Musk Redux

louis · 2017-09-29 07:13:46

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/spacex-mars-bfr/

Looks like we are on "on for Mars" if Musk is to be believed.

Seems like he is skipping the slow build, and going for gold.

He must really want to visit himself!

First cargo landed in 2022 and first settlers in 2024.

Feasible?

It's fascinating to hear him speaking about using the BFR for Earth transportation. I am a bit sceptical about that. These huge rockets are very polluting. How many passengers could you get on board? Maybe 200 for a one hour flight? How much would they pay say New York to Beijing in one hour? $20,000? $4 million revenue per flight...would that make it feasible?

Last edited by louis (2017-09-29 07:14:16)

louis · 2017-09-29 07:44:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FY894HyF8

Musk's speech...

His thinking is now much clearer.

One booster and ship - replacing Falcon 9, Heavy and Dragon...all resources applied to this system.

Love the automated rendezvous, docking and fuel transfer (why has it taken so long NASA? - you had your chance). Coming round to my way of thinking! lol

Falcon Heavy has proved more difficult than thought. A lot of redesigning. But serious development of BFR can now begin.

150 tonnes to LEO with BFR. 31 raptor engines. Small delta wing on rocket on BFR now. Will help with control of propulsive landing in various cargo/atmosphere scenarios. BFR - marginal cost of launch will be cheapest of all rockets.

Will be local rocket propellant production on Mars. Will use solar power to make the propellant (sorry nuke fans!).

Propellant depot on Mars.

You don't need a booster to get from Mars to Earth...single stage all way back to Earth.

Whooo!! Starting to build the Mars ship next year !!! Should be ready to launch in five years at earliest (cargo launch).

First mission is find water and second to make propellant depot.

Large solar array.

Then will build first city on Mars. Appears like they will connect buildings with pressurised tubes.

Also looking to use BFR for fast Earth travel - 39 minute flight covering 7000 miles.

When is the UN going to start panicking about the Mars plan? Soon I reckon.

GW Johnson · 2017-09-29 09:56:36

Well, it's still the same basic idea presented in Guadalajara, just scaled down a bit, and with how-to-fund more clearly identified.

I am puzzled why a higher elliptical orbit is needed for refueling prior to a moon mission. An apogee like that runs into the Van Allen radiation belts if it exceeds 900 miles altitude.

Following the links, I see no one has the courage yet to properly translate in public the acronym BFR. That's rather funny, actually.

I see he is still holding to sending unmanned cargo versions to Mars by 2022 and manned versions by 2024. His history is that he does pretty much what he says he will do, but it takes him factor 1.5-to-2 longer than he thought it would. Even so, he would still beat NASA there, even if they do make up their minds to really go.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-29 09:57:35)

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 11:10:14

Mostly great stuff.

Just a couple of concerns....

You're still going to need to get things larger than a hatch off the top of your Shuttle. Maybe the clamshell door model can be used for landing surface cargo.

I don't think there are enough people who need to get from NYC to Shanghai in 40 minutes for that to be profitable.

Antius · 2017-09-29 12:49:15

If he can transport people from one side of the world to the other for a cost of say $50/kg, the cost of a ticket would be $5000. There could be a limited market for that - kind of like super-Concorde.

Safety would be an obvious concern. I doubt people will be prepared to risk their lives on routine rocket travel if is more than a factor 10 more risky than a plane flight. That means no more than a 1 in 100,000 chance of fatal crash.

Last edited by Antius (2017-09-29 14:50:59)

louis · 2017-09-29 13:36:37

Yes, it is funny! I was alerted to this from a radio report...where they called it the BFR with due seriousness as though it might stand for Bimodal Fusion Rocket.

I will be surprised if he makes 22 and 24...but 24 and 26? I wouldn't bet against him.

GW Johnson wrote:

Well, it's still the same basic idea presented in Guadalajara, just scaled down a bit, and with how-to-fund more clearly identified.
I am puzzled why a higher elliptical orbit is needed for refueling prior to a moon mission. An apogee like that runs into the Van Allen radiation belts if it exceeds 900 miles altitude.
Following the links, I see no one has the courage yet to properly translate in public the acronym BFR. That's rather funny, actually.
I see he is still holding to sending unmanned cargo versions to Mars by 2022 and manned versions by 2024. His history is that he does pretty much what he says he will do, but it takes him factor 1.5-to-2 longer than he thought it would. Even so, he would still beat NASA there, even if they do make up their minds to really go.
GW

louis · 2017-09-29 13:39:08

It's better than Concorde...the BFR would make a there and back in one day journey feasible and so save on hotel and similar costs.

Antius wrote:

If he can transport people from one side of the world to the other for a cost of say $50/kg, the cost of a ticket would be $5000. There could be a limited market for that - kind of like super-Concorde.

louis · 2017-09-29 13:51:39

The visual for the first city on Mars (wonder what the name will be?) looks v surface/dome orientated. Has Musk's team already been doing research on this do you think?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/spacex-mars-bfr/

Are they thinking in terms of water as a radiation barrier? Or have they got something up their sleeve, like a local electro-magnetic barrier. I would expect there to be more regolith barrier.

But perhaps it's just an "artist's impression" and shouldn't be taken too seriously at this stage.

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 14:13:54

GW Johnson wrote:

Following the links, I see no one has the courage yet to properly translate in public the acronym BFR. That's rather funny, actually.
...
GW

Is it not a Big Fabulous Rocket?

Antius · 2017-09-29 15:05:44

louis wrote:

The visual for the first city on Mars (wonder what the name will be?) looks v surface/dome orientated. Has Musk's team already been doing research on this do you think?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/spacex-mars-bfr/
Are they thinking in terms of water as a radiation barrier? Or have they got something up their sleeve, like a local electro-magnetic barrier. I would expect there to be more regolith barrier.
But perhaps it's just an "artist's impression" and shouldn't be taken too seriously at this stage.

I am guessing that this picture was produced for publicity purposes. On a planet where background radiation is 15 rem per year, average temperature is -60C and air pressure is 1% of Earth's, it would be crazy not to build inhabited structures underground. Solar panels, greenhouses and airlocks are exceptions of course.

louis · 2017-09-29 17:01:13

Well, yes that's my view and I thought perhaps Musk was developing his boring technology (yet another area of innovation) on Earth with a view to deploying it on Mars.

Antius wrote:

louis wrote:
The visual for the first city on Mars (wonder what the name will be?) looks v surface/dome orientated. Has Musk's team already been doing research on this do you think?
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/spacex-mars-bfr/
Are they thinking in terms of water as a radiation barrier? Or have they got something up their sleeve, like a local electro-magnetic barrier. I would expect there to be more regolith barrier.
But perhaps it's just an "artist's impression" and shouldn't be taken too seriously at this stage.
I am guessing that this picture was produced for publicity purposes. On a planet where background radiation is 15 rem per year, average temperature is -60C and air pressure is 1% of Earth's, it would be crazy not to build inhabited structures underground. Solar panels, greenhouses and airlocks are exceptions of course.

louis · 2017-09-29 17:07:16

Unusually our premier news analysis programme in the UK, BBC's Newsnight, devoted its first story to Musk's plans for Mars - a sign that people are beginning to take his vision seriously.

I thought however a lot of the commentators were very negative in their appraisal of his vision.

It seems to me that the basics of the Mars plan are already in place: the rocket engines, the big fuel tank, propulsive landing...and others like automated docking and refuelling cannot be that complex. Yes, there might be failures and setbacks along the way but I think Musk's plan is very plausible technically.

The issue for me is more whether he has thought through how to develop a settlement in terms of the humans going to settle Mars (who are they? where are they coming from? have they been vetted? what skills will they have? will they have the resilience to cope with Mars conditions? etc etc).

I though some of the comments on the technical feasibility of his plans were patronising, giving the guy's huge achievements already.

Last edited by louis (2017-09-29 17:08:00)

RobertDyck · 2017-09-29 18:24:03

Making Life Multiplanetary

BFR | Earth to Earth

SpaceNut · 2017-09-29 19:37:38

While I think the shift from trying to do the triple core is a good thing as it will allow for a fresh design to do the job of heavy lift to orbit.

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 21:52:57

I was looking at the numbers for the Suborbital Airline business, and I’m not sure that it's all that crazy.

Last year he cited a fuel cost of $168/ton. Assuming the booster scales at 75% of last years number of 6700 tons propellant to 5025 tons, and using this years number of 1100 ton for the Spaceliner, that’s a total of 6125 tons, for a cost of about a $1.03m of fuel per launch.

For the space frames, last years cost of the booster was quoted at $230m, and the Spaceliner $200m. I consider that number reasonable this year, despite the fact that the stack is 75% of the size, because space. I would imagine that an Earthbound Spaceliner could be considerably cheaper though, simply because you don’t need all the Mars related stuff.

If you can fit 100 people on that Shuttle for a 3 month trip to Mars, you can fit at least 300 people on it with just the seats needed for a suborbital hop.

Maintenance costs per flight on the booster where estimated last year to be $200k per flight average, and the booster was rated for for a 1000 flights. Maintanance on the Shuttlecraft, designed for a 2+ year round trip to Mars, was estimated at $10m per trip. My guess is that an Spaceliner model would match the booster at $200k per flight average for 1000 flights, again, because it's not going to Mars.

So, for the stack, we can assume a maintenance cost of $500k/flight ($250k for the booster and $250k for the Liner). Include another $500m for the construction of the stack (a new 747-8 goes for around $400m), divided by a 1000 flights, for a construction cost of $500k per flight, and fuel cost of $1m per flight, your break even cost per seat is...

$500k Build Cost + $500k Maintenance + $1m Fuel = $2m/300 seats = $6666.67 per seat. One way. Google tells me that an average round trip on a Concorde cost $12k a seat.

Noted, that this doesn’t include the cost of your offshore launch facilities. The average cost of an off shore oil rig is over $500m. That cost per flight is negligible. Same for the ship getting you there.

There isn’t a whole lot of details of that fuel cost number. Depending on how it is produced that number could change. If produced on site, with nuclear power, everything you need, except the Thorium, is right there. It could be considerably cheaper.

Also, Elon stated that the Shuttlecraft has a volume equal to that of an A380, which regularly flies with over 500 passengers, and is rated for 800. People won’t need a lot of room over that time span, and at those G-forces. With 800 people, the price drops to $2500 one way.

I think the biggest issues here is finding enough international passengers that really need to go that fast.

Last edited by Excelsior (2017-09-29 22:03:00)

louis · 2017-09-30 04:16:19

Thanks Excelsior - very helpful costings.

I think there are quite a lot of business and other people who would really like to be able to do a round day trip across the globe. There is an opportunity cost saving if a business person can do a round trip - avoiding hotel costs, dead time, airport queuing time, and jet lag. The savings are going to be at least $2000 in value I would think for a major journey.

To make the service viable you probably only need say 5000 passengers a day. There are a lot of rich people as well who will pay to see dying parents or attend other serious family crises...so you can factor them in as well. Out of 7 billion people on the planet, I think enough could be found to pay for 5000 a day. The thing with Concorde was that when you factored in commuting time to the airport and airport procedures, the time advantage was probably only about 30% over normal air transport. The BFR could be more like 90%- 95% faster and offer that crucial one day round trip opportunity.

Some problems: Space X videos never give you a real understanding of the noise levels of a BFR. It will be like a local earthquake and the amount of local pollution would be significant. How close could get the spaceport to a major city? You aren't going to be able to land on a platform in the harbour! And weather at sea is a often a limiting factor, Actually if you married BFR to hyperloop (and Musk's boring technology), then you might well have the perfect answer for getting people from one city centre to another.

I don't think inflight meal service is an issue for such short flights. Presumably people could be given energy drinks, to keep up their energy levels in flight. Toilets would be more of an issue I would think. Not sure how you resolve that apart from issuing nappies/diapers to everyone!

Excelsior wrote:

I was looking at the numbers for the Suborbital Airline business, and I’m not sure that it's all that crazy.
Last year he cited a fuel cost of $168/ton. Assuming the booster scales at 75% of last years number of 6700 tons propellant to 5025 tons, and using this years number of 1100 ton for the Spaceliner, that’s a total of 6125 tons, for a cost of about a $1.03m of fuel per launch.
For the space frames, last years cost of the booster was quoted at $230m, and the Spaceliner $200m. I consider that number reasonable this year, despite the fact that the stack is 75% of the size, because space. I would imagine that an Earthbound Spaceliner could be considerably cheaper though, simply because you don’t need all the Mars related stuff.
If you can fit 100 people on that Shuttle for a 3 month trip to Mars, you can fit at least 300 people on it with just the seats needed for a suborbital hop.
Maintenance costs per flight on the booster where estimated last year to be $200k per flight average, and the booster was rated for for a 1000 flights. Maintanance on the Shuttlecraft, designed for a 2+ year round trip to Mars, was estimated at $10m per trip. My guess is that an Spaceliner model would match the booster at $200k per flight average for 1000 flights, again, because it's not going to Mars.
So, for the stack, we can assume a maintenance cost of $500k/flight ($250k for the booster and $250k for the Liner). Include another $500m for the construction of the stack (a new 747-8 goes for around $400m), divided by a 1000 flights, for a construction cost of $500k per flight, and fuel cost of $1m per flight, your break even cost per seat is...
$500k Build Cost + $500k Maintenance + $1m Fuel = $2m/300 seats = $6666.67 per seat. One way. Google tells me that an average round trip on a Concorde cost $12k a seat.
Noted, that this doesn’t include the cost of your offshore launch facilities. The average cost of an off shore oil rig is over $500m. That cost per flight is negligible. Same for the ship getting you there.
There isn’t a whole lot of details of that fuel cost number. Depending on how it is produced that number could change. If produced on site, with nuclear power, everything you need, except the Thorium, is right there. It could be considerably cheaper.
Also, Elon stated that the Shuttlecraft has a volume equal to that of an A380, which regularly flies with over 500 passengers, and is rated for 800. People won’t need a lot of room over that time span, and at those G-forces. With 800 people, the price drops to $2500 one way.
I think the biggest issues here is finding enough international passengers that really need to go that fast.

RobertDyck · 2017-09-30 09:06:04

This guy estimates the actual cost per passenger for the Staten Island ferry is $4.86/trip. That's cost, not fair. The website for the ferry bundles cost with a multi-hour tour. I'm Canadian so the BC ferry from Vancouver city to Victoria on Vancouver Island is $17.20 in Canadian dollars, one way per adult passenger. For children age 8 to 11 it's C$8.60.

Air fair from New York (JFK airport) to London England (all airports), selecting departure October 9, return October 12. That is departure is more than 14 days in advance, and it's a Monday. Return is Thursday, meaning not Friday and not over a weekend. That should minimize air fair. Cost quoted by Expedia start at C$853.13 for return trip, 1 adult. There is a discount if hotel is booked at the same time. Those flights have one stop. The cheapest air fair for non-stop is C$3,217.34, goes up to C$3,912.00. For some reason the most expensive ticket is C$8,699.27; same airline, same airports, same length of flight. The more expensive one is business class on an Airbus A318 instead of economy class on a Boeing 747-400.

That most expensive ticket, using Google foreign exchange calculator, works out to US$6,976.44. If Excelcior's calculations are correct, then ticket prices for the rocket are in range of current air fair. Does that cost include profit? What if the rocket is only half full (passengers)?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-09-30 09:06:43)

louis · 2017-09-30 12:13:55

Concorde was doing good business towards the end of its life as a novelty flight that people used to celebrate their birthday and other special occasions. I can see a market for that via the BFR.

RobertDyck wrote:

This guy estimates the actual cost per passenger for the Staten Island ferry is $4.86/trip. That's cost, not fair. The website for the ferry bundles cost with a multi-hour tour. I'm Canadian so the BC ferry from Vancouver city to Victoria on Vancouver Island is $17.20 in Canadian dollars, one way per adult passenger. For children age 8 to 11 it's C$8.60.
Air fair from New York (JFK airport) to London England (all airports), selecting departure October 9, return October 12. That is departure is more than 14 days in advance, and it's a Monday. Return is Thursday, meaning not Friday and not over a weekend. That should minimize air fair. Cost quoted by Expedia start at C$853.13 for return trip, 1 adult. There is a discount if hotel is booked at the same time. Those flights have one stop. The cheapest air fair for non-stop is C$3,217.34, goes up to C$3,912.00. For some reason the most expensive ticket is C$8,699.27; same airline, same airports, same length of flight. The more expensive one is business class on an Airbus A318 instead of economy class on a Boeing 747-400.
That most expensive ticket, using Google foreign exchange calculator, works out to US$6,976.44. If Excelcior's calculations are correct, then ticket prices for the rocket are in range of current air fair. Does that cost include profit? What if the rocket is only half full (passengers)?

SpaceNut · 2017-09-30 15:47:44

With a price tag under $10,000 for a one way trip sub orbital as a novelty even the not so rich can afford to go there depending on location that this is setup to do.

elderflower · 2017-10-04 03:12:31

What about Rocket Lag.? Would that be worse than the present jet lag which a lot of folks find quite devastating?

louis · 2017-10-04 04:22:32

The lag refers to time doesn't it? You don't get jet lag travelling due north or south, although you might feel tired after a long journey. Well that's my understanding.

I think the issue here would surely be G force. You'd probably have to get some kind of special card allowing you to fly on the BFR, showing you were medically fit for the demanding journey. Of course a lot of CEO type people are often extremely fit and resilient - they work out down the gym regularly and have high energy levels already. That might be an attractive selling point - demonstrating you are a really fit Alpha type who can cope with the G forces. I suspect most of them could cope quite well with the experience. Then, if the BFR can land reasonably close to city centres - the connecting journey times might be shorter, so overall, you'll arrive in a perkier state, disregarding the jetlag time effect.

elderflower wrote:

What about Rocket Lag.? Would that be worse than the present jet lag which a lot of folks find quite devastating?

elderflower · 2017-10-04 04:30:43

You are right. Jet lag doesn't seem to occur flying from London to Jo'burg. However most busy longhaul routes have a lot of Easting or Westing and these are the routes that Musk will need to target if he is to get the required number of passengers on board.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-09-29 07:13:46

Musk Redux

#2 2017-09-29 07:44:53

Re: Musk Redux

#3 2017-09-29 09:56:36

Re: Musk Redux

#4 2017-09-29 11:10:14

Re: Musk Redux

#5 2017-09-29 12:49:15

Re: Musk Redux

#6 2017-09-29 13:36:37

Re: Musk Redux

#7 2017-09-29 13:39:08

Re: Musk Redux

#8 2017-09-29 13:51:39

Re: Musk Redux

#9 2017-09-29 14:13:54

Re: Musk Redux

#10 2017-09-29 15:05:44

Re: Musk Redux

#11 2017-09-29 17:01:13

Re: Musk Redux

#12 2017-09-29 17:07:16

Re: Musk Redux

#13 2017-09-29 18:24:03

Re: Musk Redux

#14 2017-09-29 19:37:38

Re: Musk Redux

#15 2017-09-29 21:52:57

Re: Musk Redux

#16 2017-09-30 04:16:19

Re: Musk Redux

#17 2017-09-30 09:06:04

Re: Musk Redux

#18 2017-09-30 12:13:55

Re: Musk Redux

#19 2017-09-30 15:47:44

Re: Musk Redux

#20 2017-10-04 03:12:31

Re: Musk Redux

#21 2017-10-04 04:22:32

Re: Musk Redux

#22 2017-10-04 04:30:43

Re: Musk Redux

Board footer