX is definitely looking at using 39A in parallel to Falcon. IMO that would be their first choice at the Cape if they can't get 39B (which I can't see NASA giving up).

I think they will need NASA to agree to the modifications of 39A. I am not very optimistic, that will happen.

As long as the modifications don't significantly affect the existing infrastructure, I don't see why NASA would have a legitimate reason to stop them. They didn't stop them from building a HIF right on the crawlerway.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6777
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1807
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #28 on: 08/17/2018 06:58 PM »
As long as the modifications don't significantly affect the existing infrastructure, I don't see why NASA would have a legitimate reason to stop them. They didn't stop them from building a HIF right on the crawlerway.

NASA might argue that the new system endangers Commercial Crew infrastructure.

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1773
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #29 on: 08/17/2018 07:27 PM »
NASA is for multi-tenant pads except when they're not. SLS can share 39B with OmegA or TBD if it makes for good press releases.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5020
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What are the options for the BFR Launch site?
« Reply #30 on: 08/18/2018 11:11 AM »
As long as the modifications don't significantly affect the existing infrastructure, I don't see why NASA would have a legitimate reason to stop them. They didn't stop them from building a HIF right on the crawlerway.

NASA might argue that the new system endangers Commercial Crew infrastructure.

They could create a new launch mount between the F9/FH mount and the trench outlet.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/the-moon-mars-earth-musk-updates-bfr-plans/

Quote
>
In fact, a 9 meter diameter BFR vehicle could share LC-39A with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets with a NASASpaceflight.com L2 Envisioning process with pad engineers and experts evaluating a second, larger, Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) outside the pad perimeter, allowing the new BFR to roll to an additional mount along the same trench at 39A.
>

« Last Edit: 08/18/2018 11:12 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Tags: