A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BFR early next year.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 19th 18, 06:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,685
Default BFR early next year.

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 18 Mar 2018
20:58:23 -0400:

On 2018-03-18 13:10, Fred J. McCall wrote:

False. Enterprise was never mated to live SRBs


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_...ion_Test_(MGVT)


##
Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test (MGVT)
Following the conclusion of the ALT test flight program, on March 13,
1978, Enterprise was flown once again, but this time halfway across the
country to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Alabama for the
Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Testing (MGVT). The orbiter was lifted
up on a sling very similar to the one used at Kennedy Space Center and
placed inside the Dynamic Test Stand building, and there mated to the
Vertical Mate Ground Vibration Test tank (VMGVT-ET), which in turn was
attached to a set of inert Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) to form a
complete shuttle launch stack, and marked the first time in the
program's history that all Space Shuttle elements, an Orbiter, an
External Tank (ET), and two SRBs, were mated together.
##

Granted, the text provides for the vibration forces having been
generated by the facility and not the SRBs. But it was mated to SRBs
even if later were not fired.


Which part of 'inert' is it that you don't understand? Again, the
Enterprise was never mated to live SRBs. In fact, it wasn't even
mated to a real External Tank (and there would be no point to that,
since it had no engines).


Enterprise was also mated with an ET and SRBs and moved to 39-A 20
months before Columbia's first flight. (fit and facilities checks).


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

The knowledge gained from it resulted in a production design
sufficiently different that it wasn't worth retrofitting Enterprise.


False.


Again from that Wikipedia page:
##
However, in the period between the rollout of Enterprise and the rollout
of Columbia, a number of significant design changes had taken place,
particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings, which
meant retrofitting the prototype would have been a much more expensive
process than previously realized,
##


Again, which part of "knowledge gained from it" don't you understand?
Wonkypaedia says nothing like what you originally claimed. The design
changed. Nothing says it changed because of things flowing out of
Enterprise tests.

This is why you're such an annoying ****, Mayfly. You ask questions,
some of which are stupid. That's fine. People give you answers to
your questions. That's fine. Then you argue with the answers that
people gave you to your questions. That's not fine.



Why would it lack most of those things?


SpaceX hasn't even flown its manned Dragon capsule. You think it would
have a fully built out crew compartment this early into the BFS development?


You don't know the difference between paperwork required for manned
spaceflight (tons and a long time) and paperwork to operate an
atmospheric vehicle on a test range (small and fast), I see.



If you're going to test
handling and flight, you need the moment arms and CGs to be as close
as possible to the intended final article.


Yep.

I was told in this thread that SpaceX wuld flty a BFS, not some other
vehicle retrofitted to support Raptor engines.


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


If the goal is to test BFS as a ship, then, depending on how far
advanced in its design, you want to simulate as much of the end product
as possible.


Which is why it will have all that structure that you claim won't be
there. That stuff can't really be built in after the hull is
complete, so your argument is that they're not building a BFR
Spaceship at all, but rather a test jib.


Crew compartment can be sumulated with any mass inside the fairing.


And the easiest way to have that mass in the right place is to
actually build the static structure in the first place. You can't
really add that structure later, so when your testing program gets to
where you need it, you can't put it in.


But the engine area is harder to mimulate if you have empty spaces where
the vacuum engines would be.


No, it's easier. It's simple to just plug in weights for those if you
need to, since they're intended to be removable in the first place.
Same with nozzles, if you actually need them. But by the time you get
to the point in your testing where you need that stuff, you just add
it.


You also need to consider they may want to simulate the plumbimg for
fuel and oxydizer since it will serve both types of engines.


Why? The plumbing associated with the tank will already be there. The
plumbing associated with the engines comes when you install the real
engines. Again, you can add the engines any time because they're
designed to be removed, refurbished, and replaced. You can't do that
with dry structure inside the pressure hull, so if that stuff isn't
there when you build the thing you're building a 'throw away' test
article and not a BFR Spaceship.


The vehicle that will do first flight is also going to be used to do a
whole lot of integration tests before flight (and if it survives, after
flight).


Of course it will. That's why the dry structure will be there.



BFR Spaceship isn't a subway train.


It's called integration tests because unforeseen problems come up when
you have everything, which, when tested indepemdandly, ends up causing
problem s when assembled together.


Well, duh! What do you do for a living, Mayfly? I spent 30+ years as
an engineer working for a missile company. I suspect I know a bit
more about integration testing than you do.


Possible interference between vacuum and sea leavel engines is best
detected as early as possible.


Which is why you've run flow field analyses and fired them in test
jigs long before you start bending metal on an actual vehicle.


If it is the same engine come with just
different Bell (and software), then might as well populated the spots
with Raptors fitted with vacuum bells. (those Raptors could be early
builds with defects, not intended to be fired).


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. 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.



Mayfly, engineers don't just build **** and hope it works. Yes, some
things only come out with full up testing but this is not one of those
things.


When they started in the 40s and 50s, it was a lot of trial and error,
with lots of rocket failures.


I don't know if you've notices, but it hasn't been "the 40s and 50s"
for over half a century now.


SpaceX ramped up to success launches much much faster, and rampted up
landings fairly quickly. The pace is faster now because
software/simulations allow to weed out many more problems before an ship
is built.


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


And materials like carbon fibre require cokputers to design the layup
and obtain the desired strength/durability at least amount of weight
posssible. (and despite the facy software, during flight tests, there
are many adjustments that have to be made, generally to strenghten what
the computer optimmized a bit too much.


How many times do I have to tell you YOU'RE ****ING WRONG ABOUT THAT?
Are you getting it yet?



Do you have any conception at all of how engineering works?


The issue here is that if they are to be ready to lauch BFS next year,
how much of BFS will have been built, and how much will be an empty shell.


They have two years. You're aware that Musk wants to fly a cargo
mission with BFR Spaceship to Mars in 2022 and follow that with a
combined cargo/manned mission in 2024, right? If you believe those
dates (I don't and expect at least a two year slide) that means he
needs to start testing BFR, BFR Spaceship, and BFR Tanker just real
soon now (like next year).


IOf they are ready to test propulsion and tanks, then they should test
these. And since vacuum engines are common with sea level ones, then
they should populate the rocket fully for the test to provide more
complete data on co-existence of the engines.


Let me try this one more time, given that both Musk and I disagree
with you.

* * * * * Y O U A R E F U C K I N G W R O N G ! * * * * *

Go back and read that again. And again. And again until if finally
penetrates. Look at the dates Musk says he is trying to hit with
regard to actual Mars missions and tell me just how incomplete BFR
Spaceship can be by the end of 2019 and still make those dates.


Question: have there ever been cases where a rocket took off with not
all engines producing thrust? Asking about airflow being affected by
regions of the bottom of rocket not producing thrust.


Lots of operational rockets do this, much less stuff under test.


Or are vacuum engines going to be all on the outermost ring of engines?


BFR Spaceship has four vacuum engines in a square on the outside rim
and three sea level engines in a triangle at the center. How can you
sit there and argue with me (and Elon Musk) and not know even the most
trivial details about the thing?



There are 3 sea level engines. You need ONE in order to land.


Even when you are returning from Mars with 100 passengers and their luggage?


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.



So you think you know more than Elon Musk about BFR Spaceship, do you?


No.


THEN WHY THE **** ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST WHAT HE SAID HE'S GOING TO
DO?


My thoughts reflect the PR spin around these test flights that lack
enough details to explain to layman what is REALLY being tested.


Well, perhaps you should try listening to people who know what the
**** they're talking about instead of arguing with them, then.


Just like NASA claiming in its PR and to politicians that SLS and Orion
are going to Mars.


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


From this discussion, I have learned it was BFS and not BFR being
tested. And as you pointed out, 1 engine needed to land (but not clear
if only for this empty flight or even when landing with full payload of
100 passengers).


Where did you ever get the idea that they're landing on Earth with 100
passengers? Have you considered that you have disposed of around
1,000 tonnes of propellant that you had on board when you launched?
The empty mass of the vehicle is only around 85 tonnes. Cargo and
other consumables is around 250 tonnes. A single sea level Raptor
engine (Block 1) can produce around 175 tonnes of thrust (this goes up
significantly when they increase the chamber pressure in later block
engines by 20%). Do the math.

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.


So the question revolves around how much of a BFS will be built by the
time of first flight. If insufficiently buit, the the test is either PR
stunt, or just an engine test that could have been done on an "open"
rocket without a skin or being called "BFS".


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, but if he intends to hit the dates
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.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ads
  #62  
Old March 21st 18, 11:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,685
Default BFR early next year.

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
  #63  
Old March 23rd 18, 08:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,685
Default BFR early next year.

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 23 Mar 2018
02:26:45 -0400:

On 2018-03-21 07:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Testing that plumbing does matter.


That's a ground test.


The point being that to get those ground tests done, you put the
components on the rocket.


Yes and no. The plumbing that is part of the tank structure goes on
when the tank goes on. The plumbing that is part of the engine you
can test using the bare engine.


Once they are on, is there a point in removing
them when leaving them on allows for more realistic test flight and more
valid data on ship's behaviour?


No, but there's no point in initially installing engines your test
program is not going to use right away.



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.


And I was asking about what could realistically be ready by 2019. You
said that it would be a fully fitted ship. I said that wasn't realistic.


No, you were asserting that they would keep the test in 2019 and go
with a 'dog and pony show vehicle'. You further asserted that
everyone (including Elon Musk) is wrong and that said 'dog and pony
show' vehicle will include vacuum engines, even though the first test
points don't require them.

Read this again, since you apparently still don't have it. I argue
that ****IF**** they start test flights in 2019, they will do so with
a full up vehicle.


If you say first flight will be fully fitted but will likely slip, then
we aren't talking about same thing.


Well, yeah, we are.


I was talking about a first flight in 2019 having to choose priority on
what would be on the ship because not realistic to have everything
already done by then.


Again, you don't seem to understand how test programs work. You seem
to want to believe that the test is fixed in time and they just test
with whatever they have at the moment. That's poppycock and not how
testing works. If there is a 'first flight' in 2019, it will be of an
essentially 'full up' vehicle. The 'what can be ready by then'
question you claim to be asking about is simply answered. *IF* the
test program starts then, the vehicle is ready then. If the vehicle
is NOT ready then, THE TEST PROGRAM DOESN'T START THEN.

Get how that works now?



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.


The dog an pony show may be what is needed to kill SLS and send that
money to SpaceX to help fund a real Mars mission which SLS would never do.


One more time. Read this slowly. Call over some friends to explain
it to you. BFR AND BFR SPACESHIP DO ****NOT**** COMPETE WITH SLS. A
dog and pony show is certainly not going to kill an ongoing program.
Again, read this slowly and have a few friends explain it to you.
FALCON HEAVY (AND SUPER HEAVY) ARE WHAT COMPETE WITH SLS. FALCON
HEAVY HAS ALREADY FLOWN, YET SLS ISN'T CANCELLED.

*** FIGURE IT OUT FROM THERE, YAMMERHEAD!!!!! ***


I don't claim to know what is going on behind the scenes. But Elon Musk,
despite leaving Trump's commitee, still has communications with him, and
it should be easy for Musk to convince the idiot at 1600 Pennsylvania
that his BFR/BFS is at a more advanced stage of construction and testing
than SLS and that Trump should kill SLS and focus on helping SpaceX.


See above. Read it again. Have someone explain it to you AGAIN. BFR
AND BFR SPACESHIP DO ****NOT**** COMPETE WITH SLS. FALCON HEAVY (AND
SUPER HEAVY) ARE WHAT COMPETE WITH SLS. FALCON HEAVY HAS ALREADY
FLOWN, YET SLS ISN'T CANCELLED.

*** FIGURE IT OUT FROM THERE, YAMMERHEAD!!!!! ***

Just in case you think I'm mistaken about that, LOOK AT THE ****ING
NUMBERS.

SLS Block 1: 70 tonnes to LEO, 28 tonnes to escape velocity
SLS Block 1B: 105 tonnes to LEO, 39.1 tonnes to TLI, 31.7 tonnes to
TMI
SLS Block 2: 130 tonnes to LEO, 50 tonnes to TLI, 35 tonnes to TMI

Falcon Heavy (Reusable): 30 tonnes to LEO, 8 tonnes to GEO
Falcon Heavy (Expendable): 63.8 tonnes to LEO, 26.7 tonnes to LEO,
16.8 tonnes to TMI.

So what you see there is that an expendable Falcon Heavy is about the
same capability of SLS Block 1. A Falcon Super Heavy (four side
boosters) would about double the Falcon Heavy numbers (according to
Musk), which makes it more capable in expendable mode than SLS Block
2. THERE is your competition for SLS.

BFR as a fully reusable vehicle is 150 tonnes to LEO or 150 tonnes to
almost anywhere, since it can be refueled on orbit. If you're willing
to expend the booster it's 250 tonnes to LEO. Obviously, this is a
system that is almost twice as capable as SLS Block 2, thus the two do
NOT compete.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #64  
Old April 20th 18, 04:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default BFR early next year.

On 3/16/2018 4:15 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Block 1 will almost certainly not be Mars landing capable.

If the OD (outer diameter) of the
fuselage stays constant that might mean the interior of Block 1 BFS is
much much less capable. Perhaps almost 1-for-1 on par with current
Dragon V2. But enhancement would not require modifications to the
exterior or stage couplings. Only the dry mass increases, which ought to
be able to be handled by propellant loading. There's a whole lot (more)
to come here....


This bit I have no idea what you're talking about. ASCII doesn't put an
accurate picture in my head.

Jeff


Sorry for the extremely late response to this. Got busy.

Simply put, what the interior of the Block 1 BFS (upper stage, outside
of propulsion) actually contains is anybody's guess. But I suspect
beyond propulsion, it probably won't have the huge cabins and spaces of
the Mars ship. First off, if the initial commercial use of BFR are P2P
flights (and Shotwell has gone on record since this original post
appeared that P2P *is* within HER space-time framework not Elon's) it
won't be needed. And maybe for early flights even P2P may not be there.
I was thinking in the terms of taking a Dragon V2 interior and wrapping
it in a BFR exterior. Internal modifications would follow as BFS evolves.

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down. But we'll see.

Dave
  #65  
Old April 20th 18, 05:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default BFR early next year.

On 18-04-20 18:58 , David Spain wrote:

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down.


Can you point to a reference for this? Last I saw, Musk said the BFS
("second stage") would come first.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #66  
Old April 20th 18, 06:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default BFR early next year.

On 4/20/2018 12:50 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 18-04-20 18:58 , David Spain wrote:

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down.


Can you point to a reference for this? Last I saw, Musk said the BFS
("second stage") would come first.


Oops! My mistake. On second thought, my recollection actually is the
same as yours, but it is hazy. But I will do some research. If I find
something definitive I will post it here.

If you have a link please forward.

Thanks,
Dave

  #67  
Old April 20th 18, 07:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default BFR early next year.

On 4/20/2018 1:57 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 4/20/2018 12:50 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 18-04-20 18:58 , David Spain wrote:

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down.


Can you point to a reference for this? Last I saw, Musk said the BFS
("second stage") would come first.


Oops! My mistake. On second thought, my recollection actually is the
same as yours, but it is hazy. But I will do some research. If I find
something definitive I will post it here.

If you have a link please forward.

Thanks,
Dave


Here's what I found. 3rd paragraph from SpaceNews and from Reddit
referenced from that story on Oct. 14. Links he

http://spacenews.com/musk-offers-mor...on-bfr-system/
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comme...?context=10000


Dave

  #68  
Old April 20th 18, 07:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default BFR early next year.

On 4/20/2018 2:09 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 4/20/2018 1:57 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 4/20/2018 12:50 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 18-04-20 18:58 , David Spain wrote:

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down.

Can you point to a reference for this? Last I saw, Musk said the BFS
("second stage") would come first.


Oops! My mistake. On second thought, my recollection actually is the
same as yours, but it is hazy. But I will do some research. If I find
something definitive I will post it here.

If you have a link please forward.

Thanks,
Dave


Here's what I found. 3rd paragraph from SpaceNews and from Reddit
referenced from that story on Oct. 14. Links he

http://spacenews.com/musk-offers-mor...on-bfr-system/
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comme...?context=10000


Dave


Just to be clear, yes BFS first.

Dave

  #69  
Old April 20th 18, 07:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,625
Default BFR early next year.

In article , says...

On 3/16/2018 4:15 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Block 1 will almost certainly not be Mars landing capable.

If the OD (outer diameter) of the
fuselage stays constant that might mean the interior of Block 1 BFS is
much much less capable. Perhaps almost 1-for-1 on par with current
Dragon V2. But enhancement would not require modifications to the
exterior or stage couplings. Only the dry mass increases, which ought to
be able to be handled by propellant loading. There's a whole lot (more)
to come here....


This bit I have no idea what you're talking about. ASCII doesn't put an
accurate picture in my head.

Jeff


Sorry for the extremely late response to this. Got busy.

Simply put, what the interior of the Block 1 BFS (upper stage, outside
of propulsion) actually contains is anybody's guess. But I suspect
beyond propulsion, it probably won't have the huge cabins and spaces of
the Mars ship. First off, if the initial commercial use of BFR are P2P
flights (and Shotwell has gone on record since this original post
appeared that P2P *is* within HER space-time framework not Elon's) it
won't be needed. And maybe for early flights even P2P may not be there.
I was thinking in the terms of taking a Dragon V2 interior and wrapping
it in a BFR exterior. Internal modifications would follow as BFS evolves.

The initial emphasis I believe will be on the BFR first stage. Getting
it up and down. But we'll see.


I respect Shotwell, but I still call b.s. on P2P. Not for a first
generation (first block, whatever you want to call it) fully reusable
TSTO. Maybe in 10+ years, maybe.

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YOUR EASTER PRESENT A LITTLE EARLY THIS YEAR Ed Conrad[_17_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 4th 12 12:22 PM
Most of the thousands of people who were arrested in these newsgroupswere because they carried ongoing year after year deadly hate with racism andthey turned against the underage people and their parents didn't let thathappen and those people went to [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 October 2nd 08 06:33 AM
84 Year Old Woman Sentenced for Raping an Eleven Year Old Boy! Double-A[_1_] Misc 0 February 16th 07 04:23 PM
March 18, next year protest, and the year after that. [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 March 19th 06 12:08 AM
Spirit Marks One Year on Mars (One Martian Year, that is) [email protected] News 0 November 21st 05 11:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.