/sci/ - Science & Math

BFR lunar profiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwixqKaCmo

So what's the next step in europe's master plan?

>>9621272
>muh ariane 6
>we'll be competitive I promise

Eagerly awaiting another 300+ baitposts, bait-takingposts, and accusations of shilling/fanboyism.

>>9621315
DREADFUL CAMERAWORK

oh here, SpaceX comm crew updates

>>9621328

>>9621333

>>9621336

>>9621339

>>9621346

When will the first BFR be built?

>>9621407
it's being built right now (engines, avionics, etc)! But the main superstructure will be assembled at San Pedro

Project development draft study: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/MND/WWM/WWM_MND.pdf
Map of the SpaceX future facilities: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1XjAcDFzI2kP4XTtdG_sWLf1OTF5V-XoH&ll=33.73223177519197%2C-118.27027380000004&z=17
Port approval form: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2018/March%202018/03_15_18_Special_Agenda_Item_7.pdf


>Aprox. 750 employees
>32m(!) tall, 18859m2 main building
>demolition/new construction expected to take 16-18 months total; this is split into many phases (like the gigafactory)
>large items (composite pressure vessels from Janicki) will arrive to the factory up to three times per month!
>Finished vessels would need to be transported via water due to their size
>Regular F9 recovery ops will take place at the facility as well
>Factory will consist of general manufacturing procedures such as welding, composite curing, cleaning, painting, and assembly operations
>The facility is next to the Coast Guard, a minimum security prison, and a historic site; pretty run-down overall
>Vehicle transport will be done via barge. Barge will remain in port when not in use
>"Operations would involve development and manufacture of prototypes and first generations vessels within the proposed building. The facility would also establish the development processes prior to implementing production on a larger scale, which would not be accommodated in the proposed facility."
>This means that San Pedro will not be the only BFR factory, only the initial one

>>9621407
2020-2021 if the timeline sticks, BFS obviously much earlier.

>>9621418
What the fuck is a BFS

>>9621422
>>9621418
I think he meant BFB

BFB = booster = the fat cylinder 1st stage
BFR = the 2nd stage. There will be cargo BFR, tanker BFR, and crew BFR

>>9621424
Ah, but the booster doesn't matter without the BFR having been built, right?

>>9621315
Meme leader, standing by

I recently watched a documentary from the early 60s and they always call them missiles, never rockets. Since when do people use the word rocket instead of missile?

>>9621200
I'd say that Lunar refueling is likely not something that'll be done any time soon, since it'll be far easier to just fly back to Earth to fuel there, even if it cuts payload in half

>>9621426
yeah, they plan to do BFR before BFB - short hops in Texas before orbit

>>9621412
Any info on the dimensions of the facility? Interested about the doors in particular, and whether 12m diameter cylinders would fit through them...

>>9621412
were they not just producing parts for the ship (BFS)? Is it known if they're building new parts for the booster (other than Raptors)? I did hear about this shortly after FH but can't quite remember the wording.

>>9621499
32m tall, so you can figure out the doors from this

>>9621499
>>9621573
... and here's the floorplan size

585x218' or something like that

>>9621504
A prototype is currently being built at SpaceX's factory at Hawthorne, the booster will likely be built later at this factory by the water.

>>9621422
>>9621424

BFS = the spaceship

I want Blue Origin to succeed just so SpaceX has somebody to compete with

>>9621762
Bezos has $100,000,000,000. Blue Origin won't fail

>>9621805
>X is too big to fail
I think I've heard that one before

Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has transcended such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why, you might ask? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

>>9621813
100 billion dollars circumvents the too big to fail meme.

>>9621805
define 'fail'

>>9621825
And Google is too rich for Glass to fail?

>>9621828
dissolved, sold off

http://spacenews.com/space-communications-as-the-industry-launches-new-products-military-cant-decide-what-to-buy/

>According to industry sources, companies likely to compete in the Blackjack program include Iridium, SpaceX, Telesat and LeoSat.

>DARPA’s interest in small-satellite LEO services reflects a growing consensus that these constellations are better positioned than large geosynchronous orbit (GEO) spacecraft to survive enemy attacks in a future war.

>>9621823
Money on the SLS are spent entirely for the benefit of the American public.

Indeed one could say the SLS program is the heart on soul of American space science.

Only America has the SLS and we must protect that crucial part of America's interests.

SLS is the heart and soul of America's science and we can't let that go.

We need the SLS, America needs the SLS, Science needs the SLS.

SLS is the rocket that symbolizes the American Dream.

Go, SLS, fly high, like a true American Eagle!

>>9621193
>Gerstenmaier (chief of human spaceflight for NASA) then said NASA's exploration program will require the unique capabilities of the SLS rocket. "I think it's still going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS kind of capability to get them out into space," he said.
>One difficulty with Gerstenmaier's response to Hale's question is that NASA does not, in fact, yet have any "large-volume, monolithic pieces" that could only be launched by the Space Launch System. The cornerstone of its 2020s exploration plans is the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, a small space station to fly in orbit around the Moon. The first piece of this station, a power and propulsion module, will launch in 2022 aboard a commercial rocket.
Did NASA just admit that they are full of shit?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/nasa-chief-explains-why-agency-wont-buy-a-bunch-of-falcon-heavy-rockets/

>n-n-no Mr. President, it might look like Elon's rocket is an order of magnitude less expensive than ours, b-but we need the SLS now more than ever because mumble mumble monolithic pieces
>gib more funding plox

>>9622773
>>9623001
They'll be pushing for the sls or something similar even if the bfr is landing routinely on the moon. It is not about rockets or missions.

>>9623020
Pork politics

roomba being worked on

>>9622773
The SLS is required in order to build the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, because the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway was designed to require SLS. Also it hasn't been designed yet, but when it is it will require SLS. Funding for designing it hasn't been allocated yet, but if and when it is, it will be on the basis that it require SLS. As you can see, SLS is clearly required by SLS requirements and Falcon Heavy is not SLS and so therefore does not meet the requirements of being SLS.

>>9623001
>>9623020
I imagine a scenario eight or ten years from now when a BFR is hauling 150 tons into orbit every week, and once a year a 150 ton SLS mission is launched that costs more than all 52 BFR launches combined

And That's A Good Thing

>>9623475
Once BFR and Glenn pass governmental test launches SLS will be over, its 2011 technology, conceived in 2005.

>>9623428
nice copy of the comment from the Ars article you have there

However, pretty much this.

>>9623475

SLS will likely become legit jobs program to prop up the contractors and their industrial capability/expertise on the basis of national interests in times of coldwar.

>>9623475
>hauling 150 tons into orbit every week
every day

>costs more than all 52 BFR launches combined
all 365

>>9623488
>SLS will be over, its 2011 technology, conceived in 2005.
its literally 80s technology, 90s tops

>>9623488
>inb4 a bill enforcing the use of sls for any BLEO activity

it's one thing to bring launch costs down, but what about space hardware? How much of its cost is connected to the weight restrictions and once-per-decade sort of planning?

The whole 8 billion JWST thing got me thinking about this. Will cheap $/kg to LEO instantly mean that the cost of production of satellites and space habitats and probes will also plummet?

>>9624347
Well, Bigelow Airspace claims they can build a habitat with over twice the pressurized volume of the ISS for $500 million

Which is still a great deal of money, but still it means you could toss up about 300 of them for the cost of the ISS.

>>9624347
Hardware in orbit will cost the same as hardware on Earth as soon as it has a similar level of access to all the things needed to maintain stuff. In particular, spare parts and skilled labor available with lead times under about a week. That will only be feasible once there is a decent amount of infrastructure and living space already in orbit.
The good news is that anything which makes satellite maintenance possible at any level will lead to a massive reduction in costs because satellites are currently designed to go without servicing for their entire lifespan.

Well building in space will always have the issue of lacking an atmosphere, noone builds air tight buildings on Earth, even if you needed a clean room all it takes is an increased pressure inside to prevent anything from flowing in

every single state contributes to SLS. Sure, most of it is Alabama and Florida, but due to the distributed nature of SLS there will simply never be the votes to cancel it.

so when are we going to have feasible alternatives to chemical propulsion

>>9624748
never

>>9625030
>implying

>>9625382
>3.5 terravolts to get the same thrust as a single RD-180 and thats if it even works

>>9623364

SLS fanboy culture inside and outside NASA.

>>9621193
So, if you had to suck Elons cock in order to get a ticket to Mars, would you do it?
I would do it even if there was nothing in for me

>>9626708
if you had to reddit reddit a le reddit would your reddit your reddit

[reddit/]EDIT: im surprised this doesn’t work i’ve been browsing The 4Chan all morning! :)]]]{reddit]\\/\

>>9624748
Nuclear propulsion for in-system is extremely viable if you can get past the anti nuclear imbeciles. For getting shit into orbit though we are pretty much stuck with chemical, unless a legit fusion rocket can be made to work, even then I'm sure those same anti nuclear cunts will throw a shitfit.

>>9625382
it's dead jim

I keep an eye on woodward's work and even on the entertainingly insane pares warp drive guy, but this emdrive thing is completely dead. Shawyer is a washed up fraud who can't produce anything and the chinks are just running an op to confuse the us.

>>9624364
if you combine this tech with cheap reusable rockets you can get crazy with the scale of in-orbit construction. We could daisy-chain a few dozen of these into an honest to god 700 meter wide space megastation with full earth gravity via rotation, all for less than the iss cost. shit's fuckin neato man

NASA wants to keep deveelopimg the sls. Instead of buying dozens of Falcon Heavies and assembling large things in space for lunar and beyond missions.

>>9627142
I know man, but it doesn't matter. Reusable is clearly the future. The richest man on earth is also investing in it, the indians are trying to build a spaceplane,and i bet you the chinese are covertly trying to narrow the gap.

>>9627142

FH is hot garbage, NASA will most likely just scrap developing the EUS and replace it with ACES. Then we will have a launch vehicle that can lift 200t that is free from Elon Musk's incestous fraudulent bullshit.

>>9627247
t. Increasingly nervous NASA beauracrat

>>9627142
>large things

The Deep Space Gateway isn't large, it's actually a lot smaller than the ISS with none of it's 4 meter wide modules weighing more than 10 tons. The Falcon Heavy would only need a longer fairing to be capable of sending every module into TLI in reusable mode.

>>9627506
(And extending the fairing is doable according to musk; they just haven’t bothered doing it yet)

>>9627506
The FH doesn't have a reusable mode. Stop eating the bullshit Musk is feeding you.

>>9621805
Bezos isn't investing his entire fortune into Blue Origin though.

>>9627538
?

27/28 Merlins and both fairings is pretty good for a rocket.

>>9627140
>with full earth gravity via rotation
Please remember that this is a meme and material strength is a serious issue.

>>9627540
Landing is not reusing. Please tell me, how many times does SpaceX reuse a Falcon 9 that they have landed?

>>9627547
The same one or just over all?

Because Block3/4 aren't the prime time reuse models. That's Block5 that's launching this year.
We should start seeing F9s that are reused multiple times through 2018/19.

>>9627570
Ah, the good old "the next rocket is going to be the reusable one I swear"-argument.

Well, let's just wait and see for the Block 5 then

>>9627574
That has been their roadmap for a long time, mate.

You gotta remember that Falcon9 was not made to be reusable from the beginning. First they needed to start launching things to get money to help fund their development of reuse.
They needed to start landing some so they could inspect them and see what is wearing, what they need to replace with different materials or redesign so they can reduce wear.

They are not Blue Origin. They never planned to bring the Falcon 9 to market as reusable but rather continue to develop it while providing commercial services.

>>9627584
No, it wasn't.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a7446/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023/

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/musk-plans-reusability-falcon-9-rocket/

Also, incremental changes are not going to magically increase the number of reuses by 1000%.

Are you all autistic?

>>9627589
I don't get your point.

Yes, they always planned for the Falcon 9 to become reusable. But they were launching it commercially before they stuck legs on it. They were launching it commercially before they successfully landed one.
It was never "as soon as we land one we will be launching it over and over again".

>>9627597
yes, it was, and they only planned for the Block 5 in 2016 when they saw it's not reusable as it is. If they actually achieve reusability with some incremental changes remains to be seen. As it is, reusing Falcon 9s is more expensive, then not landing them at all. So far SpaceX is suffering the same fate as the Space Shuttle, where re-use ended up being more expensive than not re-using.

>>9627599
>As it is, reusing Falcon 9s is more expensive, then not landing them at all.
But less expensive than building a new one.
That's already fact, even with the Block3/4 ones they reused.

>>9624748
There is already

How do we stop spacex?
They are disrupting markets and threatening international cooperation and scientific progress.
America should have laws in place to prevent such behavior. Any normal country has.

>>9627665
Stopping them would be unAmerican.

>>9627247
ACES is a fucking meme

>>9627584
Well the #1 issue they have is not wanting rockets to blow up, if they were a military agency that could ignore FAA/other bureaucracies, while taking serious risks of failure during launches

Then they would be much further ahead
(more budget from the beginning would have also helped em)

Why do you guy keep shiting the SLS? Amercia has money let buy BOTH SLS AND FALCON HEAVY. SLS will be usefull to lauch large thing while we wait for BFR become a reality.

>>9627697
Well, yeah. It also hampers their plans to launch passengers to the Space Station.
Kinda amusing that in order to human rate the Falcon 9 they need to launch it 7 times successfully without making any changes to the hardware, then you think back to how many successful launches NASA had of previous launch vehicles before stuffing people inside.

>>9627773
SLS is using a lot of old hardware, sucking up billions and taking a long time.
There also aren't any solid missions for it. It has massive lift capabilities but no solid plans for it. A lot of the things they want to launch could be launched on other platforms.

>>9627547
So far, they have had 7 re-flights of 1-stage boosters and i think 2-3 re-flights of the dragon capsules

>>9627665
why dont you just git gud?

BO now using vacuum BE-3 engines for the 2nd stage rather than a BE-4

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-switches-engines-for-new-glenn-second-stage/

Still pointing to a launch 4th quarter 2020

>>9628573
So 2021 then? Their going to have to completely redesign the 2nd stage and the launch pad infrastructure now to use hydrogen (which is much harder to handle) instead of methane.

>>9628605
>what pad infrastructure

it's just dirt right now m8

friendly reminder, the SpaceX launch thread is up

>>9628585

>>9628606
Really? That's disappointing, so NG's first flight in 2022 then?

>>9628672
I think 2021

>>9628573
So are all those anons who championed 'New Glenn as definitely happening before BFR because the BFR design keeps changing while NG stays the same' going on suicide watch now?

>>9628680
the article does say that they are changing to BE-3 in order to launch sooner, but sure

With Tesla making 2 billion losses a year, how long until SpaceX follows the same fate?

>>9628702
losses≠poor financial state. SpaceX puts all of its money into R&D and expansion, so their "profits" are pretty much zero. Same as Tesla. If you look at their annual report (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/5974689721x0xS1564590-18-2956/1318605/filing.pdf)) page 67, the net cash used for operating the business was $60m. Tesla's business is incredibly capital intensive. In addition to investments in Gigafactory 1/2, Tesla has been expanding their supercharger, store and retail footprint. In total they spent $4B in capital investment in 2017. Tesla still has close to $5B in available liquidity. They might need to raise capital towards start of 2019 to keep expanding, which should not be hard to do if Model 3 production does ramp up. There is no imminent threat to the company like many would like you to believe.

As for SpaceX, they have close to 12 billion dollars in launch backlog, plus the plan to capture 10% of the ISP market with StarLink (over ten billion dollars). They're also betting on a very fluid market where the demand for launches and the price of launches are connected. The hope is that BFR's extremely cheap $/kg will exponentially grow the launch market

>>9628707
This is bullshit. Tesla 3 production is a mess and way behind schedule. It will be a financial desaster for Tesla. Their stock is plummeting. Cash is leaving the company and with more and more cash leaving the harder it gets for Tesla. And unlike SpaceX, there is no government agency that will come to their rescue.

>>9628721
whatever, dude. Can we get back to rockets now?

>>9628731
You should look at why Tesla is failing.

Elon made a very big mistake. When building the gigafactories, he spent a lot of money on robots, that aren't working. For a company like Tesla such a big failed investment is the death switch.

So it is not completely unrelated. Elon makes risky decisions. It caught up with Tesla. How long until it catches up with SpaceX?

>>9628707
5 billion isn't a lot if you make close to a billion loss every quarter. If Tesla doesn't raise money they will be bankrupt by August.

>>9628745
not being able to make immense capital investments doesn't mean they are "Bankrupt"

And a company worth tens of billions can operate on a 250 million loss annual for decades

>>9628605
It also shows they have tossed away ANY HOPE of 2nd stage reuse

>>9628772
LOL Tesla isn't worth shit. They burned all their money buying robots that don't work. They are handbuilding their cars now. The company is toast and the more people realize it the quicker its downfall will come.

>>9628781
They are stilll steadily increasing their production, its just typical musky overselling shit

>>9628784
Nah, this one is different. Tesla wanted to quickly build up a production capacity big enough to compete with the big boys and utterly failed. Everybody knows this and now investors are pulling their money and customers their deposits out.

So now let's look at the very high-risk approach that is the BFR and see how that turns out.

>>9628790
Well the real issue is that giant batteries are fucking death traps and people are starting to realize that
Also I imagine that there isn't that many hippie faggots who want electric cars

>>9628802
That's actually not the issue. Almost all major car companies plan to offer an electric version of every car they built from the 2020s onwards. VW, the biggest car company in the world, wants to invest 90 billion in battery cars. It's happening. But Tesla won't be a part of it. The gigafactories ruined the company.

>>9628737
Tesla and SpaceX are different companies, run by different people, with different manufacturing methods and businesses practices, the only similarity is they are both owned by Musk. SpaceX works because they have Elon's vision and money; as well as a lot of competent and experienced individuals (the CEO Gwynne Shotwell, magic man Mueller.etc) to keep his autism under control, also the expendable army of Californian slaves helps as well.

>>9628808
>That's actually not the issue.
Well it is an issue every time an article comes out of someone dying in a rapid fiery blaze that fire fighters can't approach

That doesn't happen with gas cars, not to the same extent.

Anyways, Tesla production is still increasing, its not going anywhere, even if financing slows down.

>>9628832
To build cars, you need money. If they run out of money they wont be building any cars. They will run out of money at the end of this year without the production capacities being anywhere near where they should be. I highly doubt Elon can rake in billions by showing off some concept cars that don't exist. The gigafactories are failures, and one that Tesla won't survive.

>>9628867
>They will run out of money at the end of this year
Same story as every startup
Every single year
Companies with billions of dollars of annual revenue don't have issues finding investors

Failing that, they can just take out loans.

>>9628918
Nobody gives money to a company that has a failed business model. Tesla wanted to create a fully automised vertical supply chain where everything is built in-house (see the merger with SolarCity). They completely failed at that, plus they are struggeling with getting enough Lithium for their batteries, because everybody is starting to produce EVs now and demand can't be met.

People are also jumping ship. The CFO and other high ranking employers recently quitted. Customers want their deposits back, the stock is falling, etc.

>>9628918
Tesla just got rated B3 (junk bonds), so they aren't getting any loans soon.

https://streamable.com/hd2vq

>>9628774
>switch from an engine that's only been reused on the test stand to an engine that's been reused more than any spacex engine
>"It also shows they have tossed away ANY HOPE of 2nd stage reuse"
Huh?

>>9628680
still waiting for a real engine for BFR

>>9628605
Blue Origin actually knows how to use hydrogen though.

>>9628605
New Glenn was already going to use hydrogen in the third stage. They made this change in order to make the first launch possible sooner, since the BE-3 engine is already proven.

>>9628774
Again, they've already proven recovery and reuse of a hydrolox, BE-3 stage. If anything, 2nd stage reuse is likely to come sooner as a result of this change, since they've already done propulsive landing with the BE-3. They may be looking at BFR-like upper stages now, with incorporated payload bays, passenger cabins, or additional propellant tankage. After they've got the first stage working reliably with the conservative 2-engine upper stage, they can look at a 3-7 engine reusable upper stage, with 2-4 vacuum-optimized BE-3s and 1-3 sea-level units.

>>9627665
by being competitive and offering another producg. when ULA closes their doors for good, i’ll be happy

>>9629371
just a clarification for you, merlins on the early recovered stages were relit more than ten times without a problem

>>9629602
You didn't clarify anything.
There are BE-3s that have flown 5 times or been fired dozens of times.

>>9621424
BFB is the booster
BFS is the 2nd stage spaceship
BFR is the whole thing combined

>>9629610
yeah but there really isn't a difference between the two wrt relighting as I think you were getting at

>>9629612
correct

>>9629618
I was getting at that anon is a retard for thinking be-3 is somehow not reusable

>>9624192
would get vetoed in a heartbeat by President "Private enterprise is my cocaine" Trump

>>9627544
>everything is a meme
not this shit again

>>9627773

the people shitposting anti-NASA anti-ULA rhetoric are deluded teenagers and redditors, SLS is fine for the niche it fills.

>>9627506
>>9627532
>(And extending the fairing is doable according to musk; they just haven’t bothered doing it yet)

they have lots of room to stretch the fairing, but they don't have any room to widen it. the entire second stage would have to be redesigned to facilitate large diameter payloads.

>>9629694
>they don't have any room to widen it

>fairing is already wider than stage
>already accommodates payloads wider than stage
>nothing is to either side of the fairing as it is

>they don't have any room
>the entire second stage would have to be redesigned

>>9629688
You didn't even try

>>9629703

back to r/spacex kiddo

>>9629713
SLS is a 50 billion dollar mistake

>>9627590
Who the hell do you think we are?

>>9627590
Where the hell do you think you are?

>>9627506
This.
They are tying module+manned orion flight to the moon in order to fill the sls capacity and justify its use vs separate launches.

Has blue origin achieved anything significant yet?

>>9630560
They're still dicking around with their little hopper

That said, facility and hardware production of Blue Glenn seems to be full speed ahead enough that it will happen

They've already spent $2.5 billion on it, though. It would look like they were being a bit wasteful if we didn't know NASA would spend ten times as much money for half as much work.

>>9629688

there is no niche for SLS, literaly any proposed payload can be launched on a Falcon Heavy or ULA rockets using distributed lift, or failing that, BFR/New Glenn, likely to regularly fly sooner than SLS

The only niche SLS excels at is stealing taxpayer money

>>9630581
>The only niche SLS excels at is stealing taxpayer money
And it fills that niche quite nicely, if I may say so myself

>>9629688
the best thing NASA has done for the space industry in the past 20 years was crack the private industry wide open during the obama administration. SLS is a jobs program, and will continue to behave as one for as long as possible. I don’t care who gets to Mars first as long as it’s not ULA

>>9630731
It was under Clinton or Bush that they legalized private space companies
Thats what started this

>>9627046
Once you get that sweet sweet He3 you can make a viable fusion power for electric ionic thrust, baby. That opens the entire solar system.

>>9627142
NASA doesn't want the SLS. Congress wants because Aerospace companies want that loot.

>>9630581
>literaly any proposed payload can be launched on a Falcon Heavy

FH's upper stage can't deliver any of the DSG modules to lunar orbit, nor can it launch orion

> ULA rockets using distributed lift,

ACES won't be ready until the mid 2020s, well after even SLS block 1b is ready

>BFR/New Glenn

BFR won't be ready any time soon, and new glenn has the same problem FH has: no long mission capability

>>9630772
He3 is meme, only deuterium tritium dusion is plausible.

>>9630772
Helium 3 is meme, only deuterium tritium fusion is plausible.

You know with the incredible improvements in material science over last twenty years is this viable yet?

>>9630776

>ACES won't be ready until the mid 2020s, well after even SLS block 1b is ready

wrong, ACES could be ready by 2022, depending on funding. The same time as SLS 1b.

http://spacenews.com/bigelow-and-ula-announce-plans-for-lunar-orbiting-facility/

>>9630781
and D-D fusion

>>9630776

Didnt you get the news? the first part of DSG is now going up on a commercial rocket instead of SLS. May not be a Falcon, but we positively know that SLS is not needed to build the DSG. No single module is large enough to require that kind of capacity. Also, SLS 1b mission was delayed to 2023. ACES could fly in 2022.

>>9630776
BFR is planned to roll out in 2021

>>9630842
>the first part of DSG is now going up on a commercial rocket instead of SLS.

nope, the presidents budget tried to force this (and failed) without regard for the engineering problems with doing so. no current commercial LV can launch these modules.

>>9630842

No commercial rocket has the capacity to send DSG module and Orion on TLI.

ACES exists only on paper at the moment.

>>9630883
Musk and Shotwell said BFR could make orbital flight in 2020.

>>9630892
There's no reason to send the DSG module and Orion together. They were only going to be sent together to use the spare capacity on SLS.

but what does the DSG even *do*? It seems like a project without a purpose. BFR can get 150t to the lunar surface with only 5 refuels

>>9630789
single stage to orbit is a silly joke that grant chasers propose so they can be funded for a lifetime without ever producing results

>>9630901
he's going hardcore
balls to the wall

>>9630776

>new glenn has the same problem FH has: no long mission capability

New Glenn could very well have a reusable stage similar to ACES.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972506710555463680

>>9630776
>FH's upper stage can't deliver any of the DSG modules to lunar orbit
Sure it can, they're fairly light payloads for FH. What makes you think it can't?

>nor can it launch orion
It can with a tank stretch and a two-launch mission architecture. The FH upper stage demonstrated a 6-hour coast before relight on the maiden flight, and Dragon launches commonly use a 6-hour fast rendezvous.

It's a little more complicated, but it can certainly be ready before SLS is and cost far less. They don't even have to man rate FH, they can launch Orion alone, launch crew to it in Dragon, and then send up the departure stage.

>>9630922
>Sure it can, they're fairly light payloads for FH. What makes you think it can't?

FH can't even send 20t TLI, let alone do LOI or rendezvous with DSG.

>>9630904
>This first phase of exploration near the moon will use current technologies and allow us to gain experience with extended operations farther from Earth than previously completed. These missions enable NASA to develop new techniques and apply innovative approaches to solving problems in preparation for longer-duration missions far from Earth.

>The second phase of missions will confirm that the agency’s capabilities built for humans can perform long duration missions beyond the moon. For those destinations farther into the solar system, including Mars, NASA envisions a deep space transport spacecraft. This spacecraft would be a reusable vehicle that uses electric and chemical propulsion and would be specifically designed for crewed missions to destinations such as Mars. The transport would take crew out to their destination, return them back to the gateway, where it can be serviced and sent out again. The transport would take full advantage of the large volumes and mass that can be launched by the SLS rocket, as well as advanced exploration technologies being developed now and demonstrated on the ground and aboard the International Space Station.

>>9630931
>FH can't even send 20t TLI
There are no 20 tonne DSG components. They were all originally planned as secondary payloads on Orion launches, so they're under 10 tonnes.

Also: sure it can. 16.8t to Mars, 26.7t to GTO, 20t is just about right for what it can do to TLI, even without a tank stretch or dual-launch plan.

>LOI or rendezvous with DSG
Come on, now. This is baby stuff. They were never going to low-lunar orbit, just to barely-captured high-lunar orbit, and I've never seen any indication that Orion was going to be used to put them together or that it has any capability of being used as a tug. If the plan wasn't already for them to each have their own propulsion and autonomous docking capability (and I think it was), it's relatively simple to add either to the payload or to the upper stage.

Draco thrusters are already an option on the F9/H upper stage, and SpaceX has demonstrated rendezvous and docking capability with Dragon (which uses Draco thrusters).

>>9630931

>FH can't even send 20t TLI, let alone do LOI or rendezvous with DSG.

All DSG elements are only around 10 tons. Also, distributed lift is an option. Two Heavies or a Heavy and a 9 can launch more.

>>9630986

>Also, distributed lift is an option. Two Heavies or a Heavy and a 9 can launch more.

Or even a Heavy and Vulcan.

>>9630931
It can expendable, but none of the DSG components would require it to go fully expendable, SpaceX might have to expend the center core at worst.

>>9630901

BFR is inherently unsafe for manned flight with its lack of LAS, and as unproven vehicle it will never be trusted with expensive station modules.

>>9630904

Baby steps.

To send men and women on the moon we need a station around the moon.

>>9630904
Spaceport
it'll be a hub for transportation to and from the lunar surface for supplies and personnel, inevitably expanding to handle greater things

>>9631045

BFR upper stage has engines that can in theory be used as a LAS.

More importantly, BFR aims to have very high launch rate, approaching aeroplane-like operations. You dont need a dedicated LAS for the same reason why you dont need it on a plane. Hundreds of successful launches will be the ultimate proof of its safety.

>>9631045
t. increasingly nervous

>>9630936
So what you're saying is you need a couple hundred billion more dollars to begin to try to figure out what you will maybe do a couple decades from now?

>>9631049

You dont need a station. Apollo did not have a station either. It may be a good idea if it includes a propellant depot and a staging point for a reusable lunar lander. But none of this is planned yet.

>>9631054
its thrust to weight ratio is tiny though, it wouldn't be going anywhere in a hurry if the booster malfunctioned. The crew dragon capsule could have escaped the AMOS-6 explosion, I doubt BFS would be able to do something similar.

>>9631045

>and as unproven vehicle it will never be trusted with expensive station modules.

But SLS on its second flight will be? Thats as unproven as it gets.

>>9631066

NASA vehicles are not subject to NASA certification.

>>9631077
t. NASA

>>9630812
yeah but if you can do D-D fusion you can do D-T fusion, which is better, and with both you can use the neutron flux to breed tritium so you only need a supply of deuterium in either case.

>>9631049
>>9631052
t. retards who don't understand orbital mechanics and spaceflight

>>9631420
dank arguments friend
can you say specifically why a commercial hub and depot is somehow bad to have?

>>9631474
Because if it was a "depot" it might actually be useful. It doesn't store enough of anything to make a rendevous worthwhile.

>>9631474
Has the ISS been useful for anything practical in space? No obviously not

>>9631486
Fuel
Food
Water
Medical Supplies
general shit a spacecraft would require, and it would allow those craft to be supplied without having to land in a gravity well
with depots like this, you could also start constructing much larger ships purely for space travel, leaving planetary landings for smaller craft attached to this primary vessel
long range industrial transport of goods and personnel, it could allow

Naturally that is longer term, however it will open the door to these things, and get the ball rolling

>>9631510
>with depots like this, you could also start constructing much larger ships purely for space travel

When people say things like this, they show they clearly don't understand orbital mechanics

>>9631534
are you using orbital mechanics as some kind of buzzword now?
Large ship, large thrusters, large cargo capacity, designed to move place to place, but not land on the places it moves to
what's so hard to comprehend about that one

>>9631510
Yes, those are all useful things to have if they are in the same orbit that your spacecraft is being assembled in.

>>9631541
what is physics
what is delta-v
what is aerobraking
thanks
There is no point in the near future talking about going anywhere that doesn't involve aerobraking
Other than the moon, only cuz the moon is close.

>>9630931

The upper stage doesn't need to. Rendezvous can be done with propulsion capabilities built into the modules or a small propulsion tug attached to them and co-developed with them. The upper stage just injects the payload into TLI.

Why the BFS? It seems very counterproductive to launch the spaceship from Earth when you could instead make several launches to construct a very large ship in space that can carry a vast amount of goods/people. Shit, you could even send people up and down on Falcon 9s once they become cheap as chips, only use BFR for large payloads.

>>9631582
1) F9 2nd stage reuse is very difficult
2) It's easier to launch 100 people with 1 launch than 100 people across 15 F9 launches
3) SpaceX wants to phase out F9. By only flying one type of vehicle their logistics are simplified
4) BFS allows for taking off of other moons and planets. What other vehicle does that?

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/orbital-atk-next-phase-ngl-rocket-development/

>flying govt missions by 2021
He's dead, Jim. Like seriously, do these people just ignore the fact that BFR will be flying? Are they hoping to cling onto govt gibs because the DOD needs a 2nd launcher to hang onto incase the BFR fleet is grounded or something?

>>9631582
BFR eliminates need of landers, command and service modules.

>>9631603
>Ares I.
JUST.

>>9631603
at this point, it's probably just people perpetually asshurt at Musk existing
the fact that he's doing the things absolutely everyone has wanted to get done for the past 50 fucking years falls on deaf ears

>>9631608
>solids are the future, I swear
>now please keep the shuttle-era srb jobs alive pleeeeease

>>9631612
It's a simple case of Silicon Valley vs megacorp engineering. The talent each side attracts are polar opposites.

>>9631603
>do these people just ignore the fact that BFR will be flying?

BFR will take many many years before all the kinks are ironed out and it's actually cheap enough to fly, not to mention that at least 3 NEW launchpads will need to be built before BFR can do any BLEO missions.

>>9631582
Orbital construction has NEVER been "easy"

Why do you think it's going to suddenly become easy now?

>>9631623
>>9631603
Keep in mind that the Shuttle kept flying through 30 years, 14 deaths and $200 billion when it was objectively inferior to fucking Soyuz the entire time

>>9631510

Stopping at such a depot chews up so much delta-v that it's only worthwhile if you can pickup more fuel. If all it has are a few medkits and boxes of free-dried burgers, you're better off loading that on the launchpad.

Until we have an actual economy and community in space, commercial spaceports with shops and cafes and water tanks as you're describing don't have a role to play.

>>9621436
>missile
Isn't this term used in context with weapons rather than manned/unmanned scientific vessels?

>>9621436

Because they were using converted missiles in those days.

>>9631717
it's this shit that will create the foundations for that economy
those spaceports are where the economy and community will be based from

rockets are limited as to how much they can bring, and without resupply, their mission time is remarkably short, due to the rocket needing to be mostly fuel to get off the ground

>>9631727

Fuel depots restocked by in-situ manufacturing from asteroids. That's what we need.

>>9631739
This. Unless you can replenish your fuel, the delta v to make a rendezvous, at least with chemical rockets, is just not worth it. Find a few Carbonaceous chondrite asteroids with ice veins and you have all the drinking water, oxygen and rocket fuel (methane, hydrogen and liquid oxygen) that you could need for a long time. The only imports needed would be hydroponic nutrients, nuclear fuel every decade or two and spare parts. Whoever gets the first of these up and running will make a killing if BFRs are jetting around the system.

>>9631763
BFR will be refueling-intensive. To get a full 150t payload to the moon, it takes seven tankers - three in LEO and four in the space after a half-TLI

>>9631771
So an orbital station that can fully fill the tanks without needing to make seven BFR launches will be a no brainer investment. Got to convince someone to let you tow a huge asteroid into earth orbit though.

>>9631776
And what asteroids do you have in mind that contain sufficient quantities of both oxygen and carbon or hydrogen to justify:
1. Launching a metric fuckton of equipment
2. Using a metric gigafuckton of resources to bring it back to Earth orbit?
Also note, if you want to use asteroid-generated fuel you need a lot of solar panels, but that's not the biggest issue. What your problem is is that Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation still applies. The anmount of asteroid you bring back goes like e^-x with the delta V you need to bring it back, not to mention you have to get all the fuel extraction equipment to the asteroid first. And you're gonna use some asteroid belt ones at best, which means less sunlight.
Tldr: retarded idea for now

>>9631776
Why tow the asteroid, that's just pointless and hazardous
mine and refine the shit at the asteroid and ship over the pure materials without the waste

>>9631804
What asteroids are there that are both mineable for fuel and close enough to Earth to justify taking all the equipment there, developing new tech and all that just to save up on delta V needed during launch? Bear in mind, fuel is one of the least costly parts of a launch, the costs are in hardware (see how much Musk is cutting down by reusing the first stage alone)

>>9631803
>>9631809
http://www.asterank.com/3d/
Surprisingly many nearby ones, and we haven't even found them all
We don't need to use pure solar either, we have nuclear power as a potential option to supplement it

and we can cut down on equipment costs by manufacturing equipment on site with 3D printing, just bringing over the starting components needed to begin operations

>>9631815

You might, on a very big scale, find it easier to just use solar thermal to power your mining facility. An absolutely gigantic mylar sheet, curved into a parabolic cylinder section, could be an easy way to power a stirling engine generator.

>>9631803
>What your problem is is that Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation still applies

Electromagnetic launch and capture of processed ore is the way to do bypass this. You weren't actually thinking of running cargo ships full of ore were you?

>>9631815
If you carry both the 3D printer AND printer materials with you you're only increasing fuel costs though
And I still think it's not feasible on our scales, perhaps after we start colonising Mars and extracting its resources

>>9631803
>Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation still applies. The anmount of asteroid you bring back goes like e^-x with the delta V you need to bring it back

Yeah but you need tiny amounts of delta-v to move around, once you're above a planetary gravity well. You're not boosting to relativistic speeds here.

>>9631834
Okay but I thought we were talking about rocket fuel
How are you going to transport fuel without cargo tanks? Spray it all over the place?
Still, EM launches are a neat idea

>>9631835
Fuel costs now, to save costs later
The printer materials will be those mined on the very asteroid that we go to
you're mining it anyway, why not use it to make the piping/additional drills and refining equipment

>>9631835

Mining Mars is just more difficult. Mars is nothing more than a giant asteroid with a huge gravity well. It's not like it's a comfy living planet like Earth.

>>9631835
mining asteroids is easier than any moon or planet specifically because they have to gravity well to climb out of
nearly all of the equipment you'd use to mine mars is what you'd use to mine an asteroid, with the only difference being the need for centrifuges on the asteroid refinery due to no gravity

>>9631849
>>9631854
But we're colonising it anyway, I think using existing colony infrastructure is a better idea. Take into consideration the scales at which such undertakings become profitable. By the time we talk that big we're really going to have a decent going colony on Mars. And once you have a colony, you're gonna want to develop Martian mining to develop your colony further without having to being everything from Earth
Just my thoughts
>>9631846
Okay, fair point. But again, fuel costs are relatively small, it's the hardware that costs a lot. I just don't see the initial costs giving back profits in any reasonable timescale, and definitely not if we don't start launching BFRs daily or weekly to actually need that fuel
>>9631843
Not if you want to move things like fuel or asteroids in an out of Earth's gravity well

>>9631844

Oh I'm not the guy you were talking to. I just dropped in uninivted, as is my custom. Still, EM launches are the best.

>>9631844
Weld a steel piece to fuel canisters and launch with an EM rail. Launch containers back and forth between your asteroid and an earth orbital facility.

>>9631863
We can always do both honestly
It's not like only one group in the world is working on space, we got a fuckton of governments and private organizations trying to do their own thing
We'll colonize mars, and do the asteroids at the same time, with a significant amount of overlap

>>9631866
>launch railgun shot
>something goes wrong
>miss the catcher
>orbitally bombard a city
proper transport craft will probably be the go to thing for going near inhabited locations

>>9631866
>>9631864
Oh man that's a cool idea
But we're talking about relative speeds of at least a few km/s at capture. Even if you build a capture rail a few kms long, you're goingto have to brake the thing in one second or two. Just consider the power and precision needed.
I think some aerobraking or just an engine to slow the cargo down is a must. Also remeber, conservation of momentum is a bitch.
>>9631874
Yeah, my only point being the Mars colony is way closer future than mining asteroids for fuel here.

>>9631882
We got Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries both saying they'll have a prospecting mission go out in 2020, it'll be sooner than you think friendo

>>9631881
>orbitally bombard a city with huge tanks of rocket fuel
Fuck it, I'm no longer sceptical. Let's do this

>>9631866
>>9631882
>>9631864
>t. Loonies
did Mike get to all of you?

>>9631884
I just can't see it actually work out, but believe me I want to be the embodiment of wrong here

>>9631882
>Also remeber, conservation of momentum is a bitch.

Conservation of momentum is a hoax.

Leaving that aside, however, you're right, you would need some arrangement to deal with this on the other end. Easiest way is mounting your collection port on an asteroid, or perhaps using photon or solar wind sails on the payload itself for velocity matching.

>>9631894
It's 3 AM here, fuck off
>>9631899
>Conservation of momentum is a hoax
Say what now

>>9631905
>Say what now

I've already revealed too much.

>>9631906
Sorry, too tired to meme. Good night anons

>>9631895
Power of competition
First person to do it becomes a trillioniare, so they want to make sure that they beat the other
PR is the most chatty about their progress, while DSI is dead silent
either DSI will come out with massive progress very soon in a flash, or PR will claim the win and become immortalized into history

>>9631843
But then you are talking about very long trip times, and the most important part of the cost of anything is how long it takes to get returns on investments

>>9631548
you sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about

>>9631582

>when you could instead make several launches to construct a very large ship in space that can carry a vast amount of goods/people.

This is the long term plan. Musk has said that in the future there will be giant spaceships going between the planets that would make even 12m BFR look tiny. However, there is no need for such dedicated spaceships for an initial Mars settlement.

BFS is incredibly inefficient design for lunar missions. Wasting all that payload capability to carry wings and heatshields is ridiculous. SpaceX needs to reconsider its architecture and learn from conventional wisdom.
Space demands careful optimization and planning. Attempting to ignore that will only result in disaster.

>>9632979

>muh space is hard meme

payload capacity is less important than reusability, if you want more payload then just increase launch rate

robustness and simplicity > careful mass optimization

BFS has to come down to Earth for refurbishment so wings and a heatshield are still needed

>>9632979
>Wasting all that payload capability to carry wings and heatshields is ridiculous.
It would enable direct return to Earth, and therefore be an important safety feature.

>SpaceX needs to reconsider its architecture and learn from conventional wisdom.
Ah, the battle cry of the innumerate. BFR's going to be literally a thousand times cheaper than conventional rockets just at orbital launch, while also being capable of landing on the moon and Mars with only software changes and refuelling flights, meaning negligible additional development cost. You're worrying about some 10-20% issue because you can't comprehend the order-of-magnitude issues.

>>9632979
>learn from conventional wisdom.

There is no conventional wisdom for high-payload reusable intereplanetary vehicles.

>>9632979
>BFS is incredibly inefficient design for lunar missions.
No shit, it's designed to launch from and return to planets with dense atmospheres.
Why are you even considering lunar missions when Musk has been saying that Mars is the goal for years?

>>9632979
Empty BFS can land on the moon and return with no refueling
Full (150t) BFS can land on the moon but not return with no refueling
Full (150t) BFS can leave the payload in lunar orbit and return with no refueling
Full (150t) BFS can land on the moon and return empty with ELEVEN refueling tanker launches

>>9633359
Musk has also pointed out that BFR can go to the moon, and probably will before going to Mars.

>>9633423
Sure, but the moon is not what is driving the design of BFS - reusability on Earth and Mars is. And if it can be reusable on those planets then it sure as shit will have no issues with the moon.

>>9633423
It's not the main goal for the BFR, it's an attempt to exploit NASA's renewed interest in the moon. Even if the BFR isn't the most optimised vehicle for the job the sheer enormity of it's cargo capacity still leaves it unrivalled even by ACES.etc. Also as >>9633389's calculations suggest SpaceX could establish a fuel depot on the moon which would allow them to fly a full 150 ton payload to the moon, refuel and come back without any refuels in between. Though on the other hand, I think it's a bit to early to speculate on the BFR's capabilities with it in such an early stage of development; SpaceX have already changed the engine layout on the second stage since IAC and I'm sure there will be other changes in the future as well. Personally, I think they'll stretch the second-stage fuel tank to allow for less on-orbit refuelling as some of the numbers for payloads to Mars seem very impractical, especially with a single launch pad.

>>9633468
even something like a 5% thrust boost and a 10% dry mass decrease would really help with the refueling nightmares

Remember /sci/ we need baby steps.
I think lunar station is a jump into the unknown with all the risk it carries.
Would it not be safer to proceed systematically?
As of right now we have experience with a space station in LEO, so naturally the next step is one in HEO.
Then in the lunar lagrange points.
Then, eventually, in high lunar orbit, low lunar orbit, and maybe, by the end of the next century, even on the very surface of the hauntingly beautiful companion of the Earth. The Moon.
This is certainly an inspiring dream worth chasing that will inspire generations of children to study science and expand theirs and humankind's knowledge about the universe.

t.totally not nasa grant chaser

>>9633476
What refueling nightmare? The whole point of BFR is that launches are cheap thanks to cheap fuel and high reusability.

>>9633468
I wouldn't be surprised if (entirely aside from polar crater water and CO2) abundant underground deposits of water, ammonia, nitrates, carbon, tar, oil, and natural gas are all found on the moon, as well as metal oxide that can have the oxygen cooked out of them relatively easily. Of course, we can make oxygen (which is most of the mass of rocket propellant) from the common regolith, but it's relatively difficult compared to things like electrolysis of water.

We've barely scratched the surface of the moon, so we've only seen what's in the sunbaked and dust-covered top layer.

>>9633712
let's say you want to get 150t to the lunar surface and then return.

1) launch cargo BFR to LEO
2) launch seven tanker BFR's to LEO to fill up the cargo BFS
3) launch an additional empty tanker BFS to LEO
4) launch two more tanker BFR's to LEO to fill up the empty tanker BFS
5) burn, place both cargo BFS and tanker BFS in an elliptical orbit
6) refuel cargo BFS with tanker BFS in elliptical orbit
7) head to the moon and land then take off


even with cheap launch costs, that's a lot of launches. You either need a lot of pads, or a tiny turnaround time

>>9633736

1) launch normal BFR to orbit
2) launch 3 tankers to refuel it
3) go to moon

lol its so hilarious to see an actual person paid by ULA to shit on spacex, and its even more hilarious the fact that even tough tyoure a professional propaganda maker you got absolutely butt destroyed by a first year college boy like me

>>9633953
that is impossible. You cannot return from the moon after dropping off 150t by only refueling in LEO. There has to be an elliptical refueling.
https://youtu.be/UtwixqKaCmo

then again, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling

>>9633967
reduce some of the cargo add more fuel or generate new thruster from aluminiumated oxygen instead of methane. presto, not exactly rocket scientis

>>9633971
I think you're 12

>>9633736
>even with cheap launch costs, that's a lot of launches.
...which is exactly what BFR is designed for.

I count 11 launches there. At the projected $7 million per launch, that's $77 million.

>You either need a lot of pads, or a tiny turnaround time
The plan is tiny turnaround time. At one launch per day with the occasional multi-day downtime, they could launch 300t to the moon surface every month, for under $2 billion per year. So imagine a $3 billion/year moon base program. They could build a small city in a few years, for a fraction of NASA's budget.

>>9634059
correct, as it stands BFR is still 1000% better than anything else. But going forward, the biggest struggles will be with the quantity and cadence of those refueling missions

>>9634059
77 million dollars to send 150t to the moon
that is a fucking steal to a ludicrous degree

>>9634072
it's about nine Apollo LEM's for comparison.

>>9624364
Air Bigelow

Male Jigalow

>>9634097
It's all payload, though. The vehicle mass isn't part of that 150t.

Apollo's payload was two guys, two spacesuits, supplies for a couple of days, some hand tools, and sometimes an ultra-light electric golf cart. All told, about one ton. This kind of BFR mission is equivalent to at least a hundred Apollo missions.

>>9633967
>Whelp this is it guys pack your bags the BFS cannot ship 150 metric tons to the lunar surface and return its over cancel the project

protip; they can dump the return fuel in orbiting bfs so as not to carry it up and down

>>9634127
I am not doubting BFR at all, I think it's fantastic. I am just pointing out the high amount of refueling which needs to be done with the current specs. This is not inherently bad, but it will be something which will likely be addressed in the future with stage stretching or raptor buffing or something. Especially if refueling takes a long time; they haven't given any information on that.

>>9634125
oh totally, yeah. 150t of pure lunar equipment would be crazy

>>9633449
A lunar vehicle would look identical to the BFR
Thats the whole point around designing things properly, with the long term in mind, rather than designing some insane everything expendable, purpose built vehicle

>>9631603
People ignore BFR because it's a completely pants on head retarded rocket that no one in the business takes seriously. Please explain to me how they will build and construct the most complicated vehicle in history in the span on 3 years.

>>9634361
It's not actually that complicated. Once they have the engine working, just bolt it onto a carbon fibre pill-shape and you're 90% of the way there. Rockets get more efficient as you make them bigger.

>>9634462
Are you pretending to be retarded? Where did you possibly get the idea that rockets are easy? Did some noname poster on Reddit or some other Musk wank forum tell you? Rockets are inordinately complicated and their complexity only increases exponentially with size.

>>9634523
t.NASA 30 years of experience engineer

>>9634523
Rockets are hard, but once you have them working, it's easier to make them bigger. Put more engines on, take advantage of the square/cube law, use VTOL so you don't have the problems large planes have.

>>9634537

are you trying to say FH is simple? it took them 4 months just to integrate all the components of the vehicle.

>>9632979
>SpaceX needs to reconsider its architecture and learn from conventional wisdom
You mean like
>space is hard
>u cant revolution space industry its hard
>u cant land roket it hard, space shuttle bad so reuse be bad
?

>>9634537
Funny you say that while posting a rocket that was delayed by 6 years.
>>9634542
No it's not. Where in the hell are you getting this idea?
>>9634565
Yea, sure, SpaceX sure are "revolutionizing the space industry" by having rockets that cost as much as the Protons.

>>9634569
>pretending rocket development is impossibly hard and have to be ludicrously expensive forever
>despite talking about a company that disproved both
go tell your boss to start launching, we've been waiting far longer for him to achieve anything than we've been waiting for the Falcon heavy

>>9634587
Oh, you mean the company that had its first rockets fail, almost went bankrupt and had to be saved by NASA, were the first to have a rocket explode during fueling since the end of the Cold War, currently have the lowest reliability Western rocket, and had their tri-core rocket's development delayed far longer than their competitor's is a shining example of rocket development being an easy thing that is cheap? Get that dick out of your ass, shill.

>>9634361
>Please explain to me how they will build and construct the most complicated vehicle in history in the span on 3 years.
Okay. They've already been working on it for about 10 years. Engine development is almost finished, with the prototype demonstrated a couple of years ago. They worked out how to do their structures, with a prototype tank demonstrated a couple of years ago.

They've demonstrated a 27-engine liftoff, so the 31-engine BFR booster liftoff shouldn't be a problem. They've demonstrated flyback booster recovery. The recoverable upper stage is going to use the same heatshield material as Dragon, and will land like a Falcon 9 booster.

Between Falcon Heavy, Crew Dragon, and the prototyping they've done so far, they have almost every piece of it already figured out. Pretty much the only novel things they're doing at this point are landing on the launchpad, the nose-up maneuver before the landing burn, and the winglets. I have confidence that they'll work out the issues with these in their usual way, probably blowing up a few prototypes along the way.

>>9634657
Are you the same guy in every rocket/SpaceX thread? I'm pretty sure you are based off the pattern of your posts.

>>9634565
>Conventional wisdom
>Gubmint please gib extra 5billion, we need for expensive bolts

>>9634523
KISS

>>9634699
>Just saltwater my shit up bro

>>9634664
>Okay. They've already been working on it for about 10 years.
No they haven't. The fact that it can have 42 engines one year and then have 31 engines the next just proves how little work has been done on it. It hasn't even left the drawing board.
>They've demonstrated a 27-engine liftoff, so the 31-engine BFR booster liftoff shouldn't be a problem.
27 engines in a tri-core configuration. Not comparable to a 31 engine single core monstrocity.

SpaceX is not magical, they are just another rocketry company.

>>9634723
>27 engines in a tri-core configuration. Not comparable to a 31 engine single core monstrocity.

Please elaborate how it is different rather than just baiting.

>>9634712
>Just Stainless steel my shit up bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5B7EKVg48

>>9634699
Interesting as Sea Dragon was, it was never going to be as economical as they expected it to be. The proposal for it supposed that they might use a nuclear aircraft carrier (!) to generate the power to make its hydrogen fuel using electrolysis. That's not serious thinking. It was going to be really difficult to test those engines, and get stable combustion. Imagine the size of the test stand they'd need for an engine 50 times more powerful than the Saturn V's F-1!

There are also some strange misconceptions about it, like "It was going to be made from cheap mild sheet steel!" It was going to be made from aluminum alloy, like other rockets.

>>9634741
>Stainless steel rocket

lmao desu senpai

>>9634742
Wa La

>>9634723
>The fact that it can have 42 engines one year and then have 31 engines the next just proves how little work has been done on it.
It proves how they kept the design flexible and scalable as late as they could. They've been working on it for a decade already.

>SpaceX is not magical, they are just another rocketry company.
They are the world leader, by a rapidly growing margin.

>>9634728
Because the engines aren't all on the same core. You don't have to deal with connecting 27 engines to one tank nor do you have to deal with all the associated stress that 27 engines put onto a single core.

>>9634755
>You don't have to deal with connecting 27 engines to one tank
Plumbing is not rocket science.

>nor do you have to deal with all the associated stress that 27 engines put onto a single core.
The center core has to carry pretty much the entire thrust of 27 engines, since it's the one carrying the upper stage and payload.

>>9634746
Make the Rocket a Hydrofoil...

>>9634753
Sure they are. That's why Arianespace signed contracts for 27 satellites last year while SpaceX signed 7. lmao sure, """"""scaleable rockets""""""" newest bit on magic SpaceX have concocted.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2018/01/10/intense-year-ahead-for-arianespace/

>>9634755
But the center core already carries the stress from those 27 engines, so you are fucking stupid.

>>9634763
>Plumbing is not rocket science.
It is when it's moving around highly volatile materials to 31 different engines.
>The center core has to carry pretty much the entire thrust of 27 engines
Not what I meant. Having multiple engines on the same core puts a lot of stress onto the core itself. The three RS-25s on the Space Shuttle tore themselves apart when first tested in the triple configuration.

>>9634774
>That article
> Following the signature of 19 launch contracts with the value of more than €1.1 billion in new orders, Arianespace enters 2018 with the outlook for intense activity involving up to 14 launches
>up to

Meanwhile SpaceX is doing 30+ launches this year and has a 12 billion dollar (and growing) backlog. Do you even read the garbage you post?

>>9634787
>In 2017, Arianespace signed a total of 19 launch contracts – six more than in 2016. These contracts represent 27 new satellites to be placed in orbit.
Ariane 5 has dual satellite capability you fucking tard.
>Meanwhile SpaceX is doing 30+ launches this year and has a 12 billion dollar (and growing) backlog. Do you even read the garbage you post?
A backlog doesn't last forever. What's SpaceX going to do when they eat through their backlog? And don't make me laugh. "Growing backlog." SpaceX signed 7 contracts last year. So much demand, my God.

>>9634787
>Meanwhile SpaceX is doing 30+ launches this year

you mean 16 at most, we're already 1/3rd through the year and they've only managed 4 launches in that time - one of which was a demo mission with no purpose.

>>9634801
Not the guy you replied to, but you're wrong. 6 launches in 2018 so far, not 4.

>>9634815

1 of those was a throwaway demo mission and the other was a failure, so 4 launches.

>>9634798
>What's SpaceX going to do when they eat through their backlog?
Launch a constellation of 12,000 communication satellites of their own manufacture.

>>9634815
Oh and also you're wrong again : we're 1/4th through the year, not 1/3rd.

>>9634816
There was no failure, what are you talking about

>>9634819
He's just making shit up and backpedalling as per usual. It's the same cunt shitting up every thread. Just ignore him.

>>9634819
Zuma was a failure. No, "m-m-muh payload adapter!!!11111" is not an excuse. Satellite not in orbit = failure.

>>9634819
>>9634826

>>9634828
There is no official word on Zuma except that all SpaceX hardware functioned as intended, and there are no independent observations to contradict this. Don't you have something better to do with your time than pick anonymous internet arguments over nothing?

>>9634798
>What's SpaceX going to do when they eat through their backlog?

Take from Arianespace's. SpaceX's high launch rate will give them an advantage because they can launch today instead of in five years.

>>9634826
Well that would not surprise me, I mean it seems like he's not even looking at what he's typing (1/3rd of the year....) No offense though.

>>9634840
>Can't refute someone.
>Must be some other guy.
Man, you Muskrats have some real cognitive dissonance.

>>9634818
>Oh and also you're wrong again : we're 1/4th through the year, not 1/3rd.

>>9634818
>Well that would not surprise me, I mean it seems like he's not even looking at what he's typing (1/3rd of the year....) No offense though.

american education

Good, the baiter shows up just as the thread reaches the bump limit

>>9634923
And yet you faggots continue to feed while never proving me wrong. So fucking easy it's pathetic, but I never expected much.

>>9634699
Sea Dragon was never a real thing, noone ever did any tests to demonstrate that giant pressure fed rockets are workable or have a sufficiently low mass fraction to make it to orbit

>>9634763
>The center core has to carry pretty much the entire thrust of 27 engines
Obviously it doesn't since the majority of that thrust of the boosters goes to lifting those boosters, while the center stage throttles down.
I imagine the boosters also throttle down when they start getting close to empty too

>>9634965
>I imagine the boosters also throttle down when they start getting close to empty too
Nope. The point is to deplete them as quickly as possible, while leaving as much in the center core as they can at separation. Only the center core throttles down after liftoff.

>>9634965
where is the payload attached?
what are the boosters attached to?

Oh yeah the centre stage.

>>9635051
You're an idiot.

>>9635059
Sorry mate but you are the one with terminal brain damage.

>>9635117
The center nine engines push the center core, the outer eighteen engines push their outer cores and the center core. Saying that the center core carries all the thrust of all the engines is wrong.

>>9635148

>>9634723

>27 engines in a tri-core configuration. Not comparable to a 31 engine single core monstrocity.

tricore is harder than single core

>>9635148

> Saying that the center core carries all the thrust of all the engines is wrong.

Outer cores push the center core. So it is trivially correct that the center core carries all the weight. You are an idiot.

>>9634951

just like '''bfr'''.


muskito shills BTFO!!

>>9635682
Are you brain damaged or do you honestly think the mass of the side boosters doesn't have to be lifted?