- Status
<font color="yellow">I don't really know how you can justify such optimism.</font><br /><br />Well I don't make such predictions lightly, certainly not if they are so bold. I base them on my engineering judgment as an amateur rocket scientist. 
<br /><br />SpaceX is bringing a fresh approach to the Aerospace industry and saving them from the same kind of fall Detroit had to take before they got their act together (late 70s to early 80s).<br /><br />It’s a whole suite of engineering and management techniques that have been well established in other industries in the last 10- 15 years, industries that do not have the luxuriously large margins found in Aerospace. Other manufacturing industries have had to become lean and mean and now it’s Aerospace’s turn and it’s SpaceX’s privilege to show the way. If I had a few hours I’d write it up, but I’m a manufacturing engineer and I have to get back to work . . . lol<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br />SpaceX is bringing a fresh approach to the Aerospace industry and saving them from the same kind of fall Detroit had to take before they got their act together (late 70s to early 80s).<br /><br />It’s a whole suite of engineering and management techniques that have been well established in other industries in the last 10- 15 years, industries that do not have the luxuriously large margins found in Aerospace. Other manufacturing industries have had to become lean and mean and now it’s Aerospace’s turn and it’s SpaceX’s privilege to show the way. If I had a few hours I’d write it up, but I’m a manufacturing engineer and I have to get back to work . . . lol<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><font color="yellow">I don't really know how you can justify such optimism.</font><br /><br />Well I don't make such predictions lightly, certainly not if they are so bold. I base them on my engineering judgment as an amateur rocket scientist. <br /><br />SpaceX is bringing a fresh approach to the Aerospace industry and saving them from the same kind of fall Detroit had to take before they got their act together (late 70s to early 80s).<br /><br />It’s a whole suite of engineering and management techniques that have been well established in other industries in the last 10- 15 years, industries that do not have the luxuriously large margins found in Aerospace. Other manufacturing industries have had to become lean and mean and now it’s Aerospace’s turn and it’s SpaceX’s privilege to show the way. If I had a few hours I’d write it up, but I’m a manufacturing engineer and I have to get back to work . . . lol<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br />SpaceX is bringing a fresh approach to the Aerospace industry and saving them from the same kind of fall Detroit had to take before they got their act together (late 70s to early 80s).<br /><br />It’s a whole suite of engineering and management techniques that have been well established in other industries in the last 10- 15 years, industries that do not have the luxuriously large margins found in Aerospace. Other manufacturing industries have had to become lean and mean and now it’s Aerospace’s turn and it’s SpaceX’s privilege to show the way. If I had a few hours I’d write it up, but I’m a manufacturing engineer and I have to get back to work . . . lol<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Well someone didn't read the link did they. That is the falcon 9. The new proposal is for a new rocket with a hugely more powerful engine and capable of lifting 5 times more than the most powerful falcon 9 variant. It would also be the most powerful privatly funded rocket of all time.
Well someone didn't read the link did they. That is the falcon 9. The new proposal is for a new rocket with a hugely more powerful engine and capable of lifting 5 times more than the most powerful falcon 9 variant. It would also be the most powerful privatly funded rocket of all time.
Glad to here Spacedaily was wrong on this; I look forward to seeing them successfully launch it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Glad to here Spacedaily was wrong on this; I look forward to seeing them successfully launch it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
frodo1008 says:<br /><br />If the eventual launch rate is kept up so that the use of such facilities as the Common Booster Core facility of Boeing can continuously turn out the main body of the Delta IV the eventual cost of such a launch will fall into the $100 million to $150 million dollar range this comes out to between $2,000 to $3,000 per pound to LEO. So this is the goal that spacex must even begin to shoot for in order to take such contracts away from either Boeing or LM (who are, of course NOT going to just sit by and let this happen).<br /><br />In the big Aviation Week article on SpaceX, Harry Stonecipher admited that Boeing is "vulnerable". I remember an even more pessimistic statement from him, but can't locate it at the moment. The odds are pretty long on Boeing getting enough business to bring the production rates up to the levels they claim to need to make the production efficient.<br /><br />On the big point, though, there is no arguing. Big rockest are just that: Big. This is not Otrag assembling rockets out of dozens of small pieces. Hauling around in a semi may not work with 30 by 3.6 meter rocket pieces. We will have to see what clever ideas they come up with to keep costs, including tooling costs, low. <br /><br />I really wish SpaceX luck with both the Falcon I and all the follow-ons. There are a number of things that become economically feasible with reduced cost rockets like they are planning.
frodo1008 says:<br /><br />If the eventual launch rate is kept up so that the use of such facilities as the Common Booster Core facility of Boeing can continuously turn out the main body of the Delta IV the eventual cost of such a launch will fall into the $100 million to $150 million dollar range this comes out to between $2,000 to $3,000 per pound to LEO. So this is the goal that spacex must even begin to shoot for in order to take such contracts away from either Boeing or LM (who are, of course NOT going to just sit by and let this happen).<br /><br />In the big Aviation Week article on SpaceX, Harry Stonecipher admited that Boeing is "vulnerable". I remember an even more pessimistic statement from him, but can't locate it at the moment. The odds are pretty long on Boeing getting enough business to bring the production rates up to the levels they claim to need to make the production efficient.<br /><br />On the big point, though, there is no arguing. Big rockest are just that: Big. This is not Otrag assembling rockets out of dozens of small pieces. Hauling around in a semi may not work with 30 by 3.6 meter rocket pieces. We will have to see what clever ideas they come up with to keep costs, including tooling costs, low. <br /><br />I really wish SpaceX luck with both the Falcon I and all the follow-ons. There are a number of things that become economically feasible with reduced cost rockets like they are planning.
> <i>Hell you can get titanium cutlery! </i><br /><br />I own several titanium shovels. Strange twist of russian military industry in 1990s.
> <i>Hell you can get titanium cutlery! </i><br /><br />I own several titanium shovels. Strange twist of russian military industry in 1990s.
Musk? <br /><br />BFR?<br /><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHA cough cough "yeah right!" cough cough HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
Musk? <br /><br />BFR?<br /><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHA cough cough "yeah right!" cough cough HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
"Reading (Musk's) latest press release, his unnecessary use of profanities.."<br /><br />Obvioulsy you are not a fan of Roald Dahl and his BFG. That was the "Big Friendly Giant." Whatever were you thinking of?<br /><br />Of course, I didn't see the press conference, just summaries.
"Reading (Musk's) latest press release, his unnecessary use of profanities.."<br /><br />Obvioulsy you are not a fan of Roald Dahl and his BFG. That was the "Big Friendly Giant." Whatever were you thinking of?<br /><br />Of course, I didn't see the press conference, just summaries.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That was the "Big Friendly Giant." Whatever were you thinking of? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Okay, okay - I have a dirty mind <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, looks like SpaceX may be about to put some matter in orbit and make me eat my words. Fortunately my words are yummy, so I hope I get to eat them this weekend!
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That was the "Big Friendly Giant." Whatever were you thinking of? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Okay, okay - I have a dirty mind <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, looks like SpaceX may be about to put some matter in orbit and make me eat my words. Fortunately my words are yummy, so I hope I get to eat them this weekend!
IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, if you go back in the archives of space discussion circa 1998 or no doubt earlier than that, you will find the term BFR used quite a bit, with the exact same definition.<br /><br />It was part of the almost cliched phrase, one of the alternate endings to "If only a Billionaire would . . . ". As in "if only a Billionaire would build a space plane" or "if only a Billionaire would build a BFR" and lots of other "if onlys".<br /><br />To me, Mr. Musk is sending a message to the die-hard space fan: "well, I may not be a Billionaire, but I’m building a business with mere hundreds of millions that will build BFRs. Here I am, I'm that guy in all those 'if onlys'. . . well one of the guys anyway. . ."<br /><br />We cleaned up 'BFR' and shifted to 'BDB', but it was essentially the same thing. The rocket after Falcon IX will be Big and Dumb and Boost the space hardware into space that private entities need to get this space age rolling again.<br /><br />I grew weary of trying to explain what 'Dumb' meant. It was self-deprecating sarcasm - the rocket builder is 'too dumb' to spend all his time and money on cutting edge technologies and endless paperwork. Instead he just builds rockets and launches them as simply and inexpensively as possible. He is actually very clever in his selection of proven (‘dumb’) technologies, and that’s what gets the cost down.<br /><br />Happily, Elon Musk has been doing exactly that; what’s more, everything at SpaceX is focused on reliability, so the BFR can be expected to be launching about the same time as CEV. Heck, if all goes well, maybe NASA doesn’t even build the SDHLV and diverts those funds to lunar infrastructure to be launched on SpaceX’s BFR.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, if you go back in the archives of space discussion circa 1998 or no doubt earlier than that, you will find the term BFR used quite a bit, with the exact same definition.<br /><br />It was part of the almost cliched phrase, one of the alternate endings to "If only a Billionaire would . . . ". As in "if only a Billionaire would build a space plane" or "if only a Billionaire would build a BFR" and lots of other "if onlys".<br /><br />To me, Mr. Musk is sending a message to the die-hard space fan: "well, I may not be a Billionaire, but I’m building a business with mere hundreds of millions that will build BFRs. Here I am, I'm that guy in all those 'if onlys'. . . well one of the guys anyway. . ."<br /><br />We cleaned up 'BFR' and shifted to 'BDB', but it was essentially the same thing. The rocket after Falcon IX will be Big and Dumb and Boost the space hardware into space that private entities need to get this space age rolling again.<br /><br />I grew weary of trying to explain what 'Dumb' meant. It was self-deprecating sarcasm - the rocket builder is 'too dumb' to spend all his time and money on cutting edge technologies and endless paperwork. Instead he just builds rockets and launches them as simply and inexpensively as possible. He is actually very clever in his selection of proven (‘dumb’) technologies, and that’s what gets the cost down.<br /><br />Happily, Elon Musk has been doing exactly that; what’s more, everything at SpaceX is focused on reliability, so the BFR can be expected to be launching about the same time as CEV. Heck, if all goes well, maybe NASA doesn’t even build the SDHLV and diverts those funds to lunar infrastructure to be launched on SpaceX’s BFR.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">That’s wishful thinking. </font><br /><br />Of course it is! You say it like it's a <i>bad</i> thing! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />That's what the "if all goes well" and "maybe" parts were about <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />I absolutely agree that NASA cannot depend on private space to do anything. They must develop government-owned access to space. Understanding this fact of life is one of the reasons I fully support ESAS.<br /><br />BUT one of the things that drive me crazy on some major engineering projects if the failure to plan for success. Too often the focus is on avoiding failure, so when things work out well, the full benefits of success are not obtained.<br /><br />If we consider the big picture of space development as one massive engineering project, then we can consider SpaceX to be an effort to take a short cut compared to the gummint's program. What if it works better than anyone expects?<br /><br />Just think about it. What if in 2010 we find that SpaceX has a BFR on the pad? That would be a huge and unprecedented accomplishment, but what if they somehow pull it off? Would NASA be in a position to redirect the massive funding for SDHLV development to procurement of SpaceX vehicles and use the savings to do all those other things we want to do, such as Moon and Mars at the same time?<br /><br />Just because it’s Pie in the Sky doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking into consideration.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">That’s wishful thinking. </font><br /><br />Of course it is! You say it like it's a <i>bad</i> thing! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />That's what the "if all goes well" and "maybe" parts were about <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />I absolutely agree that NASA cannot depend on private space to do anything. They must develop government-owned access to space. Understanding this fact of life is one of the reasons I fully support ESAS.<br /><br />BUT one of the things that drive me crazy on some major engineering projects if the failure to plan for success. Too often the focus is on avoiding failure, so when things work out well, the full benefits of success are not obtained.<br /><br />If we consider the big picture of space development as one massive engineering project, then we can consider SpaceX to be an effort to take a short cut compared to the gummint's program. What if it works better than anyone expects?<br /><br />Just think about it. What if in 2010 we find that SpaceX has a BFR on the pad? That would be a huge and unprecedented accomplishment, but what if they somehow pull it off? Would NASA be in a position to redirect the massive funding for SDHLV development to procurement of SpaceX vehicles and use the savings to do all those other things we want to do, such as Moon and Mars at the same time?<br /><br />Just because it’s Pie in the Sky doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking into consideration.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Most of this thread has dwelled on the virtue (or lack) of SpaceX and alt.space rocketry. I would like to drag it back into a discussion of the BFR and the Merlin 2 rocket engine.<br /><br /><br /><br />Here is something interesting from the http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1 article about the Merlin 2...<br /><br />"Musk said that the Merlin 2 will be, in general, a scaled-up version of the Merlin 1. One change that SpaceX does plan, he noted, was to replace the ablative engine chamber with a regeneratively-cooled one."<br /><br />So the SpaceX plan for the BFR revolves around a conventional LOX/RP-1 pump-fed multi-engine rocket. That is really a recreation of the Saturn V concept, not a BDB. A Big Dumb Booster is a low performance rocket that compensates by increased size, such as the Truax concept of a pressure-fed booster.<br /><br />Even with the smaller and more effecient size of a Saturn style rocket, BFR size and weight would be a serious issue for transport to launch site and the launch site infrastructure. The costs of the Merlin 2 development and BFR production could be a minor part of the total costs of operation because of the transportation and infrastructure costs. Absent close co-ordination with NASA, I can't see how those issues are overcome (plus NASA's VSE is the only realistic market for the BFR).<br /><br />Going the very conventional design route with the Merlin 1, Merlin 1a and Merlin 1c, makes a lot of sense for the smaller Falcon 1 and Falcon IX rockets, but I think SpaceX has made the wrong choice with the Merlin 2. I predict the first successful private company venture which flys a Saturn class heavy lift booster will employ the cost reduction principles of the Truax Big Dumb Booster: a large pressure-fed rocket which is sea-launched.<br /><br />
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram