Planeflyer wrote:

I'm struck by comments questioning Musk like those made by KarelXWB.

While it certainly is true that not all what Musk hopes for comes to fruition look what he has accomplished is quite significant.

He may not colonize Mars but if he does nothing else he has exceeded expectations.

And don't kid yourself those folks at NASA, ULA and Ariane Space all wish they had what SpaceX has.

I am reminded of this:


Tugg

I too have a hard time believing that the BFR is more economical for launching one (normal sized) satellite than the Falcon9.If it launched say 3 (which it could) then yes,but the downside is pretty terrible costwise if the rocket malfunctions.
I do think there will be continued heavy demand for the proven F9.

As for the BFR and Mars (and return).Yes I can see that one day they might be able to manufacture fuel on the surface (Lockheed are hoping to do this too with their plans).But that has to be a long ways away.
I don't think he mentioned it but in the near term wouldnt the obvious thing to do be to take a tanker ship with you to Mars orbit so you could refuel the mother craft.Both for Mars t/o and the return burn(S).

If nothing else it pushes others to consider that maybe the idea isn't crazy.

I know with Tesla Musk has said if it fails taht's ok as the entire idea was to kick the ass of the big car companies into gear and spur EV investment. Tesla did that.

As for SpaceX. In the sapce of a relative handful of years they've gone from a bit player to one of, if not the biggest launch vehicle company in the world. The basic theory is sound. I don't think I've seen anyone say it's physically impossible. It's now up to the execution. And given the SpaceX team has pulled off reusable boosters to the point it's barely news anymore, I think it's entirely possible for them to do the BFR and actually make it work commercially.

I honestly hope they succeed. This is honestly world changing stuff when coupled with what a launcher like this enables. Imagine pairing this with Bigelow Aerospace stations. You could launch a massive station complex in one or two launches. Full of space for research and manufacturing that just cannot be done on the surface of earth. Launching constellations of LEO communication sats that provide cheap worldwide internet access.

It's groups like SpaceX that inspire people to try out seemingly crazy ideas. Inspire kids to go into the sciences. The effects of what SpaceX has done will be most fealt in a decade from now. Even if they go bust tomorrow Musk and SpaceX have rocked the boat. And that has its own value.

Planeflyer wrote:

I'm struck by comments questioning Musk like those made by KarelXWB.

While it certainly is true that not all what Musk hopes for comes to fruition look what he has accomplished is quite significant.

He may not colonize Mars but if he does nothing else he has exceeded expectations.

And don't kid yourself those folks at NASA, ULA and Ariane Space all wish they had what SpaceX has.

I'm not questioning Musk at all and fully supports colonization of Mars. In my opinion, it's the logical next step in the evolution of mankind and it's just a matter of time before we get there (even if Musk's schedule turns out to be optimistic).

What I don't understand - and apparently nobody can provide a proper answer - is why launching a small satellite on BFR would make more economical sense than using a Falcon 9 rocket. Just look at the size of both rockets (slide below), Falcon 9 is by definition much cheaper to produce. People say BFR is reusable thus cheaper, but forget that Falcon 9 is reusable as well.

Either they're expecting the launch cost of the BFR to be in the same range as the Falcon 9. Or they may be thinking the market will be so small they'll leave it to others. Those seem like the most likely answers to me.

Another option is they'll go to a system of multiple satellites per launch. With the raw size of the BFR it may be cheap enough to provide independent boosters for each payload to get them into their final orbits.

Doesn't make too much sense to me unless they seriously believe they can get the launch cost of the BFR to the same ballpark as the Falcon 9.

One other thing that comes to mind right as I finish this. They may also believe the ability to return to base with the payload in an emergency may be worth any extra cost.

I think the key to the low cost of BFR is that it is being designed to be completely reusable, not in the way that F9 is, but in the way an airliner is. i.e. Launch, land, refuel launch.

F9 is only 70ish% reusable,and what is reusable needs some level of refurbishment before reflight. Also it looks like until Block 5 the number of reuses is quite low.

BFR is designed for airliner like operations, so will fly many times between maintenance, and will be able to fly many more times before refurbishment.

Just a thought.Is it possible that the major redesign of the BFR (much smaller) is something to do with New Glen?Perhaps they crunched the numbers and saw a deadly threat to their existing business model (Falcon9-as previous BBFR was not really a commercial launcher).

overcast wrote:

I think the key to the low cost of BFR is that it is being designed to be completely reusable, not in the way that F9 is, but in the way an airliner is. i.e. Launch, land, refuel launch.

That certainly seems to be Musk's goal. The giveaway was when he started talking about commercial passenger flights using the BFR...

Complete reusability associated with hardware reliability over hundreds of cycles would indeed decrease costs by several orders of magnitude. It's why millions of people are able to fly around the World on a daily basis.

Now, if you get to a point where the price of placing a kilogram into space gets down to a couple hundred bucks versus $20,000 today, why limit yourself anymore?
Space operators might as well start designing satellites that weigh 100 tons instead of 5, all the while reducing manufacturing costs (as miniaturisation and weight consciousness will not be an issue anymore) and multiplying the satellite's capabilities. That might be what Musk is thinking, and why the F9 and FH wouldn't be required anymore.

But to get there, the first thing they need to address is second stage recovery. As technically challenging and impressive as first stage recovery is, it's a walk in the park compared to getting the second stage back home in one piece.
The first thing you need to get there is lots of extra fuel. But the more fuel you carry, the bigger the rocket will be overall for the same payload.
This is why F9 will never be able to recover its second stage. In order to do so, the second stage would weigh so much that you couldn't carry a payload anymore.

Enter Falcon Heavy.
This is the rocket they'll use to start attempting second stage recovery. But in order to do so, they'll probably have to limit the payload to roughly what a Falcon 9 could carry... The overall weight gain for a similar payload is financially compensated by the fact that you recover and reuse the whole rocket. This is why FH will eventually make F9 redundant - in theory.

Now, if you push that logic further, that means that a fully reusable rocket will be much heavier than a disposable one for the same payload, and that's where BFR comes in...

As impressive as SpaceX's progress has been so far, I think we are still a long way away from BFR, or even reliable first and second stage recovery and reusability with minimal refurbishment. Progress in those fields will dictate whether Musk's dream will come true.

He makes it sound easy. I suspect it won't be. I do remember him thinking that building FH will be as easy as strapping three F9s together, only for him to realize that he had been a little optimistic. I suspect the same will go for BFR.

It doesn't matter, really, as long as reality doesn't discourage him from pushing the limits.

Good stuff. Very informative. Karel, my apologies for placing you in the nit picker box.

And, to emphasize a point, there is more competition coming for the lower end of what the current Falcon 9 is doing. There are a couple of other outfits that are working on launching clusters of micro-sats and single and double small payload satellites. You've got other national space agencies working their costs lower and lower. you've got Jeff B. and his team. StratoLaunch is perhaps a year or two from having a working launch solution for up to mid-sized payloads. The growth is on the heavy end. Fully reusing heavy for everything that makes sense would be the holy grail. Remember, the end game here is drastically reduced launch costs over the long run. This is in order to make it more economical to go beyond low earth orbit and GeoSync. As long as we're stuck with conventional rockets, this is about as good as its going to get.

With regards to the 'Low end'.The F9 can launch these as part of a larger payload (and the 'heavy').
They would always win on price.
Even if one disagrees with this they have the original F1.All there ready made and totally reliable.They could probably modify the first stage to return if they wanted.
But they don't do any of these things.Simply because it's not commercial.This small launcher market is gonna be a bloodbath IMHO.whether it be Branson,the New Zealander's,The Microsoft guy and God knows how many others-just a horrible accident waiting to happen IMHO.

Just an interesting size comparison image to compliment Karel's:


Tugg

FBR kind of reminds me of the 1960's Sea Dragon proposal, though Sea Dragon was significantly more capable.

Stitch wrote:

FBR kind of reminds me of the 1960's Sea Dragon proposal, though Sea Dragon was significantly more capable.

How many paper rockets in the last decades? All so vastly capable.

So true, which reminds me of just how much SoaceX has accomplished. Free enterprise at its best.

Would be interesting to see the comparison of the new smaller BFR with the new glen family.What would the (difference) satellite ( not total) lifting capability be.I imagine the mini BFR would be larger by some margin.But perhaps in the same commercial ball park.

Tugger wrote:

Just an interesting size comparison image to compliment Karel's:

considering that the Saturn V is 4 meters higher than the BFR in Karels picture i´d guess that shows the old version?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Just an interesting size comparison image to compliment Karel's:

considering that the Saturn V is 4 meters higher than the BFR in Karels picture i´d guess that shows the old version?

best regards
Thomas

I found this but cannot properly speak to its accuracy. But it does show both types.

https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png

Tugg

I'm a big believer in Elon Musk and impressed by his accomplishments. But there are a few things he says and does that I don't agree on 100%.

Either way, there's one thing I'm curious about, and that is the fuel burn of the BFR, and how much it pollutes compared with an airliner. Musk has always used the enviroment as a reason for the Tesla and SolarCity endeavour. But how much pollution is generated by a Los Angeles - Shanghai flight on the BFR compared to an A380 for example? In his talks, he mentioned the pressurized volume of the the BFR would be the same as an A380, and even though I don't know the MTOW or lift capacity of the BFR, it seems natural to compare it with the largest airliner. I don't expect anyone to have precise data on it, but ballpark figures would be interesting.

@Tugger - Thank you for the graphics! It also shows that Falcon 9 is by no means a small rocket.
@JetBuddy - In the presentation, Elon Musk references the possibility of making the fuels for BFR by renewable energy powered processes.

Just like KarelXWB, I do wonder about the economic feasibility of replacing the proven [still worth a wow !] Falcon 9 with the BFR. While the Falcon 9's upper stage is expended, there has to be a penalty for trying to aggregate satellites. There's more risk per launch, completion dates and orbits have to somehow be accomodated - meaning one rescheduled sat can trip up years of cargo manifest planning.

These are the real world problems that paying customers won't have much patience with at all.

And while the marginal cost of a launch is intended to be lower for the completely reusable [fully "booked"?] BFR, those 31 Raptor engines don't come cheap.

I would not forfeit the suppliers' and engineers' experience with and investments in the Falcon 9 so readily. On the other hand - there's a benefit to refocussing the entire wider organisation on one goal. Companies that let their "minds" stray often end prematurely.

Successful landing of the Iridium III first stage on Just Read The Instructions off the CA coast. Good video of this night time launch.

Nicely done.

Next one in a couple of days for SES, using a preflown first stage. This will be the third time they reuse a rocket, and the second time for SES.
I hope all goes well.

Congratulations SpaceX! Well done.

JetBuddy wrote:

I'm a big believer in Elon Musk and impressed by his accomplishments. But there are a few things he says and does that I don't agree on 100%.

Either way, there's one thing I'm curious about, and that is the fuel burn of the BFR, and how much it pollutes compared with an airliner. Musk has always used the enviroment as a reason for the Tesla and SolarCity endeavour. But how much pollution is generated by a Los Angeles - Shanghai flight on the BFR compared to an A380 for example? In his talks, he mentioned the pressurized volume of the the BFR would be the same as an A380, and even though I don't know the MTOW or lift capacity of the BFR, it seems natural to compare it with the largest airliner. I don't expect anyone to have precise data on it, but ballpark figures would be interesting.

Isn't BFR supposed to use liquid methane as its primary propellant? I believe methane can be produced through electrolysis and the Sabatier reaction to combine hydrogen (generated from electrolysis) with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The oxygen from the electrolysis can be turned in liquid oxygen as well.

And if you use a solar array to provide the power to conduct the electrolysis, and to feed power for the chemical reaction... I just wonder how big a solar array would be needed to generate the amount of fuel needed on a regular basis....

JetBuddy wrote:

Congratulations SpaceX! Well done.

One thing that I thought particularly noticeable on this launch was that the 2nd & 1st stages were firing towards each other immediately after staging.

I wonder if they have to deal with rates induced by the exhaust of the other stage?

https://youtu.be/SB4N4xF2B2w?t=25m01s

zanl188 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Congratulations SpaceX! Well done.

One thing that I thought particularly noticeable on this launch was that the 2nd & 1st stages were firing towards each other immediately after staging.

I wonder if they have to deal with rates induced by the exhaust of the other stage?

https://youtu.be/SB4N4xF2B2w?t=25m01s

Yes, that was rather spectacular to watch. The relight of the Stage 1 booster just seconds after seperation and the plumes enveloping the rocket. I'm guessing they've calculated any effect on the other stage, but good question.

I appreciate (as they say) that size isn't everything when comparing rockets as different propulsion chemicals have different density (size) but also different characteristics (thrust) depending whether you are taking off or in space.However...

Can someone with knowledge explain the different thinking for the different sizes /approaches of the Falcon9 and heavy compared to the New Glen (2 stage and 3 stage) rockets.
Clearly both owners are clever business people and will have sized these rockets to meet commercial demand.
Clearly the 'Glen' rockets 'look' a lot bigger.Are they designed to offer a lot more?

Obviously BFR is also bigger again but I assume that size is because it all comes back!

Another launch tonight at 6:53 p.m. EDT, 22:53 UTC.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Looking forward to it!

Stage 1 of Echostar 105 / SES-11 safely landed back on Of Course I Still Love You

Congrats SpaceX! Successful launch, landing and payload deplyment!

Those gridfins looked really toasty before the feed from the F9 cut off.

Another two successful launches and landings for SpaceX! It's just great to see things go [and come] so smoothly. More money in the kitty!

Gwynne Shotwell was at Stanford, and someone made a list of her main talking points. Quote:

...No video of the interview has surfaced yet but here are some of the things talked about:

-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

I'll post a video of the interview as soon as one surfaces. It looks like there was a lot of interesting information.

Thanks to NSF user "vaporcobra" for the list.

Unquote, Source:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/2356304/

JetBuddy wrote:

Those gridfins looked really toasty before the feed from the F9 cut off.

I saw this two and looked at it more closely. I made some conclusions:

Musk said that Bulgariasat was the highest energy entry to that date. I took at this webcast again and compared them.

Bulgariasat started entry burn travelling 8600km/h at 58km and decelerated to 6600km/h at 43km after entry burn, SES11 started entry burn falling 8300km/h at 58km, and decelerated to 6000km/h at 39km, so a lot less energy.
In theory, the SES 11 core wasn`t pushed as hard as the Bulgariasat one.

Which is quite remarkable. Bulgariasat was only 3,669 kg while SES 11 was 5,200 kg. SpaceX found a way to optimize the process so despite a lot heavier satellite the entry is at a 600km/h lower speed. I don`t know where they found those tweaks as meco happened at comparable height and speed. More efficient engine operation?

What I did see was that second stage engine iginition happened in closer proximity to the booster as usual and probably pushed it away decelerating it.

They still used the old aluminium fins instead of the new titanium-why? Maybe they didn`t want to risk a set of valuable and still limited titanium fins for a rocket that will not be used again?

Will be interesting to see if they have parts melted away like the bulgariasat fins did or if the 600km/h less speed was sufficient to keep them from melting.

The looked a lot more glowing then Bulgariasat, but that may be due to longer exposure time of gopro as it was dark. Makes them brighter compared to the surroundings.

I think they used different painting this time. Bulgariasat was smooth, nothing remarkable, but SES 11 had bumps. There was a Mythbuster episode where they tested if dents make a car more aerodynamically. And interestingly, dents can have a positive effect on air resistance. Maybe spacex tests something like that.

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Those gridfins looked really toasty before the feed from the F9 cut off.

I saw this two and looked at it more closely. I made some conclusions:

Musk said that Bulgariasat was the highest energy entry to that date. I took at this webcast again and compared them.

Bulgariasat started entry burn travelling 8600km/h at 58km and decelerated to 6600km/h at 43km after entry burn, SES11 started entry burn falling 8300km/h at 58km, and decelerated to 6000km/h at 39km, so a lot less energy.
In theory, the SES 11 core wasn`t pushed as hard as the Bulgariasat one.

Which is quite remarkable. Bulgariasat was only 3,669 kg while SES 11 was 5,200 kg. SpaceX found a way to optimize the process so despite a lot heavier satellite the entry is at a 600km/h lower speed. I don`t know where they found those tweaks as meco happened at comparable height and speed. More efficient engine operation?

What I did see was that second stage engine iginition happened in closer proximity to the booster as usual and probably pushed it away decelerating it.

They still used the old aluminium fins instead of the new titanium-why? Maybe they didn`t want to risk a set of valuable and still limited titanium fins for a rocket that will not be used again?

Will be interesting to see if they have parts melted away like the bulgariasat fins did or if the 600km/h less speed was sufficient to keep them from melting.

The looked a lot more glowing then Bulgariasat, but that may be due to longer exposure time of gopro as it was dark. Makes them brighter compared to the surroundings.

I think they used different painting this time. Bulgariasat was smooth, nothing remarkable, but SES 11 had bumps. There was a Mythbuster episode where they tested if dents make a car more aerodynamically. And interestingly, dents can have a positive effect on air resistance. Maybe spacex tests something like that.

Interesting observations.

Did the Bulgariasat launch use the old aluminum gridfins? Perhaps they had spare fins of the old type to use on this launch, or they could be saving the titanium fins for the Block 5 rockets from now on. I don't know. According to Elon Musk, the new type doesn't need any refurbishing after launch, but the old type does.

I noticed the surface of the rocket was a bit rough and bumpy looking as well, could this be because this was a previously flown booster? Just a new coat of paint over the old one? Or it could be experiments with various paints, who knows. Yep, sometimes a slightly bumpy surface is better for aerodynamics than a clean one. It's one of the attributes of golf balls, they fly straighter and faster though the air due to the bumpy surface. Same thing with some coats for boat hulls, a rough surface that glides easier through the water.

Another Falcon Heavy delay - shifting from "November 2017" to "Late 2017".

That not that much just around 31 days hopefully it means their working out the final bugs in it.

I do think there is often a huge difference between what EM says and does.
He/they have got the Falcon9 working incredibly well.And still there is the block5 to come.He can pretty much crush all opposition with this rocket and it's only gonna get better.Possibly recovering stage 2 as well as 1.Then there is 'The Heavy'
They have put an enormous amount of work into this beast.Once again if(when) it works smoothly there will be a class of satellite that he can launch at unbeatable prices.So he will use it to do exactly that.
'The heavy' also gets him into Moon orbit and back.I understand it will (German private programme) also be taking remote landers to the moon.
Whether it is capable of sending craft that can take off from the moon and return I have no idea but I believe it was this rocket which he was considering using for the first Mars landing -so perhaps it could.
So all in all I cannot see him throwing all this ironed out technology away for quite a while.
It is not only a money making machine,it could also garner him huge amounts of valuable PR (like sending people around the moon and back).He has stated this is possible.

I don't know if this website is serious or not...

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-anal ... 68543.html

They say Falcon Heavy is to launch in November.


David

flyingturtle wrote:

I don't know if this website is serious or not...

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-anal ... 68543.html

They say Falcon Heavy is to launch in November.


David

Clicking through some of their links it looks like the KSC is saying no earlier than December. https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/laun ... lcon-heavy

So I'd have to see something more official than a random site saying the launch is in November.

It's perhaps safer to say 'this year'.
I will have my fingers and toes crossed for them.
They will hope very hard to get the central core back in one piece is it is clearly (now) quite a specialist piece of machinery.It will be coming back pretty hot from a high altitude.

flyingturtle wrote:

I don't know if this website is serious or not...

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-anal ... 68543.html

They say Falcon Heavy is to launch in November.


David

SpaceFlightNow is usually very accurate, and they've moved it to "Late 2017 - TBD".

parapente wrote:

It's perhaps safer to say 'this year'.
I will have my fingers and toes crossed for them.
They will hope very hard to get the central core back in one piece is it is clearly (now) quite a specialist piece of machinery.It will be coming back pretty hot from a high altitude.

I'm convinced by what I am hearing that the FH won't fly before February 2018.

Launchpad SLC-40 is almost ready and will be operational in December.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/26/165 ... -explosion

SpaceX will fly its next mission to the International Space Station in December from launchpad SLC-40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, marking the first flight from the pad since a Falcon 9 rocket exploded there in September 2016. The private spaceflight company will use a previously used Dragon spacecraft for this flight, too, one that first flew on the sixth commercial resupply mission for NASA, CRS-6, back in April 2015. This will be the second time SpaceX has reused a Dragon ship; the first was earlier this summer.

I see Koreasat-5A is upright on the stand right now...

maxter wrote:

I see Koreasat-5A is upright on the stand right now...

Three hours 'til launch! (Well, until the launch window opens)

Wishing them great success.

Tugg

Stage 2 with Koreasat-5A is in its transfer orbit and presently awaiting engine relight. This is what brings in the moolah.
Stage 1 has landed on the drone ship in the Atlantic, but last I saw it looked pretty "toasty", as the seasoned commenter described it.

SeJoWa wrote:

Stage 2 with Koreasat-5A is in its transfer orbit and presently awaiting engine relight. This is what brings in the moolah.
Stage 1 has landed on the drone ship in the Atlantic, but last I saw it looked pretty "toasty", as the seasoned commenter described it.

I saw it toasting as well. Was wondering if they would hose it down but it is probably worse than letting is burn a bit. They are obviously watching it to make sure.

Tugg

Just a little campfire

Was this a reconditioned stage 1 unit used on previous launches?

Planeflyer wrote:

Was this a reconditioned stage 1 unit used on previous launches?

It was not.

Why isn't SpaceX using the new Ti gridfins they were so enthused about just a few months ago?

Just to note all those who say it makes no sense returning to the moon.

Beside additional scientific research -mining ice/water testing - only men have walked on the moon and many women astronaut trainees no doubt want the opportunity to be first woman to walk on the moon.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-nasa-newest-astronaut-class-wmeon-180957850/