Space X 2nd stage recovery

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
02:08:08 -0400:

On 2018-04-26 22:20, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I suspect for the first few deliveries they'll go with a cargo ship, but via
air isn't completely out of the question. I suspect the FAA won't permit
flying brand new BFRs over the Continental US until quite a few flights have
occurred.

Is it a hard fact that BFR will ship fully assembled when being shipped
from Hawthorne to KSC?


Yes.


Could they perform assembly at KSC and just ship components (tanks,
engines, exterior skin etc?


No.


Looking at satellite imagery, how do they expect to ship BFR and BFS
from Crenshaw/Jack Northrop to a ship? There is no through road to the
BEACH at that area.


They're building a facility at the Port of Los Angeles to manufacture
BFR.


BTW, for scale, the Falcon 9 Stage 1 at cornet of Crenshaw and Northrup.


It is much skinnier than I though. But BFR is supposed to be 8m wide,
which means it can't be trucked out of there as there are elevated
freeways between it and the ocean.

It may make more sense to do final assembly at KSC.


Mayfly, do you remember ANYTHING? They're building BFR at a facility
at the Port of Los Angeles.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
02:19:19 -0400:

On 2018-04-27 01:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:

I'd consider either to be a little out there, what with 7 people
jammed into a capsule for that amount of time.


It's a given that neither Orion nor Dragon or the Boeing one would be at
full capacity for anything but a short ferry flight. You don't stick 7
people in a phone booth for a week or two.


Reducing the crew doesn't do much except increase the cost per seat.


Your caltulations on weight/fuel forget one thing:


No, they don't.


SpaceX may wish to
do a lunar "road trip" as a demonstrator for LEO automated rendez vous
to deliver a "service module" (aka, extended trunk with all the exuta
fuel/consumables) for the weekend sightseeing road trip around the moon.


The fact that you think there is no difference between a Service
Module and any type of trunk shows you're too stupid to be in this
conversation.


(or more likely bring Dragon to an already launched tank to which Dragon
docks).


Which does nothing for it, since it cannot refuel on orbit.


--
"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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-04-26 20:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.


Can't you put bigger tanks (instead of cargo) in the trumk for extra
fuel and ECLSS consumables?

If needed, how hard it it to make a longer trunk to accomodate move
volume needed for extra tanks?


Sure, but then it's not longer a trunk and it's a SM and it needs to be
qualified as such (such as making sure the plumbing connections disconnect
properly before re-entry etc.)

So you have a new design program.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-04-27 06:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:

They're building a facility at the Port of Los Angeles to manufacture
BFR.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. So it makes it a no brainer that the
rockets will necessarily be tranported on water.

(forgetting for a minute that they already have built facility at KSC).

From that point, wouldn't it make sense to launch from Hawaii? What
would be drawbacks of launching from Hawaii ? More storms that can cause
launch delays?


Less infrastructure in general. Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is a fully modern
state, etc, but the cost of everything is more expensive. So that drives
things up.
It also doesn't have the range like KSC has.

So why deal with that, when KSC has everything you need?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-26 20:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.


Can't you put bigger tanks (instead of cargo) in the trumk for extra
fuel and ECLSS consumables?

Then it's not a trunk anymore, which would require a full scale
development effort including human rating. Faster just to wait for ESA
to get its act together. Their Orion service module is derived from the
ESA ATV, which flew to ISS several times, so it's got heritage as a
service module. SpaceX doesn't have that heritage.

If needed, how hard it it to make a longer trunk to accomodate move
volume needed for extra tanks?

See above.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2018
20:15:20 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-26 17:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.


Considering SpaceX is much better at delivering stuff on time and on
budget, wouldn't it be able to deliver a Dragon service module with the
extra oumph! to permit Moon orbit/return before the "real" service
module is delivered for Orion?

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.
That's because SpaceX reuses everything they can. Throwing away a
couple solar arrays and an empty tube is a lot cheaper than throwing
away an entire Orion service module.


If they're going for lunar missions they're going to be throwing away
an entire Falcon Heavy, so throwing away a Service Module probably
isn't a big deal.

True, but developing that service module is. Without NASA as a customer
(i.e. deep pockets), I doubt that will happen. The canceled tourist
trip around the moon was going to be on a "free return" trajectory, so
no service module needed for that.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
14:16:39 -0400:

On 2018-04-27 06:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:

They're building a facility at the Port of Los Angeles to manufacture
BFR.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. So it makes it a no brainer that the
rockets will necessarily be tranported on water.


They're building it there because using ships is the only reasonable
answer they could find for moving the things.


(forgetting for a minute that they already have built facility at KSC).

From that point, wouldn't it make sense to launch from Hawaii? What
would be drawbacks of launching from Hawaii ? More storms that can cause
launch delays?


Cost of living is preposterously high. Building a launch facility
would be hideously expensive and topography is generally against you.


--
"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

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
14:21:38 -0400:

On 2018-04-27 09:02, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Sure, but then it's not longer a trunk and it's a SM and it needs to be
qualified as such (such as making sure the plumbing connections disconnect
properly before re-entry etc.)

So you have a new design program.


But since SpaceX is going to have to develop LEO rendez vous/docking for
BFR/BFS, as well as plumbing connections, couldn't it validate those
designs by retrofitting a Dragon V2 so a service module could dock with
it?


No. Apples and aardvarks. Things that are different just aren't the
same. A Service Module doesn't have independent navigation
capability. Even assuming you docked the two, it doesn't mean
anything except that you've designed a Service Module (which will take
years).


Do a couple of test flghts to show it works (and those test flights
end up sightseeing tours around the moon).


You don't do test flights with civilian passengers.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
20:29:24 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2018
20:15:20 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-26 17:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.


Considering SpaceX is much better at delivering stuff on time and on
budget, wouldn't it be able to deliver a Dragon service module with the
extra oumph! to permit Moon orbit/return before the "real" service
module is delivered for Orion?

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.
That's because SpaceX reuses everything they can. Throwing away a
couple solar arrays and an empty tube is a lot cheaper than throwing
away an entire Orion service module.


If they're going for lunar missions they're going to be throwing away
an entire Falcon Heavy, so throwing away a Service Module probably
isn't a big deal.


True, but developing that service module is. Without NASA as a customer
(i.e. deep pockets), I doubt that will happen. The canceled tourist
trip around the moon was going to be on a "free return" trajectory, so
no service module needed for that.


Oh, I agree. SpaceX has no reason to undertake the diversion of
developing and certifying a Service Module for Dragon V2 any more than
they need to undertake the diversion of man rating Falcon Heavy.
Dragon V2 is intended to be a purely LEO system, which means that
Falcon 9 is more than adequate. SpaceX direction for deep space work
is BFR/BFR Spaceship. Anything that distracts from that that isn't
needed or part of the long range plan is wasted time and money.


--
"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

In article ,
says...
Oh, I agree. SpaceX has no reason to undertake the diversion of
developing and certifying a Service Module for Dragon V2 any more than
they need to undertake the diversion of man rating Falcon Heavy.
Dragon V2 is intended to be a purely LEO system, which means that
Falcon 9 is more than adequate. SpaceX direction for deep space work
is BFR/BFR Spaceship. Anything that distracts from that that isn't
needed or part of the long range plan is wasted time and money.


Agreed. Now is not the time for them to get distracted by developing
hardware that's a dead end. Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon 2 are
"good enough". Spending additional development resources on expanding
their capabilities just doesn't make any sense when they have BFR/BFS
development ahead of them.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.