Page 53 of 53 FirstFirst ... 343515253
Results 1,561 to 1,576 of 1576

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #1561
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,016
    As far as I understood, they are still developing the system and up to now often used outdated configs for that, so for the time being the answer is "all of them". Of course, they will ultimately have to have a working system to have the low launch costs, but looking at their success rate at this moment, they're basically there already.

    It's also not like they intend to use a booster hundreds of times, so the loss of a booster "only" has a cost impact of maximum something like the next 10 launches. When the system is declared fully operation, I'm sure they'll have their margin such that the occasional loss is covered.

    As for reputation: the vast majority of the booster landings these days are a success. Their competitors, oh wait, their competitors can't do that landing trick. Yeah, I think their reputation is quite alright. Besides, clients do not really care what happens to the booster on landing, as long as it performs on launch.

  2. #1562
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,716
    Elon Musk hints of some changes in SpaceX's BFR as well as a paying passenger for a trip around the moon.

    https://www.space.com/41825-spacex-g...esign-art.html

    SpaceX's giant Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) has a sleek new look for an audacious private passenger flight around the moon. If an early rendering is anything to go by, the BFR is going to have some wild fins.
    Late last night (Sept. 13), SpaceX announced that it has signed a deal to launch a private passenger flight around the moon with its new BFR megarocket sometime in the future. Details are scant — SpaceX will unveil more on Monday (Sept. 17) during a live webcast — but the private spaceflight company did unveil a new artist's concept of a BFR passenger rocket around the moon.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  3. #1563
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    388
    Re: the updated BFR Spaceship

    It now has 3 fins with extendable landing legs at their outer ends. The lower two appear to be hinged, capable of assuming a high dihedral position. Presumably this would be during re-entry. Think: Dream Chaser.

    Front canards, also appearing to have hinges for assuming a dihedral position.

    The big panoramic window from IAC 2016 returns.

    7 passenger decks rather than 5.

    The cargo door is now rotated to a more starboard position rather than being on the top.

    Still 7 engines, but now in a Hexaweb (1 center, 6 peripheral). They all seem to be of the same expansion ratio, and they're surrounded by a ring of (movable?) petals which are a source of much speculation. Altitude compensating uni-nozzle? We may know Monday.

    Definitely an upgraded bird.

    2 versions attached: as published and gamma boosted

    BFS_2018_2048-crop.jpg

    BFS_2018_2048-crop_gamma.jpg
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2018-Sep-15 at 08:14 PM.

  4. #1564
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,219
    Scott Manley did a lot of analysis on these renders, but how much can we really read it to artist renderings?

  5. #1565
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Scott Manley did a lot of analysis on these renders, but how much can we really read it to artist renderings?
    A reasonable amount, since like previous images, they're based off of CAD drawings. The dimensions are all consistent with known values for the BFR and Raptor:
    https://i.imgur.com/ZMzfllf.png

  6. #1566
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    388
    Zoom/crop of the nose; panorama window, canard, rotated cargo door (puts it between the fins when landed), 7 habitat decks.

    This thing's a beast.

    BFS_2018-nose+canard-crop-800.jpg
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2018-Sep-16 at 04:16 AM.

  7. #1567
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,639
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Zoom/crop of the nose; panorama window, canard, rotated cargo door (puts it between the fins when landed), 7 habitat decks.

    This thing's a beast.
    The window arrangement is similar to that of the original ITS, as is the trilateral fin/leg arrangement. The basic structure and dimensions are not greatly changed though.

    It's actually a downgrade, the engines all appear to be sea-level engines. All else being equal, this would drop payload from 150 t to 125 t. However, this means they only have one engine to develop for both the booster and spaceship, only one engine to integrate into the spaceship, etc. That could plausibly get them to Mars a whole synod sooner, not to mention launching paying payloads to orbit a couple years earlier.

  8. #1568
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    388
    Confirmation of 2 movable fins, tripod landings

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...600204294?s=19

    Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
    Design has been changed so the <ship> lands on legs that extend from the tips of the three fins, two of which actuate (mostly for pitch control)
    8:23 PM - Sep 16, 2018

  9. #1569
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    388

  10. #1570
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    13,609
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    The window arrangement is similar to that of the original ITS, as is the trilateral fin/leg arrangement. The basic structure and dimensions are not greatly changed though.

    It's actually a downgrade, the engines all appear to be sea-level engines. All else being equal, this would drop payload from 150 t to 125 t. However, this means they only have one engine to develop for both the booster and spaceship, only one engine to integrate into the spaceship, etc. That could plausibly get them to Mars a whole synod sooner, not to mention launching paying payloads to orbit a couple years earlier.
    I wonder if those flaps around the base are to improve vacuum performance of the engines?
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  11. #1571
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    I wonder if those flaps around the base are to improve vacuum performance of the engines?
    I have heard that speculation. I've also heard (Scott Manley for one) argue against it. I think the answer is we don't know, until SpaceX explains more.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #1572
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,348
    Those renderings are almost Bonestellesque!

  13. #1573
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,219
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    Those renderings are almost Bonestellesque!
    Probably the reason I was incredulous at first about treating them as carrying authoritative engineering detail.

    TV Tropes would call it Reality is Unrealistic.

  14. #1574
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    I wonder if those flaps around the base are to improve vacuum performance of the engines?
    I don't see them being of any use in that position, and if they deploy outward in vacuum...why haven't they deployed in the first image shown?

    They're odd though. There's no obvious reason to have such segmentation for debris protection or thermal management, and they seem to enclose a significant volume. I've been wondering if they might be aft cargo holds, for relatively small amounts of cargo that can easily be deployed onto the surface, perhaps without human intervention.

  15. #1575
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,639
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    I've been wondering if they might be aft cargo holds, for relatively small amounts of cargo that can easily be deployed onto the surface, perhaps without human intervention.
    88 m^3 of aft cargo holds. That was just a good guess, couldn't think of what else they'd be sticking there.

    300 bar engines. Previous latest information was that the initial versions would have 250 bar chamber pressure, increasing to 300 bar at some point in the future. Sounds like engine development is going well. Musk mentioned a possible future version 2 with vacuum engines, improving payload mass at the cost of some of the cargo compartments.

    Substantial increase in pressurized volume (1000+ m^3, more than the ISS), and lower payload (100+ t instead of 125 t) than the engines would seem to account for. Perhaps they decided to trade mass for volume.

  16. #1576
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    388
    Those cargo bins were a surprise, but they're also very sensible.

    Press. Volume: 825 m3 --> 1,100 m3

    Stack: 106 m --> 118 m

    BFS: 48 m --> 55 m

    2 landing legs which act as aerosurfaces

    Canards

    2-4 engines out (?!?)

    Tank barrel section made, domes and engine bay coming.

    Shotwell said production Raptor parts are being made.

    They're off to a helluva start.
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2018-Sep-18 at 05:07 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •