• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Space X Announces BFR - Travel anywhere on earth in under an hour - Mars in 2022

M

mcfrank

Member
mars-city-still.jpg


bfr-comparison.jpg


moon-base-alpha.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-travel-earth/


"The BFR (yes, it stands for what you think it stands for) is SpaceX's next rocket after the Falcon Heavy that Musk said the company hopes will launch by the end of this year. Unlike all of its previous rockets, this one will be fully reusable, and capable of refueling in space, which is key for his plans to do things like resupply the ISS, land on the moon, and start sending missions to Mars by 2022.With refueling in space, the BFR can make trips to the Moon's surface without needing any fuel production there, enabling the creation of "Moon Base Alpha."

Overall, the concept is smaller and uses fewer engines than the Interplanetary Transport System Musk described last year, with added flexibility that makes it suitable for more tasks. The new BFR is 106 meters tall with a 9-meter diameter, down from the 122-meter height and 17-meter diameter described last year. The booster rocket uses 31 Raptor engines (down from 42), and there are six Raptor engines on the spacecraft itself (down from nine). Those changes also make it cheaper, which helps answer the other question left open from last year -- how would SpaceX pay for this? The master plan is to build up enough of the company's previous rockets to store a backlog, then turn its capabilities fully to the BFR and only build one rocket for all applications."


So glad to have someone like Elon around to push things like this forward.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Soapbox Killer said:
Seems like overkill to be honest but that might be the old man in me.
Click to expand...

That's sort of the point, almost. To have one ship that can do everything, from hopping around earth to interplanetary travel. The key thing here - and what separates it from basically all the other rockets ever made - is that because it's 100% reusable (with the exception of the fuel, naturally) you can use a massive rocket for relatively modest tasks and it still be very cheap because you're not throwing any of it away. The example Elon gave during the presentation was that chartering a 747 is much, much cheaper than buying and then throwing away a single-engine turbo prop plane, despite it be far more capable, because all you're paying for is the fuel and a small slice of the total cost of the plane.

By having a single rocket that does everything, their manufacturing process is necessarily much simpler.
 
Alx

Alx

Member
That's great for Mars. But on Earth, we should rather focus on removing the need to move around the globe at a huge energy cost.
Anyway, I suppose it will only interest a handful of rich people that will be used as guinea pigs for the Mars program.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Alx said:
That's great for Mars. But on Earth, we should rather focus on removing the need to move around the globe at a huge energy cost.
Anyway, I suppose it will only interest a handful of rich people that will be used as guinea pigs for the Mars program.
Click to expand...

Stop posting on the internet and go cure cancer.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Alx said:
That's great for Mars. But on Earth, we should rather focus on removing the need to move around the globe at a huge energy cost.
Anyway, I suppose it will only interest a handful of rich people that will be used as guinea pigs for the Mars program.
Click to expand...

It's entirely conceivable that this could be carbon neutral and powered entirely by renewable energy - that's what it'll be doing on Mars, for example.
 
F

FreezeSSC

Member
No way I could get on that thing, I'd die of anxiety. Does it land like their other rockets, straight vertical? That landing would kill me.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
FreezeSSC said:
No way I could get on that thing, I'd die of anxiety. Does it land like their other rockets, straight vertical? That landing would kill me.
Click to expand...

Yes. Due to the enormous size and relatively low payload size of a bunch of humans, it's very likely that they could reduce the G-force you'd feel dramatically compared to what they do for the boosters (for which there's no benefit to making "comfortable" below a certain level, and getting down fast is the most efficient way). They could likely do a low and slow burn to gradually reduce the speed (in the same way an aeroplane does).
 
W

Window

Member
What kind of G's will passengers have to endure during acceleration? I'm curious if they can keep this a reasonably comfortable experience.
 
T

Turin Turambar

Member
mcfrank said:
Elon says same as a plane ticket. I would not believe that.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Don't the rockets cost several millions per use? And those are the smaller ones, this is supposed to be a much bigger rocket.


From the wiki

Elon Musk stated, "long term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. [...] Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound ($1100/kg) [of payload delivered to orbit] or less is very achievable."[127] At its 2016 launch price and at full LEO payload capacity, the Falcon 9 FT cost $1,233 per pound ($2,719/kg) for the expendable version. In comparison, at full GTO payload capacity, the Falcon 9 FT cost $3,390 per pound ($7,470/kg) for the expendable version and $5,113 per pound ($11,273/kg) for the 1st launch of the reusable version.
Click to expand...

Prices can be cheaper because it will have to go to a very low orbit, but still...
 
C

Crispy75

Member
Turin Turambar said:
LOL.

Don't the rockets cost several millions per use? And those are the smaller ones, this is supposed to be a much bigger rocket.


From the wiki



Prices can be cheaper because it will have to go to a very low orbit, but still...
Click to expand...
They're expensive because they get thrown away each time. Design for reuse and you only pay for fuel and maintenance.

Shuttle was going to be like that, but the design was horribly compromised. We've learned a lot since then.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Turin Turambar said:
LOL.

Don't the rockets cost several millions per use? And those are the smaller ones, this is supposed to be a much bigger rocket.
Click to expand...

Typical rocket launches cost anywhere from $20m ---> $200m to actually launch. The cost to the customer, whoever that is, will likely be more if it's being launched by a private company.

However that's because, until SpaceX came along, they threw the whole rocket away with every launch. So that $20-$200m is lost in the ether. Imagine you threw away a Boeing 747 every time you flew it - flights would be extraordinarily expensive (and, in fact, we'd likely have never invented a 747 as a result). What SpaceX have done with the Falcon 9 is make the First Stage of the rocket land and then re-use it. This is the most expensive part of the rocket, but there's still a lot of it that gets thrown away.

The plan with this new one is that literally all of it is reusable. It all comes back down to earth in a way that means it can be used again - in theory very quickly (unlike the Space Shuttle, which took months and months to refurbish, effectively requiring it to be taken apart and re-assembled every time it came back). So the model then becomes a lot more like an aeroplane than a typical rocket. The fact, then, that the rocket's very large doesn't increase its costs by as much as you'd think, because again, the only thing you're not getting back is the fuel (though even that's not totally true - this rocket uses a Methane and Oxygen mix, not Kerolox or traditional rocket fuel. As such, with enough energy - say, from solar panels that Musk also makes a lot of - you can actually capture the Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen out of the atmosphere before spraying it back out the back of the rocket. In this sense, it's carbon neutral and potentially created using 100% renewable energy).

So I dunno if Musk's anticipated cost is accurate, but you have to think about it more like a plane than like other rockets. Also bear in mind that most of the big rocket manufacturers are, finally, catching up to the idea of reusing elements. This means that, in the "rockets-as-planes" world, we're barely at the Spirit of St Louis level, let along the DeHaviland Comet or Boeing 787 stage. SpaceX are absolutely blazing this trail, but it won't be too long before we have Blue Origin, Orbital ATK, ULA, Arianne etc all with their own "rockets-as-planes". It's an exciting time to be a massive rocket geek!
 
L

LeleSocho

Banned
Call me when they equip the BFR with a BFG.

In all seriousness though i'm amazed by how this guy is pushing things forward just because he wanted to... even if he misses all of his targets by 10 years (which is how i treat everything he says in order to unhype myself) they will be insanely closer than what we thought were a mere decade ago.
Who knows where would we be if he started doing his thing earlier in his life with the same resources.
 
J

johancruijff

Banned
one thing i don't get

where will be located the BFRports? i guess not near cities

imagine flying across the world in half an hour and then remain stuck in traffic for x hours

dope stuff nonetheless
 
C

Crispy75

Member
Worth noting that SpaceX made its first succesful orbit just 9 years ago.

There is no way the ports will be that close to the cities they serve. These things will be Capital-Loud LOUD on takeoff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
4K
ManaByte replied
SpaceX will try to launch most powerful rocket ever Monday
2 3 4 5
217
13K
Tams replied
Starlink missed 2022 revenue projections by $11 billion
Business
43
3K
WhamBamThankYouMaam replied
NASA makes oxygen on Mars using a toaster-size device
39
3K
Torrent of Pork replied
Scientist Predicted 'Elon' Would Lead Humans On Mars Back In 1948
37
4K
Bernd Lauert replied
Top Bottom