JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 21 Mar 2018
05:09:51 -0400:

On 2018-03-19 02:40, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Do you have any idea what 'fit checks' are?


I was responding to your claime that Enterprise's only role was to be
dropped from the SCA and test flying and landing.


I'm pretty sure I didn't make that claim, although I haven't looked
back. I did refer to it as being the 'drop test article', because
that's pretty much what NASA called it.

In any case, you're still going after nits while missing the whale.

And yet you argue that what they're going to fly is NOT a BFR
Spaceship, but rather some empty hull.

No. I asked if this early they would be testing engines on some existing
rocket or basic struture for a "grasshopper" test. I was told NO, and
that they are to launch a a BFS.

My questions have been on how much of BFS will be designed/built by 2019.


And I gave you the schedule Musk wants to hit. He's pretty much got
to be ready to start testing full up vehicles by 2019 to have any hope
of hitting all those other dates. Personally, I think he'll miss by
2-4 years and that includes the initial test. Where you keep losing
the plot is that you take the date as gospel and then argue about what
will fit. The way real engineering generally works is you have a set
of test points and the schedule moves as those things are able to be
tested.


And the easiest way to have that mass in the right place is to
actually build the static structure in the first place.

So you are claiming that the first BFS to fly in 2019 will have the crew
compartment built, capable of the 100 or so passengers promised by Musk?


I'm claiming that if they fly in 2019 It will almost certainly have
all the crew stuff in. As far as the cabins go, that rather depends
on just how they do those. If the cabins are permanent structure
they'll be in there. If, on the other hand, they are made up out of
lightweight panels and intended to be removable then they probably
won't be there (although any necessary anchor points probably will).

Bottom line, if something is static dry structure, it's going to be
there.


Will a BFS be built for either cargo or passenger service or will some
be built for cargo and others for passenger service?


Unknown. The original plan was to have three versions of the vehicle:
a passenger version, a cargo version, and a tanker version. I haven't
seen anything specific with the newer version, although they seem to
be talking about having a tanker version separate. That's why I made
the comment I did about the cabins, above. If the cabins are static
dry structure, I expect they'll still have three versions unless the
cabin structure is set up so that it can have furnishings stripped out
and be used as cargo space. If the cabins are lightweight panels that
can be removed along with furnishings, then they'll probably have two
versions.



Why? The plumbing associated with the tank will already be there.


Testing that plumbing does matter.


That's a ground test.


Testing that the vacuum engines do
not get damaged by thd sea leavel ones matters.


Won't let Mayfly just paste the engines any old place. Problem
solved.


Testing that the
software will keep the vacuum engiunes from firing matters.


Engines don't just fire by themselves, you know. You can test gross
details like that in software simulation.

Testing that the vehicle won't be destroyed by unicorn farts matters.
That makes as much sense as your concerns.


Simce they are essentially the same engines they should be ready at the
same time.


It doesn't matter if they're 'ready'. What matters is if they're
needed at that point in the master test plan. They aren't.



Elon Musk disagrees with you. So do I. There's no need for those
engines or the heat shield until you get to test points in your master
test plan that require them.


A grasshoper test does not test the heat shield. Not even a Falcon 9
launch tests the heat shield. But launching a vehicle and landing it
very much tests the "business end" of the rocket.


But it doesn't test anything to do with the vacuum engines, which is
why they won't install them initially. If you really want to argue
that, GO ARGUE WITH MUSK.



And once you put them on, there is no
reason not to use real working engines, since you're getting to parts
of the master test plan that require them.


Never said they had to use "working engines".


No, you seem to think that over half the engines they produce will be
'duds' and can be installed as weights.


No, the pace is faster now because we have over half a century more
experience.

BFR and BFS are HUGE projects. Hence my question of just how complete a
BFS could be by 2019.


ASK MUSK!


Passengers aren't coming back, Mayfly. What planet have you been
living on to not know this? They're not doing 'Mars tours' where you
pack up your luggage and embark on a cruise.

Been living on a planet where Musk annoucned there would be 2 way
travel. Just because you choose to settle on Mars doesn't mean that you
will never return to Earth to visit family or go spend a month on Fiji.


There is a big difference between 5% coming back and all of them
coming back. BFR Spaceship has a return cargo capacity of 50 tons, so
it will NEVER bring back 100 passengers from Mars.


Also, if Musk wants to do New Yokr Singapore in 90 minutes on BFS, then
that ship has to land with as many passengers as possible (granted
without the speed/energy of one coming back from Mars, but stll requires
a smooth landing.


See above. Just how much weight do you lose in consumables and such
when you only need to carry 90 minutes worth?


You're wrong about that, too. SLS isn't going to Mars. Orion is, but
it's not going by itself.

Please, convince NASA to stop teling politicians and the public that SLS
and Orion and sending men to Mars.


Please learn to ****ing read so that you quit misinterpreting what
NASA is saying.


Orion has no business in Mars. Not designed to land on Mars. Can't take
off from Mars. It's a tiny phone booth for 7 people for a week long
camping trip. And there is no funding to build something big enough to
go to mars and back.


And this is why you're stupid. And you get things wrong. Orion isn't
intended to carry 7 people. It carries 2-6. For normal orbital work
it will carry 4. For a Mars mission it will probably carry 3. It
provides the capability to get people up and down. With 3 people it
has about a month and a half of consumables, but that really doesn't
matter because it isn't providing those consumables during the trip.
There doesn't need to be any current funding, since the earliest NASA
plans for a Mars trip is 2033.

There doesn't need to be "funding to build something big enough to go
to Mars and back", or at least not much of it, even as we get closer
to 2033. That thing pretty much exists as COTS. I've repeatedly
mentioned B330 and you have never asked any questions, so I assumed
you knew what I was talking about. Now you've convinced me that you
just forgot it as you read it, Mayfly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330

I'm getting tired of having to constantly repeat myself because you're
too bloody stupid to read.


In another message, Alain Fournier mentioned the G forces. If you want
people to be functional as they land on Mars, you cannot force them to
stay in a capsule for 6 months. their bones will break under the g
forces. You need a far bigger ship (space station size) to get to Mars.
With lots of food, exercise equipment, entertainment etc.


See above. Go back through all the places where I referenced "B330"
in earlier articles. Pull your head out of your ass.


Consider that after 6 months on space station, despite the exercise
regimes on-board, the crew are not functional after they land on earth
and and carried from soyuz to the couches.


Consider that you're confused and that they actually are fairly
functional after six months. After a year they have real problems,
though. But as is usual with most of your 'objections', that's all
irrelevant.



It will be starting from Lunar orbit, going
on some high energy upper stage, and will be taking a hab module like
the B330 along with it. SLS will be what gets all those pieces to the
Gateway platform.


And Netflix has a reboot of Lost in Space in a week or two.


And you're a ****ing idiot.


Where did you ever get the idea that they're landing on Earth with 100
passengers?

From Elon Musk's presentation.


Then you need to learn to read and comprehend what you are presented
with.



ON ANY REASONABLE MISSION, ONE ENGINE WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO LAND. This
is because most of the mass of the vehicle (propellant, cargo,
consumables) just isn't there to be landed.


This applies to first stage (BFR) but not BFS, except for cargo only BFS.


Horse****! I'm sorry you're stupid, but I don't think I can fix it
here.



Again, look at the dates for actual Mars missions that Musk says he
wants to hit I don't think he can hit those dates and that everything will slide 2-4 years,


Yet, you argue you'll have fully functional BFS by 2019.


I 'argue' no such thing. When are you going to learn to ****ing read,
yammerhead. I argue that ****IF**** they start test flights in 2019,
they will do so with a full up vehicle. I also think that's all going
to slide. Musk tends to be very optimistic about schedules.


I was told BFS is what was launching in 2019. Fine. I asked how ready
this would be considering this is the more challenging portion, and
hence debate of just how much there would be in it.


That's what Musk is proposing. I think the date will move. You think
they'll do a dog and pony show that means nothing because that's just
what you need to distract your engineers with when schedules are
aggressive.


If they can't mount inert vacuum Raptors on, then that BFS isn't going
to have all the structures ready either. Raptors are already being
produced and tested, so they should be able to have enough spares
(either functional or not) to mount.


Once again, LEARN TO ****ING READ! Nobody said "can't". What you're
being told is "won't be, initially". There are good and sufficient
reasons for that that you are apparently too bloody stupid to
understand, no matter how many times they are explained to you.


But the crew compartments really have to be built from scratch. It isn't
being produced yet.


How do you know?


Consider also that if the flight fails at landing, they still want as
much telemetry from the first test flight as possible. Having the vacuum
engines there (as dead weight and aerodymaic of the bells being there)
helps with that. Not having them there means that they need another test
later on to measure that.


Look, yammerhead, go argue with Elon Musk. I'm tired of trying to
explain things to you that you are obviously too bloody stupid to
understand.


And if it does take off and land succesfully without those engines,
there may be lots of applause, but the data will not be of much use
because they need to see how it behaves with the extra engines mounted.


Which will happen in the sweet by and by. Do you have ***ANY*** idea
of how a testing program works? Apparently not.



he's said he'd better have something just pretty damned close to a
full up BFR and BFR Spaceship ready to start testing by the end of
next year.


Hence my questioning on just how ready he can realistically be.


Why don't you ask him, since it is apparently beyond me to get you to
pull your head out of your ass and think? I've told you what MY
expectations are, both if he miraculously meets his dates and if he
doesn't.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson