BFR early next year.

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 16 Mar 2018
12:44:48 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 16 Mar 2018
10:30:05 -0400:

In article , says...

On 3/14/2018 6:24 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

(Gosh, perhaps the "Earth to Earth transport function" is to be taken
seriously...)

This is all very fluid right now, isn't it?

Jeff


Yes, but I would also take P2P transport very seriously. I suspect Elon is.


That's the one part of BFR/BFS I don't take seriously. As a first
generation VTVL TSTO it's not likely to be safe enough for routine
passenger transport. Maybe the second or third generation will be.


But that's sort of the point of the thing, whether you're talking P2P
on Earth or Earth to elsewhere. Until proven otherwise, I'm inclined
to take Musk at his word with regard to 'airliner reliability' for the
thing.


I'm hopeful, but simultaneously cautious. No one has attempted a
reusable orbital spacecraft quite like BFS. Being a first anything is
bound to create issues to chase.

We're up to Block 5 for Falcon 9, but even it hasn't flown yet. I
believe it should be flying quite soon though. This will hopefully be
the last block for Falcon 9. Falcon 9 first flight was June 2010, so
it's taken 8 years to mature the design from first flight. No doubt
BFR/BFS will take many years to mature its design as well.


Yes, I expect we'll see some 'block improvements' along the way, but I
would bet they have more to do with the 'reusability' than any
reliability or safety issues in flight.

For use as a possible military transport, it might be considered safe
enough.


Say what? If it's not safe for civilian passengers it's not safe for
military passengers.


Really?


Yes, really. The idea that "they're only military guys so we don't
care so much about killing them in accidents" is both insulting and a
preposterous notion.


The V-22 Osprey (new tech in the 1990s) has crashed with some
regularity ever since it entered service:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accide...lving_the_V-22
_Osprey


I see 12 crashes and 8 'incidents' over a span of a quarter century.
Did you look at the figures for helicopters or commercial aircraft?
They seem to crash fairly regularly, too, and commercial aircraft
aren't doing anything complex or difficult.


A disturbing number of these crashes were during training missions, so
it's not like they were in active combat. And the last time I checked,
we still fly the V-22 Osprey because of its unique capabilities.


Why would that be 'disturbing'? Most military aircraft crashes are
during training. It's the nature of the beast. We 'still fly the
V-22' because there is nothing wrong with the aircraft and the
accident rate isn't particularly high given what they do with it.


I assert that BFR/BFS would be little different than the V-22 in terms
of both unique capabilities and could be little different when it comes
to its reliability as an air/space transport craft.


I hope it isn't. What that means is that there will be some teething
pains early and a couple design defects to correct and then it will be
a perfectly fine vehicle.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw