Shotwell supposedly said first BFR flight will be an "earth hop"

[jkn]

During about 10 minutes takeoff acceleration passengers could not move, even if they tried. Same when coming down. Direction of 'down' would change during flight.

 

[ecarfan]

During about 10 minutes takeoff acceleration passengers could not move, even if they tried. Same when coming down. Direction of 'down' would change during flight.

Direction of "down" won't change. During descent the BFR will rotate on the long axis so that engines can fire for re-entry and then landing burn.

 

[ggr]

Direction of "down" won't change. During descent the BFR will rotate on the long axis so that engines can fire for re-entry and then landing burn.

It will, because during launch "down" will be toward the rocket engines, but most of the force during re-entry will be to the "flat" side for aerodynamic braking. It's only for the last little bit that the BFR "capsule" (is there a better word?) will stand on its tail again.

 

[sandpiper]

It seems to me that it will be a simple matter to instruct passengers in advance that they will have to remain in their seats during the flight and bathrooms will be available in the boarding/disembarkation lounge. And it won't be feasible to serve passengers during the flight, as during the coast phase the ship will have a microgravity environment.

For the longest E2E BFR flights, which will be almost 60 minutes as you note, passengers will have to be capable of being in their seats continuously for likely a bit over 2 hours, for the more common 30 minute flights about 1 1/2 hours. If you can't do that, take a jet for 11-16 hours (that includes the time spent board and disembarking) and enjoy the bathrooms and those tiny seats with no leg room...

I'm a little concerned about how they're going to deal with all of the puking customers. That will happen a lot.

 

[jkn]

Yes, I'm surprised that nobody has said: 'Vomit Comet'

 

[dhanson865]

It will, because during launch "down" will be toward the rocket engines, but most of the force during re-entry will be to the "flat" side for aerodynamic braking. It's only for the last little bit that the BFR "capsule" (is there a better word?) will stand on its tail again.

BFR is the first stage plus ship, BFS is the ship that you are calling a "capsule".

The first stage will land at or near the takeoff point. The "second stage" is the ship aka BFS.

 

[dhanson865]

Yes, I'm surprised that nobody has said: 'Vomit Comet'

The Vomit Comet is such partly because it makes repeated climbs and dives (like flying a sine wave). The BFR/BFS trip will be a simple arc and very stable in comparison.

For the Vomit Comet the numbers were something like

According to former Reduced Gravity Research Program director John Yaniec, anxiety contributes most to passengers' airsickness. The stress on their bodies creates a sense of panic and therefore causes the passenger to vomit. Yaniec gives a rough estimate of passengers, that "one third [become] violently ill, the next third moderately ill, and the final third not at all." Vomiting is referred to as "ill".

I'm assuming a lower rate of vomiting for BFR/BFS hops but it won't be zero. I suppose barf bags will be a requirement.

 

[jkn]

The Vomit Comet is such partly because it makes repeated climbs and dives (like flying a sine wave). The BFR/BFS trip will be a simple arc and very stable in comparison.

For the Vomit Comet the numbers were something like

I'm assuming a lower rate of vomiting for BFR/BFS hops but it won't be zero. I suppose barf bags will be a requirement.

Perhaps so. But zero-g lasts lot longer in BFS. Hopefully we'll find out this.

 

[e-FTW]

I just hope Elon has some awesome solution to the vomit situation. Can't put anything past the guy!

 

[RDoc]

While I'd not be surprised if the first flights of the BFR were sub orbital, I'll be amazed if SpaceX does city to city passenger service anytime in the next 10 to 15 years, if ever. While it's easy to say it will be a reliable as an airliner, regulatory agencies like the FAA have very stringent and onerous processes to actually get certification. I can't imagine that SpaceX will go through all that for the BFR when the existence of any market for it is unproven.

Incidentally, for the same reasons, I don't think SpaceX is going to be able to use the BFR for NASA astronauts without an escape system.

 

[adiggs]

While I'd not be surprised if the first flights of the BFR were sub orbital, I'll be amazed if SpaceX does city to city passenger service anytime in the next 10 to 15 years, if ever. While it's easy to say it will be a reliable as an airliner, regulatory agencies like the FAA have very stringent and onerous processes to actually get certification. I can't imagine that SpaceX will go through all that for the BFR when the existence of any market for it is unproven.

Incidentally, for the same reasons, I don't think SpaceX is going to be able to use the BFR for NASA astronauts without an escape system.

This is also how I'm thinking about point to point passenger service.

However, your comment got me thinking about enterprising governments, and the opportunity that regulatory sticks-in-the-mud might create for competitive countries. Can't fly into the US via rocket because the FAA is such a pain - what about landing in Canada, the Bahamas, Cuba, or Mexico instead, and then doing a short plane ride from there?

And of course, if you're Mexico and you can attract a rocket landing pad (maybe to a point near San Diego), then you've got a shot at more than the the short haul transportation service - maybe those businesses staging through can be persuaded to setup shop right there instead of going over the border (it's the idea, not the specific location that matters).


Part of what got me thinking about this idea of governments competing on regulations, is the behavior I've been seeing around autonomous driving. I was expecting major regulatory oversight, restriction, and friction. What I've been seeing so far are different jurisdictions figuring out how to be more welcoming than the last, and create opportunities to run things in the wild.

It's far too premature for any similar competition around BFR passenger service, but once we have a flying rocket ship that is fully reusable with pinpoint control doing initial satellite launch missions, then we might just see some competition like this arising.

 

[jkn]

Incidentally, for the same reasons, I don't think SpaceX is going to be able to use the BFR for NASA astronauts without an escape system.

I guess there will be an escape system. Passengers will be in (40?) small cabins instead of one large cabin. Why? Perhaps there is 40 escape capsules? (Should be 42, but perhaps Elon has not read that book

 

[dhanson865]

While I'd not be surprised if the first flights of the BFR were sub orbital, I'll be amazed if SpaceX does city to city passenger service anytime in the next 10 to 15 years, if ever. While it's easy to say it will be a reliable as an airliner, regulatory agencies like the FAA have very stringent and onerous processes to actually get certification. I can't imagine that SpaceX will go through all that for the BFR when the existence of any market for it is unproven.

Incidentally, for the same reasons, I don't think SpaceX is going to be able to use the BFR for NASA astronauts without an escape system.

Escape systems are for the launch pad and early flight. Both the Dragon module and the BFS ship will be able to do emergency escape maneuvers using their thrusters (main engines).

The entire Crew module is the escape system for Dragon and the Entire 2nd stage aka Ship is the escape system for BFR.

Just know that if the BFS or Dragon has to abort it won't make it to orbit or any other city, it will abort very short range compared to the original destination. It will however be able to do so at a speed fast enough to escape an exploding first stage and get you away alive.

Now if you are leaving Mars with BFS there is no escape system for a mars launch. The escape system functionality only applies to Earth.

 

[ecarfan]

I don't think SpaceX is going to be able to use the BFR for NASA astronauts without an escape system.

The BFS (the second stage which includes the passenger compartment) will incorporate a built in escape system. It will have to. SpaceX has given no indication that they are designing the vehicle with a passenger compartment that can physically separate from the BFS fuel tanks and engine section.

Whether SpaceX is flying NASA astronauts or their own crew or E2E passengers, the BFS will have an escape system that will be able to separate it from the BFR during launch and ascent before MECO and stage separation.

 

[ecarfan]

Now if you are leaving Mars with BFS there is no escape system for a mars launch. The escape system functionality only applies to Earth.

Agreed. When the BFS leaves for Mars it will do so from LEO. No need for an escape system. At that point, you're committed.

 

[dhanson865]

Agreed. When the BFS leaves for Mars it will do so from LEO. No need for an escape system. At that point, you're committed.

Not leaves for mars, leaves FROM mars. As in you already landed there, spent some amount of time, refueled and are taking off again.

You are committed because Mars doesn't have a variety of fall back options if you abort a take off. You can't just walk to the next nearest NASA or SpaceX launch facility since there isn't one there.

 

[mongo]

(Should be 42, but perhaps Elon has not read that book

BFR was originally planned to have 42 engines.

From theverge.com:
"We're thinking about names," Musk told the crowd. "The first ship that goes to Mars, my current favorite for it is Heart of Gold from The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy."

 

[e-FTW]

This is also how I'm thinking about point to point passenger service.

However, your comment got me thinking about enterprising governments, and the opportunity that regulatory sticks-in-the-mud might create for competitive countries. Can't fly into the US via rocket because the FAA is such a pain - what about landing in Canada, the Bahamas, Cuba, or Mexico instead, and then doing a short plane ride from there?

And of course, if you're Mexico and you can attract a rocket landing pad (maybe to a point near San Diego), then you've got a shot at more than the the short haul transportation service - maybe those businesses staging through can be persuaded to setup shop right there instead of going over the border (it's the idea, not the specific location that matters).


Part of what got me thinking about this idea of governments competing on regulations, is the behavior I've been seeing around autonomous driving. I was expecting major regulatory oversight, restriction, and friction. What I've been seeing so far are different jurisdictions figuring out how to be more welcoming than the last, and create opportunities to run things in the wild.

It's far too premature for any similar competition around BFR passenger service, but once we have a flying rocket ship that is fully reusable with pinpoint control doing initial satellite launch missions, then we might just see some competition like this arising.

You may be on to something, so I'll wager that first to go would be UAE/Dubaï to China, is another wealthy Asian country. Forget about Canada, we basically follow the same rules as the US.

 

[adiggs]

... Forget about Canada, we basically follow the same rules as the US.

I guess my backup plan to flee to Canada isn't a very good one then

 

[Grendal]

I was thinking you could use some SuperDracos on the BFS to separate the passenger cabin from the engines. However, it quickly occurred to me that such a thing would not be possible anyway. There are no parachutes in the world that could allow that massive a capsule/passenger compartment to land. So, with BFS, it's all or nothing. The exploratory ships of the 16th, 17th, and 18th century were often lost at sea.