Space X Interplanetary Transport System

[Byeman]

They've LANDED 16 boosters, some of them on a friggin' floating tennis court. If someone had suggested ten years ago he'd pull that off they'd have been poo-pooing it much like you are now.

Landing the boosters isn't the challenge. Anybody wanting to waste propellant could have done it.

So why haven't they then?

What's the point? 16 landed boosters did not lead to 16 reused boosters.
Also, they didn't want to redesign their vehicles.

 

[Michel Van]

The next launch feature third re-flight of a Falcon 9 first stage
That's "B1031.2" is upgraded Block 4
a transition between design of Block 3 toward the one of Block 5.
like the use of titanium grid fins replacing the Aluminum ones of Block 3.
Block 5 feature 100 design changes and modifications on first stage

SpaceX aims to fly the first stage 10 times with only inspections in between, and up to 100 times with refurbishment.

First Block 5 launch is expected for February 2018

Two other first stages B1023 and B1025 are refurbishment for Falcon Heavy maiden launch.
expected for November 2017

 

[sferrin]

They've LANDED 16 boosters, some of them on a friggin' floating tennis court. If someone had suggested ten years ago he'd pull that off they'd have been poo-pooing it much like you are now.

Landing the boosters isn't the challenge. Anybody wanting to waste propellant could have done it.

So why haven't they then?

What's the point? 16 landed boosters did not lead to 16 reused boosters.

You do realize that now they'll be able to reuse boosters in the future right? (And have already reused at least one.)

Also, they didn't want to redesign their vehicles.

That's gonna suck when they go out of the launch business.

 

[Byeman]

That's gonna suck when they go out of the launch business.

unqualified statement

 

[Byeman]

You do realize that now they'll be able to reuse boosters in the future right? (And have already reused at least one.)

The number of times is unknown

 

[fredymac]

Both Musk and Bezos have stated they are aiming to re-use their boosters up to 100 times. Presumably their engineering staff have not advised them this is impossible. They will do this cautiously to avoid business risk but boosters flying a 3rd time and then 4th and so on will likely occur within 2 years.

No other technology or manufacturing process will have even a remotely similar impact on cost reduction. Nobody is going to build a brand new booster for less cost than a used booster on its' 2nd flight let alone its' 10th.

 

[Byeman]

Both Musk and Bezos have stated they are aiming to re-use their boosters up to 100 times. Presumably their engineering staff have not advised them this is impossible.

nobody says no to them

 

[Byeman]

No other technology or manufacturing process will have even a remotely similar impact on cost reduction.

Spacex use of fresh out engineers with greater than 50 hr work weeks and certain vehicle design traits has had such impact even before reusability was incorporated

 

[Triton]

"Against Mars-a-Lago: Why SpaceX’s Mars colonization plan should terrify you"
by Keith A. Spencer
10.08.2017•8:00 AM

Source:
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/08/against-mars-a-lago-why-spacexs-mars-colonization-plan-should-terrify-you/

 

[Hobbes]

You do realize that now they'll be able to reuse boosters in the future right? (And have already reused at least one.)

The number of times is unknown

the members of nasaspaceflight.com keep a pretty good list of Falcon 9 stages, including which ones are reused and which ones have been scrapped.

 

[fredymac]

nobody says no to them

Well here is your chance to explain why it is impossible although I would think ULA and Ariane would already be out there making this case if they thought so too.

 

[fredymac]

Spacex use of fresh out engineers with greater than 50 hr work weeks and certain vehicle design traits has had such impact even before reusability was incorporated

Odd, my recollections are that vertical integration, automotive build practices along with lots of sensors and big data analytics were key. Engineers at ULA and Ariane must dread their upcoming 50 hour weeks given their new boosters are tagged to be cost competitive to pre-reusable Spacex pricing.

I'll have to get my victim card as a lifelong member of the "exempt employee" class. I have never built any rockets but I have definitely had long stretches of uncompensated overtime.

 

[sferrin]

I'll have to get my victim card as a lifelong member of the "exempt employee" class. I have never built any rockets but I have definitely had long stretches of uncompensated overtime.

Hear, hear.

 

[Byeman]

automotive build practices along with lots of sensors and big data analytics were key.

They don't have lots of sensors. That was a problem in their accident reconstructions. What big data analytics? And what automotive build practices?

 

[Hobbes]

IIRC the Falcon contains ~20,000 sensors. The problem with their last failure was not all of them were on and being recorded.

 

[fredymac]

I'm way past the point of diminishing returns so I'll sum up.

As of now, Spacex is making rocket engines in multiple hundreds per year. They are now making rocket bodies and space capsules at rates faster than at any time since the early 60’s.

Ironically enough, this isn’t rocket science. Every market has a cost/size curve. At $200Million/launch, you will have a small, specialized space market. At $75Million/launch, the market will expand and you will become the dominant supplier. At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs. Most people would be thrilled at this prospect. Some, apparently, are very upset.

 

[Michel Van]

Good analysis, fredymac

But there two important factors missing: Launch rate and failure rate

ULA offer for $220 million per Atlas V and do 8~9 launches a year with success rate of 100%
SpaceX offert for $76 million per Falcon 9 and do 20 launches a year with success rate of 95.23%
(two complete flight lost Nr 19 and Nr "29a" )

In several Statements Musk aim for weekly launch under reusable Block 5 booster.
That would be 52 launches a year.
What NASA believed to achieve in 1973 with Space Shuttle.

Now what has that to do with BFR/BSR ? Allot !
The BFR is a Saturn V size Rocket with all logistic problems of it.
but biggest question are what will be Launch rate and failure rate of it ?
and what happen to program if a BFR is lost with passengers on board ?!

 

[sferrin]

what happen to program if a BFR is lost with passengers on board ?!

What happens to the 747 program if a plane is lost with passengers on board?

"On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets, KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736, collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people in the deadliest accident in aviation history."

TWA 800 was a 747.

In fact, 28 747s have been lost over the years.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

 

[blackstar]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

 

[sferrin]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

Common sense. Like air travel, which was a novelty for the rich at one time, space flight (be it intercontinental, orbital, or whatnot) will start to attract the attention of the wealthy once it's shown to be affordable and relatively safe.

 

[Michel Van]

what happen to program if a BFR is lost with passengers on board ?!

What happens to the 747 program if a plane is lost with passengers on board?

"On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets, KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736, collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people in the deadliest accident in aviation history."

TWA 800 was a 747.

In fact, 28 747s have been lost over the years.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Yes those 28 are around 1.8 % of all build 747s (1536 in sept 2017 ).
And put so cruelly, with those number accidents are consider as "normal"
A few remember what happen with TWA Flight 800 in 1997
While Tenerife crash is widely forgotten...
if you say Challenger and Colombia or 9/11, people know exactly what you talking about.

Similar will happen also to BRF because SpaceX is in focus of Public,
Musk get Rockstar treatment. So long he is successful,
If one BFR with passages blow up or crash, that will change...

 

[sferrin]

Musk get Rockstar treatment. So long he is successful,
If one BFR with passages blow up or crash, that will change...

I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see who's correct.

 

[merriman]

Musk get Rockstar treatment. So long he is successful,
If one BFR with passages blow up or crash, that will change...

I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see who's correct.

We make sport of celebrity. We first idolize -- and, in time -- we crucify.

Ford changed the face of this nation through 'production' and created the American middle-class as we know it today. How quickly we dug up dirt on that man, to the point where today he's given the same respect and appreciation as we now bestow on Christopher Columbus.

No good deed goes unpunished in this country. Watch your ass, Elon.

David

 

[fredymac]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

Basic assumptions. Use 100 flight amortization schedule so take booster cost and divide by 100. Space capsule amortization might be more than 100 (heat shield can be replaced). Assume upper stage is not re-used (but with steady production and reduced production cost) and will make up the bulk of the cost. Labor/fuel/other recurring can be amortized over a full year of passenger revenue (bulk rate discounting). You will eventually come up with something in this ballpark which is then divided by the 7 passengers in the capsule going to a Bigelow Space Hotel (separate billing).

Profit margin will be impacted by how many competitors enter the game. I assume Blue Origin will be there so no monopoly.

Financial/legal/tax impacts are too hard to figure and can be counteracting. I assume tax laws will be written to encourage this activity and will work towards lowering insurance/capital write-off burdens.

 

[Michel Van]

interesting some one made a cost estimation on BFR and
this had Orionblamblam to say about this on his block (I got permission by him to post here)

The Space Review has an interesting piece that attempts to figure out how much BFR might cost to fly. My own estimate: I dunno. Done the old fashioned way, you’d go through a thousand pages of calculations, totaling up all the palm-greasing and bonuses and regulatory hoop-jumping and congresscritter bribes and extraneous R&D and sub-sub-subcontractor troubleshooting… and only then try to figure out what the actual manufacturing and testing and propellant and operations and maintenance will cost. And then tack on an extra zero, because of course you will. But here, SpaceX is operating in a whole new environment. Ten years ago I would have said the BFR would have been a ridiculously, laughably optimistic concept; now… you know, I bet they can pull it off, even if they need to slip the schedule some.

Estimating the cost of BFR http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3343/1

They come up with a conclusion that $240,000 per ton delivered to the surface of Mars is achievable. They also come up with a cost per seat of $1,200 for a point-to-point ballistic transport version stuffing 853 passengers on board, but here I become distinctly dubious. I’d bet real money that even if the technology works fantastically, the regulatory banhammer will come down on SpaceX SpaceLines the moment they try to actually fly passengers. Heck, I bet the US FedGuv will drop ITAR on SpaceX like a ton of white-hot bricks the moment SpaceX seriously proposes to launch a BFR upper stage to some darned furrin country like Japan or Australia, never mind China or Dubai. Plus there will be practical issues which I think stand a *very* good chance of torpedoing an affordable ballistic transport system… passengers keeling over due to acceleration (or being ejected from the boarding line because a doctor says “no”), the sort of delays that space launch systems would find trivial would be monumental for a system meant to operate for only 30 minutes, difficulties getting passengers loaded on board, bad weather at the launch or landing site making it impossible for the vehicle or its booster to safely land… these can all cause a serious headache.

I am much less interested in the global transport aspect than I am in the orbital and interplanetary aspect. Sure, it’d be great to have a half-hour-to-antipodes transporter… but that wouldn’t have one percent the impact that a colony transport to Mars would have.

 

[Byeman]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

Basic assumptions. Use 100 flight amortization schedule so take booster cost and divide by 100. Space capsule amortization might be more than 100 (heat shield can be replaced). Assume upper stage is not re-used (but with steady production and reduced production cost) and will make up the bulk of the cost. Labor/fuel/other recurring can be amortized over a full year of passenger revenue (bulk rate discounting). You will eventually come up with something in this ballpark which is then divided by the 7 passengers in the capsule going to a Bigelow Space Hotel (separate billing).

Profit margin will be impacted by how many competitors enter the game. I assume Blue Origin will be there so no monopoly.

Financial/legal/tax impacts are too hard to figure and can be counteracting. I assume tax laws will be written to encourage this activity and will work towards lowering insurance/capital write-off burdens.

GIGO. The numbers you started with are not supported by evidence or data

 

[Byeman]

what happen to program if a BFR is lost with passengers on board ?!

What happens to the 747 program if a plane is lost with passengers on board?

"On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets, KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736, collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people in the deadliest accident in aviation history."

TWA 800 was a 747.

In fact, 28 747s have been lost over the years.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Not relevant. BFR is not going to have the flight rate of 747. The accident rate of a BFR is going to be magnitudes more than an airliner

 

[Byeman]

IIRC the Falcon contains ~20,000 sensors. The problem with their last failure was not all of them were on and being recorded.

Not true at all. That is complete nonsense. Do you know what the cost of that many sensors and the mass of the wiring would be?

 

[Byeman]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

Common sense. Like air travel, which was a novelty for the rich at one time, space flight (be it intercontinental, orbital, or whatnot) will start to attract the attention of the wealthy once it's shown to be affordable and relatively safe.

Unsubstantiated, and neither common nor sense. There were existing destinations for air travelers to go to, that were served by other conveyances. There is nothing equivalent for space. A few rich may buy some joy rides just like the MIG-25 flights. There is no commerce to drive the need for the masses to go.

 

[sferrin]

IIRC the Falcon contains ~20,000 sensors. The problem with their last failure was not all of them were on and being recorded.

Not true at all. That is complete nonsense. Do you know what the cost of that many sensors and the mass of the wiring would be?

Depends on the sensors and the wiring. The YF-23 measured something like 6000+ parameters in real time and that was in the early 90s.

 

[sferrin]

what happen to program if a BFR is lost with passengers on board ?!

What happens to the 747 program if a plane is lost with passengers on board?

"On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets, KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736, collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people in the deadliest accident in aviation history."

TWA 800 was a 747.

In fact, 28 747s have been lost over the years.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Not relevant. BFR is not going to have the flight rate of 747. The accident rate of a BFR is going to be magnitudes more than an airliner

Which doesn't change the fact that one crash won't end public space travel. It's somewhat mind-boggling that this is even in doubt.

 

[sferrin]

Unsubstantiated, and neither common nor sense. There were existing destinations for air travelers to go to, that were served by other conveyances.

Exactly. People chose to fly in relatively dangerous aircraft when there were much cheaper, safer alternatives. As for destinations how many people were flying from Europe to the US in the days of Columbus? Did it stay that way?

 

[Hobbes]

IIRC the Falcon contains ~20,000 sensors. The problem with their last failure was not all of them were on and being recorded.

Not true at all. That is complete nonsense. Do you know what the cost of that many sensors and the mass of the wiring would be?

I was off: SpaceX receive 3000 channels of telemetry from the rocket. I assume that translates to at least 3000 sensors.

20k sensors is not impossible, by the way: Rocketlab has 25,000 channels of telemetry on their (much smaller) Electron.

 

[Michel Van]

IIRC the Falcon contains ~20,000 sensors. The problem with their last failure was not all of them were on and being recorded.

Not true at all. That is complete nonsense. Do you know what the cost of that many sensors and the mass of the wiring would be?

I was off: SpaceX receive 3000 channels of telemetry from the rocket. I assume that translates to at least 3000 sensors.

20k sensors is not impossible, by the way: Rocketlab has 25,000 channels of telemetry on their (much smaller) Electron.

The Saturn V had in his time, only measured 200 parameters and send that data to ground control during Launch.

 

[blackstar]

At $10Million/launch (ie, fully realized re-usability), this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry whose revenues will eventually swamp all other markets and provide for R&D to further drive down costs.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion? What data is this based upon?

Basic assumptions. Use 100 flight amortization schedule so take booster cost and divide by 100. Space capsule amortization might be more than 100 (heat shield can be replaced). Assume upper stage is not re-used (but with steady production and reduced production cost) and will make up the bulk of the cost. Labor/fuel/other recurring can be amortized over a full year of passenger revenue (bulk rate discounting). You will eventually come up with something in this ballpark which is then divided by the 7 passengers in the capsule going to a Bigelow Space Hotel (separate billing).

Profit margin will be impacted by how many competitors enter the game. I assume Blue Origin will be there so no monopoly.

Financial/legal/tax impacts are too hard to figure and can be counteracting. I assume tax laws will be written to encourage this activity and will work towards lowering insurance/capital write-off burdens.

No, not the made up numbers, the other made up thing that you asserted: "this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry"

What data do you have to support that "things really change" at $10 million instead of, say, $9 million? What data do you have to support your assertion that a tourist industry will "kick start" at that point, as opposed to some other point?

Do you have actual market survey data that supports that? Or is this just something you believe?

 

[blackstar]

interesting some one made a cost estimation on BFR

Go read the article on The Space Review. It's not much better than numerology. The author lacked a lot of numbers, so if he did not have data he either ignored it or invented his own numbers. It took a little while for somebody to point out that while the author was calculating the amortization for the BFR, he never actually provided the development cost of the rocket--you know, the number that you divide the flight rate into in order to figure out the amortization. If you look up other articles the guy has written you will see that he does that kind of thing all the time, sprinkling some magic math over his argument, but leaving out a lot of key factors.

 

[fredymac]

No, not the made up numbers, the other made up thing that you asserted: "this is where things really change. Wealthy individuals splitting the cost will kick start a tourist industry"

What data do you have to support that "things really change" at $10 million instead of, say, $9 million? What data do you have to support your assertion that a tourist industry will "kick start" at that point, as opposed to some other point?

Do you have actual market survey data that supports that? Or is this just something you believe?

The burden of proof is actually on you.

Tell us why the economics of re-usability do not apply to rockets.

Explain what limiting physics make whole companies of rocket scientists/engineers wrong and you right.

Tell us why you so vehemently oppose private efforts (I assume you have equal angst against Blue Origin/New Glenn) where you are not forced to contribute involuntary tax funding and any failure on their part does not cost you anything.

Explain why ULA/Ariane are not providing the technical backup to your arguments so people like you would have details to highlight.

What do you want? A law forbidding them from trying? Where are you going with all this?

 

[blackstar]

The burden of proof is actually on you.

Tell us why the economics of re-usability do not apply to rockets.

Explain what limiting physics make whole companies of rocket scientists/engineers wrong and you right.

Tell us why you so vehemently oppose private efforts (I assume you have equal angst against Blue Origin/New Glenn) where you are not forced to contribute involuntary tax funding and any failure on their part does not cost you anything.

Explain why ULA/Ariane are not providing the technical backup to your arguments so people like you would have details to highlight.

What do you want? A law forbidding them from trying? Where are you going with all this?

No, you made the assertions. You provided numbers. Where is your data supporting it? Go back and read what I actually wrote--I asked you to provide your data.

Look, if you don't have any actual data, if you're just making stuff up, then admit it. There's no shame in being honest.

 

[NeilChapman]

Musk get Rockstar treatment. So long he is successful,
If one BFR with passages blow up or crash, that will change...

I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see who's correct.

+1

Today, airlines fly specified routes around the world - airline highways if you will. They launch and return to specific locations where they are in close proximity to each other. One can only reduce risk so far within these parameters. Airliners are also piloted, which introduces human issues as we've seen with several purposeful airline disasters.

2014 Air travel deaths 990
2015 Air travel deaths 560

There is well over 1 million automobile related deaths per year. No one seems to be ending travel across continents by car.

SpaceX is describing redundancy in their engines as well as planning for catastrophic engine failure. Will other events occur? Sure. Those systems failures will result in engineering changes that will decrease risk.

But that won't stop 30-40 minute priority cargo travel around the world.

 

[Orionblamblam]

But that won't stop 30-40 minute priority cargo travel around the world.

The problem is that even if BFR-Transport works as well as hoped, there'll still be no such thing as 30-minutes to the other side of the planet. I can see how there might be a market for such a thing... an organ transplant, or a massively injured person or some such. But think about it: You are in charge of a transplant of a squeedlyspooch from a donor in New York City to a recipient in Dubai. So, you carve it out of the donor and dump it into the cooler precisely at noon. Since the recipient is a bazillionaire, there is a helicopter on the roof. You get the cooler to the chopper at 12:05. The chopper takes off and heads to the offshore launch site, landing at 12:20. Since the recipient is a bazillionaire, you are able to bypass the pesky waiting in line nonsense and cut ahead of everybody. You get the squeedlyspooch loaded on board at 12:30. You're ready to go! Pity the scheduled launch time is 3:30. So, three hours later the time comes... and there's a sandstorm at the Dubai launch site. Launch is delayed until 6:30. You arrive half an hour after that, a full seven hours after putting the squeedlyspooch on board the rocket. Sadly, the shelf life of a squeedlyspooch is only four hours and it has gone bad, has crawled out of the cooler, eaten half the passengers and has arranged their skulls in a mind-bending non-Euclidian geometry that opened a doorway that allowed Nyarlathotep to extrude through. The crawling chaos has now reduced half of Dubai to ashes, half to an alien structure of cyclopian dimenson that defies the laws of physics. Prepare for the incoming lawsuits from the few survivors who haven;t been driven mad by the results of your too-slow squeedlyspooch transplant scheme.