Wiki Super Heavy/Starship - General Development Discussion

[bxr140]

Cargolifter was pipedream and total failure.

And there’s one an-225 in existence and that’s operated by a Ukrainian company.

 

[ggr]

Tesla should combine the best of both worlds of Russian engineering, and revive the Ekranoplan. It could fly over the Northwest Passage.

 

[Mike1080i]

There is no port at Vandenberg where the BFR could be offloaded from the barge onto land and taken — uphill! — to a launch pad.

Well, there is a dock that's part of the SLC-6 Shuttle conversion that was for shipping in external tanks by barge. It's now used by the Delta Mariner cargo vessel to bring in Delta IV and possibly Atlas V stages.

 

[Ben W]

Both of those are pretty unlikely. Launching Eastward from the West coast is over very populated areas which is very unlikely to be approved. Launching against the Earth's rotation is hard, doing single stage to orbit at all is very hard, especially with the dead weight of the BSF on top, so doing both is very probably not even close to possible.

Then there would be the problem of landing the BFR/BFS stack. I'm pretty doubtful that would work at all.

It can probably be done in two launches. First launch as usual, 1st stage RTLS, BFS goes to Vandenberg. Then put a light-weight nosecone on 1st stage and launch it ballistic to Vandenberg. (Doesn't need to go fully orbital to get there.) The first stage could also be sent in shorter hops if really needed. (e.g. FL -> TX, TX -> CA.)

 

[adiggs]

SpaceX keeps their costs down, by a lot, simply because they can move F9 and FH rockets around the country by truck. That definitely won't happen with BFR. It's big. The Port of LA works because you can set the pieces on a ship and have it go through the Panama Canal and over to Florida for launch. But even that is a huge expense. The smartest move for SpaceX is build BFR where they will be launching and landing it. The negative to that is that most critical SpaceX employees for building rockets are in LA, not in Florida. So that does make the Port of LA a nice compromise even though expenses might be a little higher. We're very early in the game for BFR, so we'll see what actually happens in the coming years. Whatever happens, it will be a really big decision where they end up building the rocket. I can't see Hawthorne working at all for BFR except for all the smaller bits like Raptor engines.

Well clearly, the best way to get BFR from LA to Florida is to fly!

I guess you probably can't take paying passengers on the maiden flight of each rocket though...

 

[jkn]

Cargolifter was pipedream and total failure. They build (bought outside engineering + construction) "one of the largest unsupported structures and in the world" then got bankrupt. They never build even prototypes of their "foam" filled Airship...

That does not prove their idea was bad (perhaps it was, I don't know). They incorrectly assumed they can get more investor money without prototype.

 

[jkn]

And there’s one an-225 in existence and that’s operated by a Ukrainian company.

But it is not dead. Wikipedia:
A second airframe with a slightly different configuration[1] was partially built. Its construction was halted in 1994[1] because of lack of funding and interest, but revived briefly in 2009, bringing it to 60–70% completion.[2] On 30 August 2016, Antonov agreed to complete the second airframe for Aerospace Industry Corporation of China (not to be confused with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China) as a prelude to AICC commencing series production.[3]

 

[ecarfan]

Well, there is a dock that's part of the SLC-6 Shuttle conversion that was for shipping in external tanks by barge. It's now used by the Delta Mariner cargo vessel to bring in Delta IV and possibly Atlas V stages.

Looking at satellite imagery of the entire VAFB coastline I see no sign of any “dock”, large or small. That coastline is completely exposed to weather and waves, there is no harbor, natural or artificial. I’m not sure what you are referring to. Can you give GPS coordinates for the dock?

In your post you quoted my post which referred to Vandenburg so I assume your post was not talking about Florida.

 

[bxr140]

Looking at satellite imagery of the entire VAFB coastline I see no sign of any “dock”, large or small.

Down below slc-6.
Google Maps

 

[Mike1080i]

Down below slc-6.
Google Maps

That's it.

 

[bxr140]

But it is not dead.

I mean, yes, it could turn into a Chinese built airframe. So I concede that point.

It’s a fun thought experiment for sure, but that doesn’t change the impractical nature of air travel for rocket parts, especially as a primary solution. For reference, An-124 is on the order of $500-800k for a coast to coast US charter, and that’s with a realistic global supply of aircraft somewhere around 15-20...not to mention clearly not enough global demand to build a bunch more, and certainly not enough demand for anywhere near that many 225s.

Design/reality constraints aside, I’d surmise be a magical BFR carrying 225 would be on the order of $2-3M per coast to coast trip, and probably double that or more if you want to amortize the airfield loading GSE on a per-use basis.

There’s something to be said for blue ocean thought...but sometimes practicality steps in with obvious bounding conditions.

As previously discussed, barge transport is the most likely near term solution for BFR where it can’t be trucked. You don’t build a rocket factory at a port if you want to fly your rocket parts around on an airplane... As also suggested, the next step once regulatory hurdles are cleared (a few decades?) will be for rockets to transport themselves to their first fare-paying port, much like aircraft today. Air transport will be OBE.

 

[ecarfan]

Down below slc-6.
Google Maps

Thanks, got it.

Pretty small. Given the size of the BFR, even if a suitable dock was built the roadway would have to be massively improved.

And of course a completely new launch pad would have to be built.

I do not expec the BFR to launch from VAFB in the next two decades, if ever.

 

[Mike1080i]

Pretty small. Given the size of the BFR, even if a suitable dock was built the roadway would have to be massively improved.

Maybe too not massive. The dock and road were used for 4 ETs that were staged at SLC-6. The ETs were smaller than BFR but not by a huge amount, about 50 feet shorter.

I do not expect the BFR to launch from VAFB in the next two decades, if ever.

Agreed.

 

[Snerruc]

Boeing and Airbus have made one offs for their own use based on existing frames to fly airliner fuselages around. You might be able to get one of them to make an extra. Google Super Guppy.

 

[bxr140]

Boeing and Airbus have made one offs for their own use based on existing frames to fly airliner fuselages around. You might be able to get one of them to make an extra. Google Super Guppy.

Indeed they do. Next search: Google "How big is a BFR?"

 

[jkn]

I mean, yes, it could turn into a Chinese built airframe. So I concede that point.

It’s a fun thought experiment for sure, but that doesn’t change the impractical nature of air travel for rocket parts, especially as a primary solution. For reference, An-124 is on the order of $500-800k for a coast to coast US charter, and that’s with a realistic global supply of aircraft somewhere around 15-20...not to mention clearly not enough global demand to build a bunch more, and certainly not enough demand for anywhere near that many 225s.

Design/reality constraints aside, I’d surmise be a magical BFR carrying 225 would be on the order of $2-3M per coast to coast trip, and probably double that or more if you want to amortize the airfield loading GSE on a per-use basis.

There’s something to be said for blue ocean thought...but sometimes practicality steps in with obvious bounding conditions.

As previously discussed, barge transport is the most likely near term solution for BFR where it can’t be trucked. You don’t build a rocket factory at a port if you want to fly your rocket parts around on an airplane... As also suggested, the next step once regulatory hurdles are cleared (a few decades?) will be for rockets to transport themselves to their first fare-paying port, much like aircraft today. Air transport will be OBE.

Yes, I admit rocket + wings is not practical. Stratolaunch disagrees:

"We are excited to report all objectives of this test were achieved – culminating to the aircraft traveling down the runway at 25 knots (28 miles per hour)."
Stratolaunch News


Giant zeppelin would be very valuable in delivering help after disaster. I hope it is developed.

 

[bxr140]

Yes, I admit rocket + wings is not practical. Stratolaunch disagrees:

If we’re moving the goalpost from transporting rockets to launching rockets, yes, launching rockets much smaller than BFR from aircraft (including balloons, if that matters) is a viable, if not cost questionable solution.

That airborne asset inherently also facilitates air transport of the rocket, much like Orbital’s L1011 does for Pegasus when, for instance, they fly it from processing at Vandenberg to the ranges at Kwajalein or on the east coast. Even then though, Pegasus parts are ground transported where feasible due to obvious logistical costs (they’re mostly built in Arizona).

I agree a zeppelin transporter would be super cool to see but it’s logistical complexity would still lose to building your rocket factory and launch facilities in seaport friendly locations...Like it seems Spacex is doing with BFR.

 

[Grendal]

I posted this article in the FH thread because it is mostly about that but there is an important snippet from Elon concerning BFR in it:

SpaceX nears launch of Falcon Heavy, facing a changing market for heavy-lift rockets

"In a press call Monday afternoon, Musk said Falcon Heavy will likely not be needed for crewed flights like the moon tourism mission since development of the company's even larger rocket system, known as BFR, is progressing quickly enough."

I was thinking that the tourism flight would happen in 2019. So is he thinking that BFR will be launched by 2020? That sounds crazy quick. FH, if it is successful tomorrow, should have no problem sending a Dragon 2 around the Moon with a couple tourists aboard. The other point about this is that NASA isn't allowing reused D2's for Commercial Crew. So SpaceX will have a number of previously flown Dragon 2's available for a tourism flight relatively quickly. Why wait for BFR?

So I'm chalking this up to Elon's optimism.

 

[ecarfan]

"In a press call Monday afternoon, Musk said Falcon Heavy will likely not be needed for crewed flights like the moon tourism mission since development of the company's even larger rocket system, known as BFR, is progressing quickly enough."

That statement by Elon surprises me as well. Obviously he knows what is happening with BFR development and I know nothing (it’s not even publicly known yet exactly where the BFR “factory” is!). But it seems incredibly optimistic. Which of course he has a history of.

Did you find a recording of that press call? Would love to listen to it.

 

[Grendal]

That statement by Elon surprises me as well. Obviously he knows what is happening with BFR development and I know nothing (it’s not even publicly known yet exactly where the BFR “factory” is!). But it seems incredibly optimistic. Which of course he has a history of.

Did you find a recording of that press call? Would love to listen to it.

From watching the YouTube videos I posted it seems that Elon did a bunch of individual interviews and statements. I haven't seen anything like a full blown press conference. Which is why we are getting a lot of different details from different articles.

Edit: A-ha It looks like Elon backtracked on this after thinking about it.

Loren Grush on Twitter

Musk: If BFR development takes longer than expected, SpaceX will return to the idea of putting crew on Falcon Heavy. But BFR is moving along quickly and FH won't need to be qualified for human spaceflight