Cost estimates for the BFR

kbd512 · 2018-03-20 13:32:27

Oldfart1939,

The safety considerations have been central design requirements for Dragon and Starliner because of the pain from the Space Shuttle losses. I view this as a good thing. All subsequent vehicles flown should be a cut above 1970's era design standards, with good reason.

BFR could be transported from LA to Boca Chica Village via the Panama Canal using the Pegasus barge. The barge can accommodate BFR's external dimensions. NASA could loan the barge to SpaceX when it's not in use.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-20 14:50:00

KBD512-

We discussed some of these "safety issues" last evening at the RMMS meeting. One of the topics was the hypocrisy of NASA, since they are now considering making the second flight of SLS, the EM-2 version, one which will be man rated. This past year, there were 18 successful Falcon 9 launches with near perfect results. There were many first stage recoveries included in that tally, and the only "failure" was losing the central core of FH on it's first test flight.

For those here, RMMS = Rocky Mountain chapter of Mars Society.

OK, that said; I am also high on mission safety. I'm also a Private Pilot. One of the best ways to avoid being involved in a flying accident is to stay home in bed. The boys at NASA are being overly cautious w/r to these private entrepreneurs. They are also deeply concerned with safety--not just from the safety issue but their reputations worldwide.

louis · 2018-03-20 15:09:06

Re 2 and Dragon 2, it depends on what you mean by fly...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

Last edited by louis (2018-03-20 15:09:21)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-20 17:31:52

By definition, manned vehicles generally "fly." Unmanned are normally "launched."

SpaceNut · 2018-03-20 18:10:27

I was reading an article that meantioned the MCT as being a 3 engine methane fueled /lox core of 10 meter diameter with that headed towards a triple heavy beast as well....if I find that link I will post....

louis · 2018-03-20 18:38:32

Not sure if Shotwell's comments had been picked up:

"Speaking on a launch industry round-table at the Satellite 2018 conference, SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell revealed that the company intends to conduct the first orbital launches of BFR as early as 2020, with suborbital spaceship tests beginning in the first half of 2019."

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-ma … rbit-2020/

Adds some clarity...so some "hops" in first half of 2019 and full orbital in 2020 is the projection.

Where the first prototype is being built remains unclear. The new LA port site seems unlikely.

kbd512 · 2018-03-20 18:53:36

Oldfart1939,

I'm not here to tell NASA or SpaceX their business. If it's my rear end in the seat, then we're doing thorough pre-flight testing first. I bet the people whose rear ends will be in those seats all feel the same way. It's easy to talk when it's not your rear end, money, and reputation on the line. A little extra caution never hurt anyone. These are all brand new capsule systems. Pretending we know things we don't is what lead to the Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia disasters. Both NASA and SpaceX seem to feel the same way about this. Elon Musk said testing was progressing on schedule and they were learning a lot about man rating a launch vehicle and capsule system. Those are good things.

The Russians aren't rushing the development of their new capsule system, either. We need not rush into things that have no time table attached to them. Those capsule systems will be ready when they're ready. Who are we racing against, anyway? Does another country have a heavy lift launch vehicle in operation that we should know about? Last I checked, we already have Falcon Heavy. We'll have New Glenn, Vulcan, and SLS in the next few years. I think we have the lift vehicles and capsule systems covered.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-20 19:14:18

Plus we can adapt the ISS modules to all of this if the Russians do pull out, and those modules can be bought from ATK or aquired from the same source the Italian manufacturer. Dragon can still keep hauling cargo for cheap while setting the stage for the future.
So now where are the propulsion stages and landers for the destinations of choice.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-20 20:33:38

Crystal ball or not the Apollo and all past mission to present have all the data that is needed to say what will happen in space when the protection is not enough.

Space Radiation Is Becoming More Dangerous for Astronauts

NASA should update its radiation guidelines for astronauts, new research recommends, because there is now more accurate data about how space affects the human body.
Nathan Schwadron is a physics professor at the University of New Hampshire and lead author of a new study in the journal Space Radiation. Using an instrument on NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter called CRaTER, his team found that rates of a certain kind of radiation in space are even higher than they previously predicted. This could pose a possible health risk for future voyages to the moon or Mars.
In recognition of the increased risk, Schwadron and several other radiation experts are working with NASA and other space agencies to revise radiation standards.
The European Space Agency allows its astronauts a lifetime maximum of 1 sievert of radiation, which is associated with a five percent increase in lifetime fatal cancer risk. NASA's guidelines are stricter, limiting astronauts to a three percent increase in cancer risk. By comparison, measurements from the Mars Curiosity rover in 2013 suggest an 860-day trip to Mars (including 500 days on the surface) would subject individual astronauts to dosages of 1.01 sieverts.

On another note 7 Foods That Are Banned from Space

1. Crumbs—from bread, crackers, cookies, etc
2. carbonation without gravity—warm, flat
3. Small particles of salt, pepper, or other seasonings would simply float, rather than land on food.
4. fresh milk, only the dehydrated kind
5. real stuff can't make the trek to outer space—there are no freezers—but freeze-dried astronaut ice cream can
6. banned from space, pizza isn't on astronauts' most requested foods list. 'You can't get a crispy crust,' 'It's always soggy or chewy.
7. alcohol (Paul Masson Rare Cream Sherry, to be specific) was on the menu for Skylab 4 when the public got wind of the plan, many sent angry letters to NASA

kbd512 · 2018-03-20 20:52:30

SpaceNut,

The cancer risk evaluation system is based on flawed notional suppositions of what would increase the risk of cancer, not sound scientific evidence backing the idea. That said, solar radiation is lethal at dose rates associated with SPE's.

NASA needs to give up on using BNNT as a structural material for the time being and use it as a non-structural liner instead. It's the best material we have available for radiation mitigation, by mass, and it's proven to effectively stop radiation. Failing that, PE foam is the next best shielding material and proven in space flight. Between the liner and a water wall, the protection afforded will have to suffice. An inflatable habitat with limited use of metallic components and a core section with a BNNT wrapped PE water tank is going to be as good as it gets for now. Active mitigation solutions can be tested now and employed later, when ready for prime time.

louis · 2018-03-21 01:53:36

For me the race is to get a community established on Mars that adheres to liberal, democratic values and not totalitarian ones. It's also a personal race as I'd like to humans on Mars before I die - as reasonable a wish as any other human wish ( I think it also motivates Musk).

A lot of safety comes down to free communication and common sense. Both Space Shuttle disasters were foreseeable and indeed specific warnings were issued about the O Rings (owing to freezing conditions) before the launch.

The Russians are ploughing so much of their diminishing resources into their military that I doubt they have a lot left over for space exploration. This suggests their space budget has been cut by 30%.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03 … xt-decade/

kbd512 wrote:

Oldfart1939,
I'm not here to tell NASA or SpaceX their business. If it's my rear end in the seat, then we're doing thorough pre-flight testing first. I bet the people whose rear ends will be in those seats all feel the same way. It's easy to talk when it's not your rear end, money, and reputation on the line. A little extra caution never hurt anyone. These are all brand new capsule systems. Pretending we know things we don't is what lead to the Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia disasters. Both NASA and SpaceX seem to feel the same way about this. Elon Musk said testing was progressing on schedule and they were learning a lot about man rating a launch vehicle and capsule system. Those are good things.
The Russians aren't rushing the development of their new capsule system, either. We need not rush into things that have no time table attached to them. Those capsule systems will be ready when they're ready. Who are we racing against, anyway? Does another country have a heavy lift launch vehicle in operation that we should know about? Last I checked, we already have Falcon Heavy. We'll have New Glenn, Vulcan, and SLS in the next few years. I think we have the lift vehicles and capsule systems covered.

kbd512 · 2018-03-21 08:44:04

Louis,

I hate to break this to you, but an outpost on another planet won't be ruled with liberal democratic values for quite some time. It'll be treated like a military command with a decidedly undemocratic chain of command. Everyone who goes there will be severely restricted in what they can say and do because the survival of everyone living there greatly depends upon enforced cooperation and rigid adherence to clearly defined orders coming from a clearly defined command structure. Astronauts get permission from their chain of command to execute activities and then they carry out those activities in the manner in which they were trained using guidance from mission control. They do freely communicate with each other, but if the mission commander tells a space walker to come back to the airlock in 5 minutes, then that person is coming back to the airlock in 5 minutes or they won't be performing any space walks after that.

When I was in the US Navy, I can think of just a handful of occasions where I was given direct orders. The rest of the time, I was merely asked to do things. It was implicitly understood that the requests were direct orders, albeit in a more polite manner. Failing to obey those orders, whether communicated as orders or merely as requests, would be considered a failure to obey. Either way, failing to obey orders wasn't tolerated at all or ever.

I often wonder if other people truly understand the definition of words they use.

Liberalism is the connotation of holding tolerant values. Democracy is, quite literally, "rule of the people". If everyone else decides that they're eating you for dinner, then how tolerant such a society is likely to be? That's why the US is a constitutional republic (and an imperfect one at that). The rule of the people can be decidedly intolerant in nature. All of human history demonstrates this. All governments, especially those claiming to be true democracies, are very much totalitarian in nature. If you think that's not true, then you're either thinking of a place that doesn't exist where humans are involved, like the mythical "utopia" for example, or you're grossly ignorant of human behavior.

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-21 10:26:42

I'm certain the first base on Mars will be structured in a military-style chain of command. Mainly because somebody has to be in charge of things, and emergency situations can devolve into utter chaos absent command structure. As kbd512 has said above, most orders are masked as "requests," such as saying "Private Sixpack, would you see that this floor is mopped?" If poor Sixpack say he's busy doing XXX, then Sergeant Blowfart might tell him to stop what he's doing and mop the floor. On the other hand, if Sixpack is doing something essential that could not be done later, then the Sergeant finds some other schmuck to be "requested" to get the floor mopped. Humans are not automatons, and generally respond well to this casual appearing manner of giving and receiving ORDERS. But ORDERS they are. In the early missions, the fine line between success and failure, life and death, is too important and essential that a casual Democracy will probably get all involved killed.

Even as the base/research station/colony grows, there will definitely be a structure at the top to make sure that the survival of all is carefully watched over.

louis · 2018-03-21 13:40:05

Liberal democracies have chains of command as well. That's not the issue. In a liberal democracy you have opportunities to remove leaders, unlike in a totalitarian or authoritarian society - that is a difference.

Totalitarian government lays claim to the whole or nearly the whole of the individual - not just paying their taxes and observing standard laws but also requiring their political support or acquiescence, how they spend their non-work time and their adherence to a narrow range of behaviours. People have no effective legal or property rights under totalitarianism.

You do realise the Einstein quote is in support of liberal democracy? It's along the lines of Churchill's "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

Obviously the first few missions to Mars will be so small that making arrangements for democratic governance may not be a top priority. But the issue of governance is going to rise at some point, and certainly once you move into an era of permanent settlement.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I hate to break this to you, but an outpost on another planet won't be ruled with liberal democratic values for quite some time. It'll be treated like a military command with a decidedly undemocratic chain of command. Everyone who goes there will be severely restricted in what they can say and do because the survival of everyone living there greatly depends upon enforced cooperation and rigid adherence to clearly defined orders coming from a clearly defined command structure. Astronauts get permission from their chain of command to execute activities and then they carry out those activities in the manner in which they were trained using guidance from mission control. They do freely communicate with each other, but if the mission commander tells a space walker to come back to the airlock in 5 minutes, then that person is coming back to the airlock in 5 minutes or they won't be performing any space walks after that.
When I was in the US Navy, I can think of just a handful of occasions where I was given direct orders. The rest of the time, I was merely asked to do things. It was implicitly understood that the requests were direct orders, albeit in a more polite manner. Failing to obey those orders, whether communicated as orders or merely as requests, would be considered a failure to obey. Either way, failing to obey orders wasn't tolerated at all or ever.
I often wonder if other people truly understand the definition of words they use.
Liberalism is the connotation of holding tolerant values. Democracy is, quite literally, "rule of the people". If everyone else decides that they're eating you for dinner, then how tolerant such a society is likely to be? That's why the US is a constitutional republic (and an imperfect one at that). The rule of the people can be decidedly intolerant in nature. All of human history demonstrates this. All governments, especially those claiming to be true democracies, are very much totalitarian in nature. If you think that's not true, then you're either thinking of a place that doesn't exist where humans are involved, like the mythical "utopia" for example, or you're grossly ignorant of human behavior.
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein

kbd512 · 2018-03-21 14:43:37

Louis,

No matter what form of government has existed, humanity has historically removed undesirable leadership. With respect to what Einstein stated, I'm not quite sure that was the meaning of the first sentence in his quote. For democracies to function in a non-destructive fashion, an educated and cooperative electorate must exist and the tyranny of the majority can't be used to oppress the few.

When permanent settlements exist on Mars, there's no reason not to expect the entire spectrum of human governance models to arise. There's little need to concern ourselves with the affairs of men. They'll do what they've always done. The colonists will have a hard enough time staying alive to concern themselves with killing their fellow Martians, although some inevitably will. I think even Einstein would agree with that assessment of what "will be".

Terraformer · 2018-03-21 15:40:10

Can you imagine the elected leadership of Flint, Michigan managing a space colony? Yes, louis, I know that only the top 5-10% of the intelligence distribution will be going to Mars, and even with reversion to the mean, their descendants will be above average. Still, Mars is a harsh general, and humans are prone to short termism...

louis · 2018-03-21 16:51:49

The primary goal is to make Mars a New Earth.

The secondary goal is to make it a Better Earth.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
No matter what form of government has existed, humanity has historically removed undesirable leadership. With respect to what Einstein stated, I'm not quite sure that was the meaning of the first sentence in his quote. For democracies to function in a non-destructive fashion, an educated and cooperative electorate must exist and the tyranny of the majority can't be used to oppress the few.
When permanent settlements exist on Mars, there's no reason not to expect the entire spectrum of human governance models to arise. There's little need to concern ourselves with the affairs of men. They'll do what they've always done. The colonists will have a hard enough time staying alive to concern themselves with killing their fellow Martians, although some inevitably will. I think even Einstein would agree with that assessment of what "will be".

SpaceNut · 2018-03-21 19:14:12

Lofty goals just like one small step and one small step for man kind.....That said we could do the same for the bottom of the oceans, the depths of the moon ect....but the reallity is science and then probably decades to when we will go back for that next step.....

kbd512 · 2018-03-21 23:46:55

Louis,

Agreed. On Mars, we should endeavor not to repeat past mistakes made on Earth. That said, I have a feeling that humanity will still be humanity. Call it a hunch.

louis · 2018-03-22 05:06:55

Perhaps but once we are bioengineered computer interfacing cyborgs? (which seems to be the path we are rushing along?) - maybe save that discussion for another time.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Agreed. On Mars, we should endeavor not to repeat past mistakes made on Earth. That said, I have a feeling that humanity will still be humanity. Call it a hunch.

kbd512 · 2018-03-22 18:47:30

Louis,

I think a lot of this stuff you want to see happen is going to take some time. That said, give it some time and eventually it will happen.

louis · 2018-03-22 19:32:32

Just for the record:

The idea of humans voluntarily turning themselves into bioengineered computer-interfacing cyborgs I find completely repugnant and will personally fight against with every fibre of my being.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I think a lot of this stuff you want to see happen is going to take some time. That said, give it some time and eventually it will happen.

Terraformer · 2018-03-23 04:39:43

You would rather it be involuntary?

louis · 2018-03-23 06:51:52

It could happen involuntarily but it is much more likely to happen voluntarily because people see apparent benefits along the path.

Terraformer wrote:

You would rather it be involuntary?

SpaceNut · 2018-03-25 14:31:01

BBKe7b5.img?h=464&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=498&y=346

The 7% change is still not documented to what genes are altered or to what they may do for a persons future of having children or of Disease that are the chronic eventual outcome from exposure....

5 Serious Health Conditions That Can Be Passed Down Through Your Genes

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2018-03-20 13:32:27

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#27 2018-03-20 14:50:00

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#28 2018-03-20 15:09:06

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#29 2018-03-20 17:31:52

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#30 2018-03-20 18:10:27

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#31 2018-03-20 18:38:32

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#32 2018-03-20 18:53:36

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#33 2018-03-20 19:14:18

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#34 2018-03-20 20:33:38

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#35 2018-03-20 20:52:30

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#36 2018-03-21 01:53:36

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#37 2018-03-21 08:44:04

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#38 2018-03-21 10:26:42

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#39 2018-03-21 13:40:05

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#40 2018-03-21 14:43:37

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#41 2018-03-21 15:40:10

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#42 2018-03-21 16:51:49

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#43 2018-03-21 19:14:12

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#44 2018-03-21 23:46:55

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#45 2018-03-22 05:06:55

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#46 2018-03-22 18:47:30

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#47 2018-03-22 19:32:32

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#48 2018-03-23 04:39:43

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#49 2018-03-23 06:51:52

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

#50 2018-03-25 14:31:01

Re: Cost estimates for the BFR

Board footer