Where are we now?

RobertDyck · 2018-08-23 06:55:43

Ares from Mars Direct was supposed to lift 121 metric tonnes to 300km circular orbit or 47 tonnes to Mars. And not a coincidence, Saturn V could lift 47 tonnes to a trans-lunar trajectory. Mars Direct landed mass was 28.5 tonne ERV (8.5 month transit) or 25.2 tonne Hab (6 month transit).

SLS block 2 was supposed to lift 130 metric tonnes to 185km circular orbit.

Proposed SLS block 2B with 4-engine core stage, EUS with 4 RL10 engines, and liquid boosters with a pair of F-1B engines each, would be able to lift 130.7 tonnes to LEO or 44.0 tonnes to Mars (TMI).

A table SpaceNut posted in 2015.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-08-24 10:30:59)

GW Johnson · 2018-08-23 13:05:48

I got my little article on how to do back-of-the-envelope rocket propulsion analysis done, quicker than anticipated. I just posted it over at "exrocketman" today.

It's about using the rocket equation, but with realistic "jigger factors" for the losses, realistic inert weights, and two ways to get to realistic specific impulses. Anybody can do this, just get out a spreadsheet and follow the recipes.

The date is 8-23-18, and the title is "Back-of-the-Envelope Rocket Propulsion Analysis". It has lists of related source and vehicle study articles by date and title, posted on the same site. "Exrocketman" is http://exrocketman.blogspot.com.

I see from RobertDyck's post just above that SLS block 2 sends only 44 tons to Mars, not the 100 I based my numbers on. Assuming the thrown payload is a direct-entry lander, with a payload fraction of ~50%, that's 22 tons of useful delivered payload per $1B launch. That's $45M/useful delivered payload ton on Mars. Higher if actual launch prices rise above $1B.

Spacex's BFR/BFS looks even better than I thought, notwithstanding my 6 refill tanker figure per flight. I had it guessed at somewhere between $4M and $9M/delivered useful ton, depending upon whether the per-launch price was $100M or $200M.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-08-23 13:14:08)

kbd512 · 2018-08-23 18:50:20

GW,

With regards to BFR, that's great news. Has anyone else seen any development status updates on BFR?

louis · 2018-08-23 20:30:16

I don't think any of us can be sure what the price per ton will be given we don't know how the BFR development costs will be amortised between several potential uses but if your figures are right that works out (assuming something between 400 and 600 tonnes delivered to the surface on the basis of Musk's six BFRs to Mars architecture) between $1.6 billion and $5.4billion (except delivering higher tonnages probably indicates better economies of scale...) . The mid-range would be $3.5 billion. That sounds about right to me.

GW Johnson wrote:

Spacex's BFR/BFS looks even better than I thought, notwithstanding my 6 refill tanker figure per flight. I had it guessed at somewhere between $4M and $9M/delivered useful ton, depending upon whether the per-launch price was $100M or $200M.
GW

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-24 00:20:41

SpaceX has been pretty close-mouthed about the BFS/BFR recently. I keep track of most of the Space related websites, but have seen nothing.

louis · 2018-08-24 05:09:24

True. But there was this in July suggesting that the BFR manufacturing process is being readied.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-ma … t-port-la/

Just hope they don't have a once in a lifetime hurricane in the LA region!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

SpaceX has been pretty close-mouthed about the BFS/BFR recently. I keep track of most of the Space related websites, but have seen nothing.

GW Johnson · 2018-08-24 09:07:10

Well, Musk is somewhere between occupied and overwhelmed trying to get Tesla out of the hole it is in, and he does not have a Glynn Shotwell there to make his big-picture dreams a reality.

Shotwell at Spacex meanwhile has her hands full keeping Falcon-9 on track, getting Falcon-Heavy operational, testing Raptor engines (heard one the other day, no soot in the steam cloud) and getting the NASA-delayed crew Dragon flying. I doubt she or the engineering staff have much time to deal with the paper design and some early artifacts that so far comprise BFR/BFS.

You won't see much BFR/BFS progress until those other items are better in-hand. That suggests the flight testing of BFR/BFS in the 2020-2024 time frame is nothing but a pipe dream. It ain't gonna happen that fast.

But, I think it will still beat SLS to operational status, and will far outperform SLS in both total deliverable useful payload, and that useful payload's cost per ton delivered. SLS/Orion has been, and still is, the most expensive slow-motion train wreck I have ever seen.

SLS won't be capable of reprising Apollo-8 as Block 1, despite its 1st stage thrust. Only 70 tons to LEO. Block 1B with the bigger 3rd stage is required for that. That's 100 tons to LEO. Useful payload quantities don't show up until Block 2 with the bigger liquid strap-ons, said to be 130 tons to LEO. Even then, BFR/BFS has bigger deliverable payloads (150 tons to LEO) and lower expected launch prices (by far). Block 1 won't fly until 2020, if then. You'll likely be waiting until after 2025 for Block 2. Maybe well after.

I saw Pence's speech to JSC. The administration seems enthusiastic about the money pit that is SLS/Orion, the new money pit that is a space station about the moon (instead of actually going to the surface of the moon; why? because SLS Block 1 cannot go there), about the notion of going to the moon before attempting Mars, about doing something to replace ISS (another money pit?), and the bureaucratic nightmare that is going to result from splitting the Space Force from the Air Force by 2020-ish.

If you believe that Congress is going to fund all of those money pits enough to actually get any of them done at more than a glacial pace, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. THAT is the reality here.

If Musk can pull himself up out of the overwork pit he has devised for himself at Tesla (he needs a Glynn Shotwell type there), then you might see BFR/BFS actually fly, maybe in the later 2020's. NASA will still be fooling around in cis-lunar space well into the later 2030's. Spacex will still mostly likely beat NASA to Mars with men, under these plans and circumstances. Although nothing is certain about any of this. Not yet.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-08-24 09:13:24)

louis · 2018-08-24 19:20:28

Well I am going to remain a BFR optimist until proven otherwise! That big machine is a mandrel and they seemed keen to get it working even before they had a proper factory building. The Raptor engines as I understand it have been in development for some time now. The protoype propellant tank has been built (for the larger BFR) and just needs to be scaled down. The BFR concept seems sound to me - I haven't seen anyone really punch any big holes in it. I don't think Musk is needed to do actual rocket engineering in the way he used to...For the "hop" testing of the first stage in 2019, they don't need a fully fitted human-rated BFR, just one that can take off and descend.

So, it's definitely not they started from scratch at the back end of 2017 - a lot of the development had already been done. I would also assume that a lot of the onboard computers for flight control and so on are essentially the same as with the Falcon 9.

GW Johnson wrote:

Well, Musk is somewhere between occupied and overwhelmed trying to get Tesla out of the hole it is in, and he does not have a Glynn Shotwell there to make his big-picture dreams a reality.
Shotwell at Spacex meanwhile has her hands full keeping Falcon-9 on track, getting Falcon-Heavy operational, testing Raptor engines (heard one the other day, no soot in the steam cloud) and getting the NASA-delayed crew Dragon flying. I doubt she or the engineering staff have much time to deal with the paper design and some early artifacts that so far comprise BFR/BFS.
You won't see much BFR/BFS progress until those other items are better in-hand. That suggests the flight testing of BFR/BFS in the 2020-2024 time frame is nothing but a pipe dream. It ain't gonna happen that fast.
But, I think it will still beat SLS to operational status, and will far outperform SLS in both total deliverable useful payload, and that useful payload's cost per ton delivered. SLS/Orion has been, and still is, the most expensive slow-motion train wreck I have ever seen.
SLS won't be capable of reprising Apollo-8 as Block 1, despite its 1st stage thrust. Only 70 tons to LEO. Block 1B with the bigger 3rd stage is required for that. That's 100 tons to LEO. Useful payload quantities don't show up until Block 2 with the bigger liquid strap-ons, said to be 130 tons to LEO. Even then, BFR/BFS has bigger deliverable payloads (150 tons to LEO) and lower expected launch prices (by far). Block 1 won't fly until 2020, if then. You'll likely be waiting until after 2025 for Block 2. Maybe well after.
I saw Pence's speech to JSC. The administration seems enthusiastic about the money pit that is SLS/Orion, the new money pit that is a space station about the moon (instead of actually going to the surface of the moon; why? because SLS Block 1 cannot go there), about the notion of going to the moon before attempting Mars, about doing something to replace ISS (another money pit?), and the bureaucratic nightmare that is going to result from splitting the Space Force from the Air Force by 2020-ish.
If you believe that Congress is going to fund all of those money pits enough to actually get any of them done at more than a glacial pace, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. THAT is the reality here.
If Musk can pull himself up out of the overwork pit he has devised for himself at Tesla (he needs a Glynn Shotwell type there), then you might see BFR/BFS actually fly, maybe in the later 2020's. NASA will still be fooling around in cis-lunar space well into the later 2030's. Spacex will still mostly likely beat NASA to Mars with men, under these plans and circumstances. Although nothing is certain about any of this. Not yet.
GW

SpaceNut · 2018-08-24 20:27:01

The sls reprise to the moon even under constellation was a 2 ship arrangement of Ares 1 or Da Stick for the Orion capsule and the SLS was for a lunar module and EDS stage to make it possible. The current form of SLS block 1 is still a 2 ship launch for a total mission architecture and will not change even when we do have the block 2 lift as they will just eat up the tonnage instead of making it reasonable.
The SLS second stage booster could carry a full booster to mate up in LEO, then to move even a large sub assemblied mission to mars and back as its all about designing for use.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-25 00:32:42

Robert Zubrin made some salient comments regarding status and final use of the BFS/BFR at the 21st Mar Society Meeting in his opening welcoming speech.

Here it is, from YouTube: https://youtu.be/cJCenuebAa8

Made several interesting statements regarding the entire private industrial participation, as well. MUST. WATCH!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-08-25 06:07:53)

louis · 2018-08-25 08:09:09

Yep! Good stuff...that chap, whoever he is, agrees with everything I say! lol

I like Zubrin's distinction between purpose-driven and vendor-driven programmes.

Re his comments on E2E transportation, I agree that will be v. important in helping reduce cost per tonne via BFR development but probably lunar tourism (and maybe the space internet project) will get there before intercontinental rocket flight as an important broadening of the revenue stream.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Robert Zubrin made some salient comments regarding status and final use of the BFS/BFR at the 21st Mar Society Meeting in his opening welcoming speech.
Here it is, from YouTube: https://youtu.be/cJCenuebAa8
Made several interesting statements regarding the entire private industrial participation, as well. MUST. WATCH!

SpaceNut · 2018-08-26 15:23:53

I see that we have already lost Where are we now?

spacetechsforum wrote:

Damn.. this is slowly evolving into theoretical discussion without the numbers and facts, the only thing that i would like to avoid.

Paper anything is always a wish and cheerleading to what is flying now and with proper levels of funding could be achievable in a decades time frame but that magic word is if....

So even if we fly with a Falcon 9 heavy and do a bit of subassembly to get max payloads its still going to cost as we need to be able to perfect a lander and its mining equipment that will make the mission achievable.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-30 07:52:40

I've been following the 21st Meeting of the Mars Society, and thought that this brief presentation by Paul Wooster from SpaceX would generate some discussion here:

https://youtu.be/C1Cz6vF4ONE

This sets forth some answers to questions we've posed here, especially those surrounding the return flight of the BFS second stages. It also answers a few questions about payload size and uses of the stages once arrived on Mars. Hint: the first few aren't planned to return!

louis · 2018-08-30 08:52:46

Lol - I beat you to it on the previous thread... I'll copy in my comments here.

And here are my comments from the previous thread:

Re the slide on the landing area, the criteria they have are:

1. Safe - elevation, rocks, slope
2. Use of resources - accessibility, consistency, diversity
3. Daily life - temperature, dust, mobility

14:30 to 15:00 - very important statement that they are confident of ability to determine areas where there is ice in mid latitudes.

Q&A: BFR delivers at least 100 tonnes of useful payload, compared with Curiosity at 1 tonne.

At S Texas, focus on second stage, fully reusable vehicle - hot testing there.

BFR fully suited for Moon as well as Mars.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I've been following the 21st Meeting of the Mars Society, and thought that this brief presentation by Paul Wooster from SpaceX would generate some discussion here:
https://youtu.be/C1Cz6vF4ONE
This sets forth some answers to questions we've posed here, especially those surrounding the return flight of the BFS second stages. It also answers a few questions about payload size and uses of the stages once arrived on Mars. Hint: the first few aren't planned to return!

Last edited by louis (2018-08-30 08:54:01)

louis · 2018-08-31 11:33:21

Just bumping this in case people missed the important presentation by Paul Wooster, Chief Engineer for Space X's Mars Project.

SpaceNut · 2018-08-31 17:12:22

Not a problem as I posted to the other topic with this content:

Searched around for a transcript and here is what I found for the "Paul Wooster's address to Mars Society".

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comment … talk_mars/

Some of the slides: https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxLenormand … 0435815429

Some of the Planetary Speakers. For a complete list of all presenters check out the convention schedule at the bottom link.

https://forums.teslarati.com/threads/pa … ion.13005/

http://www.marssociety.org/wp-content/u … ention.pdf

louis · 2018-09-01 14:23:23

Seems clear to me that Space X are the only game in town regarding Mars settlement, and that they are pursuing this very seriously.

They seem to have junked the "mass colonisation" aspects of Musk's original vision for the time being - very sensible. Instead the emphasis seems to be on creating an exploration and research base, with high self-sufficiency, something which I think is a realisable goal in the near term (let's say the next 5-20 years).

SpaceNut · 2018-09-01 20:30:36

Are there any links to the shift in business direction from colonization to exploration. As one is geared to make money while the other is about spending some.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-01 22:06:21

SpaceNut: See my post #38 this thread.

Void · 2018-09-01 23:56:34

Well, I am just going to butt in.

Very pleased O.F. viewed a video by Prof. Zubrin. It followed what you presented. Anyway, as always, I 50/50 want to dispute the "Z", but he made sense.

His view is that BFR/BFS is a device for Earth/Luna(Moon), just out to the escape from Earth/Luna(Moon) space. I really agree.

Of course he does very much intend that the product of such a capability should be technologically useful mass to Mars. I agree.

This is not to say that I would be opposed to a 6 or more BFS establishment of a base on Mars, rather, that he is quite aware that the future will promote the methods to efficiently deliver mass to Mars composed of useful products. He seemed in that presentation to the Mars society to believe that SpaceX is mutating in that direction also. We shall see.

Honestly, I have two desires then per the above.

Why not mutate the LOP-G to be a BFR/BFS fed (And other like newly arising capable entities such as "Blue Origin"), to be the interplanetary space craft. That is, why not prepare a people transporter. Obviously electric propulsion being the presumed most efficient method. Then you have the launch efficiency of SpaceX and others, and then some of the capabilities that the government programs are working towards, such as depots, and electric propulsion, maybe even magnetic shielding.

But make no mistake, I don't particularly see why such capabilities cannot be experimented with on the Moon, and in LEO.

I really have come around to wonder why to do the LOP-G, if in deed the BFR/BFS shows up? Why not do your experimental interplanetary spaceship in part on the existing ISS, and in part on the Moon itself?

What was the other thing????

Oh, well, I guess #2 was something like a trip to the orbit of Mars first rather than the 6+ advertised notion.

The why would be in the case where in a geopolitical sense it would be required to overcome political games. For instance I now trust Dr. Zubrin. (It is a choice decision). But I really do believe that we are trapped in a....

MARS ROACH MOTEL.

The intention has always been to keep humans focused on Mars, but to prohibit a human presentation to Mars. The reasons are:
1) To prove that there is no white male God with a long beard. That is the hope to destroy religion for atheistic socialism.
2) A different process is national jealousy. That is competitor nations might prefer to stop the effort due to it not being their space effort.

The problem of #1, is that religion is really just a narrative describing reality. That is, sort of explaining why we are here, and inputting to the programming of human individuals, a "Crib Sheet", that gives them a short-cut on how to conduct a life that is in harmony with an efficient way of how to do well in life. Religion is story telling that programs humans, so that they don't each always have to do life experiments, to discover what are the Do's and Don'ts of how to do OK in life. Life experiments without "Story Programming" would usually end in the death or serious damaging of human individuals. Religion is a program that can be uploaded to individuals. You can choose to believe what you want about how much a God of any kind inspires it.

Seeking to exploit the cutting edge capabilities of the human race in order to produce a abolition of religion is a misuse of the common efforts of the human race.

There are Aquisitioners, Priests, Intellectuals, and Warlords.

We cannot but have each of the four, as they are pretty much natural to the human race, and each provide a useful function.

A possible solution for #2, is likely to be to make sure that everyone on the planet who is of a cultural type compatible with sharing can have a place in the plan to expand into space.

……

Some notes:
An Aqusitioner is pretty much a money person. An aqusitioner in my opinion is an advanced Priest.

An intellectual is not someone who can quote famous books. In my opinion a Intellectual is an advanced Warlord. That is build tools, and know how to use them. A warlord more or less uses tools for human slaughter. But as elevation occurs, the tools turn from human slaughter to a manipulation of physical objects.

Cold truth is that humans are at their base harlots and murderers. Our preferred quest is to be much more that that.

So, I am very happy after all about the big "Z's" thinking. Going to Mars will give us a very special resource. Time Latency. As evolution struggles to dumb down the human race though a process of idiocracy, yet, people farmers will not be able subjugate idiot masses as easily if some live at a distance and are subject to "Time Latency" in communications.

A restless night.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-09-02 00:39:03)

GW Johnson · 2018-09-02 10:13:44

What I saw in Wooster's talk regarding BFR/BFS: relative to the 2017 presentation, BFS has now 7 engines instead of 6. Payload was 150 tons, is now "greater than 100 tons". It would appear they have been running design analyses, and have found some needed changes.

Another thing I saw: recognition of the danger of rough-field landings in a tall vehicle. Used words like "rocks" and "pits". Talked about initial "challenging landings" (meaning high risk of overturn or crash). Talked about "prepared landing fields" for subsequent flights. I wonder who they will buy the electric-powered, rechargeable road grader and bulldozer from?

Another thing I saw: "focused on transportation" and "opportunities for others" to make this possible. I believe this refers to makers of a real propellant factory and real earth-moving equipment suitable for Mars, not just somebody's probes to confirm the buried glaciers they know they need (which also says they know that processing damp regolith for water is not a practical solution).

6 years from now (2024) is an awfully short timeline to do engineering development and harsh-condition field testing of the necessary equipment and machinery to make a manned trip to Mars in the BFR/BFS system feasible.

One last thing I noticed: he gave no names for anybody actually working on this stuff they will need.

GW

Void · 2018-09-02 10:34:20

I came across this, a verbal description.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex- … ion-2018-8

The part I thought might be special is this:

What, exactly, the first missions to Mars would try to accomplish remains uncertain, but Wooster filled in a few details.
He said the first two uncrewed cargo missions would "confirm the water resources in the locations that you're interested in, and then determine any [landing] hazards for future missions, and then start to put in place some of the infrastructure that you'll need," such as landing pads.

So, then they obviously plan to include A.I. driven Artificial Animation on Mars, starting with the first uncrewed missions. That is if the above quote is not a mistake.

But here are some concerns:

Wooster also said the company isn't yet sure how it will construct landing pads on Mars to ensure safer arrivals for future missions and would be happy to take ideas, according to CapMSFC.
A prototype of NASA's Z-2 spacesuit, which is designed for astronauts to explore planetary surfaces.NASA
Spacesuits that'd work on the surface of Mars are still an enigma, too, Wooster reportedly said. (Not even NASA has completed development on a suitable model.)

I don't have any special ideas. Not a person who would know how to build a landing pad for a BFS.

For automation, of course Tesla might build a wheeled robot, self driving car.
Perhaps a robotics company could help them include actuating members for the purpose of manipulations of objects. Perhaps Boston Dynamics.
https://www.bostondynamics.com/
https://www.bostondynamics.com/spot-mini

So, then this implies that the cargo ships will have to be self unloading at least to a degree.
It also implies using NASA communications to monitor and alter the processes being done, or SpaceX has to build a parallel communication method.

That's enough.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-09-02 10:45:27)

SpaceNut · 2018-09-02 10:59:16

The artwork on the Mars Society page would say other wise.
http://www.marssociety.org/wp-content/u … Winner.jpg
http://www.marssociety.org/conventions/ … onvention/

Paul Wooster, Principal Mars Development Engineer, presented the SpaceX plans for Mars to the Mars Society.

Here was the request for papers for this convention
http://www.marssociety.org/call-papers- … onvention/

Paul Wooster - SpaceX's Plans for Mars - 21st Annual International Mars Society Convention; Reddit comment page

Oldfart1939 wrote:

SpaceNut: See my post #38 this thread.

Slow up link to videos prevent me from viewing these and even after attempting it was just not telling me anything useful about the space x plan even after watching for 5 minutes.

From Reddit comments comes as much as of a transcript that I can find on the video. It appears that slide at 12:11 contains some of the good stuff on the video.

Slide at 12:11:
SpaceX Mars Architecture Features
Goal: Earliest possible Mars surface outpost, including as a robust safe haven, with significant redundancy, contingency supplies, and ability to augment using local resources.
Reusable system enables low-cost cargo delivery
Propellant resupply in LEO and on Mars surface
Single universal propellant (Methane-Oxygen)
Direct-entry/aerocapture at Mars and Earth to limit propulsive delta-v requirements
Extensive in-situ resource use (eg propellant production, consumables generation, outpost growth)
Minium unique elements needed for first surface mission
Pre-emplaced surface assets prior to first human mission
Very large payload capability relative to minimum required for initial human missions
Allows for significant margin, redundancy, and emergency supplies on each spaceship
Reduces reliance on other advance technology capabilities to improve mass-efficiency
Free-return outputted trajectories & in-space rescue options
Slide at 13:35:
Where do you want to live?
Focus on future city provides insight into factors important in site selection.
Safe Landing:
Elevation
Rocks
Slope
Use of Resources:
Accessibility
Consistency
Diversity
Daily Life:
Temperature
Dust
Mobility
Slide at 14:15:
Key Factors in Identifying Outpost Locations
[Accompanying graphic from Rummel et al, A New Analysis of Mars "Special Regions": Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2), Astrobiology V14 #11 2014 p937 (large PDF) highlights regions with ice in Northern mid-latitudes, with marks by SpaceX suggesting suitable sites]
Resources, particularly water ice:
Distribution, quantity, composition, overburden
Latitude (aiming for |lat| < 40°, lower is better)
Power, thermal
Landed mass, atmosphere collection, thermal
Safe landing zone
Size of rocks/pits, slopes, bearing strength, dust
First few landings will be most challenging, gets easier once site can be prepared
Multiple, separated landing locations within a few kilometres of each other
What can be done now or in the near future to help decide?
Slide at 15:39 reiterates initial Mars goals of 2 cargo ships in circa 2022 with 2 cargo + 2 crew in circa 2024. NB: ISRU arrives with crew in 2024. 2022 mission is only to confirm resources and identify hazards while placing infrastructure for power, mining, life support.
Slide at 16:49
Resource Utilisation
Goal: becoming self-sufficient as quickly as possible.
Ice: Presence is not sufficient: quantity and quality of ice are vital
location
quantity (1+ tonne/day)
accessibility
acquisition process
processing (impurities)
Regolith: to become self-sufficient, we need to utilize multiple resources
minerals
metals
structural materials
[image depicts work vehicles from BFR/ISRU working dry regolith to access bulk water ice presumably sitting on top of ice-cemented regolith]
Slide at 17:13
Setting up Infrastructure
Infrastructure needs:
Supports goal of growth and self-sufficiency
Scales to larger cities
Develop the fastest, simplest and most robust system.
BFR landed mass and volumes allow for significant capability emplacement and plan for expansion from the onset.
Talk ends at 20:21
Questions:
20:47 How is SpaceX benefitting from Mars Society's work, what can we do to contribute?
21:50 What is expected turn-around for future BFR missions to Mars — same synodic cycle or later one? Also how many tankers required to refill in LEO for trip to Mars?
23:58 How much mass to surface of Mars? Comparison to Curiosity?
24:54 Second stage testing timeline? (not answered)
25:40 Lunar gateway for $1B a year, will SpaceX put a BFR on the Moon for $2B a year?

SpaceX reveals where the first people it sends to Mars will live: It might be a little cramped

The SpaceX plan calls for an unmanned, robotic mission to Mars as soon as 2022, followed by the first human flight to the red planet a few years later. It's been a little unclear whether robots would set up a habitat for the first people to arrive or if those initial Martian visitors would become the planet's first construction workers.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-02 12:33:23

A top SpaceX engineer has revealed new details — and questions — about the company’s plans to reach Mars in 6 years

We know that Musk has an “aspirational” timeline is to launch cargo missions to Mars starting in 2022, with crewed missions following in 2024. With a ship designed with two sections: a 191-foot-tall fully reusable booster, plus a 157-foot-tall spaceship. But this will come at an expense that we are not sure that Musk can sustain. One expert told Business Insider that SpaceX’s BFR development program alone may exceed $5 billion. Musk is providing a transportation system and not much of anything else. So far the system is a Falcon 9 on steriods for what it can do, changing engines and fuels to obtain the payload.

louis · 2018-09-02 14:44:12

I think that article is unduly negative, nit-picking almost.

Regarding a landing site with sufficient ice resources, it's pretty clear to me that Space X are prepared to gamble on that. If the 2022 robot cargo mission finds no ice at the location, despite all indications that ice is there, then you can call off the human mission in 2024. No lives lost, just a lot of money.

If the BFR development programme were to cost $5 billion, well a lot of that money will already have been spent since they've been working on the Raptor engines, propellant tank and human rated craft for years now. I think an overall figure of around $4 billion for the whole Mars project to 2024 is closer to the mark. That's about $570 million per annum. Musk himself can probably cover a lot of that himself. But if a company has a viable business model - and I think ultimately people can see the BFR will be highly profitable through a wide variety of uses (orbital tourism, lunar tourism, ISS supply, satellite launches and E2E transportation). And of course the BFR development costs should be spread across these various applications, in which case the costs of the Mars project will be far less than $4 billion. "Falcon 9 on steroids" is reassuring to me. They aren't trying anything too novel - just scaling up.

The need for EVAs on Mars on Mission One would be, in my view, minimal. Probably, in that context, Space X could use NASA space suits if necessary. But strictly speaking there would be no real requirement beyond the PR impact. I think Wooster was really talking longer term that you need a fuss-free space suit for Mars development. It would be nice to have an MCP suit from the get-go but trained geologist could still do a lot of geology working robot equipment from inside a pressurised Rover.

SpaceNut wrote:

A top SpaceX engineer has revealed new details — and questions — about the company’s plans to reach Mars in 6 years
We know that Musk has an “aspirational” timeline is to launch cargo missions to Mars starting in 2022, with crewed missions following in 2024. With a ship designed with two sections: a 191-foot-tall fully reusable booster, plus a 157-foot-tall spaceship. But this will come at an expense that we are not sure that Musk can sustain. One expert told Business Insider that SpaceX’s BFR development program alone may exceed $5 billion. Musk is providing a transportation system and not much of anything else. So far the system is a Falcon 9 on steriods for what it can do, changing engines and fuels to obtain the payload.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2018-08-23 06:55:43

Re: Where are we now?

#27 2018-08-23 13:05:48

Re: Where are we now?

#28 2018-08-23 18:50:20

Re: Where are we now?

#29 2018-08-23 20:30:16

Re: Where are we now?

#30 2018-08-24 00:20:41

Re: Where are we now?

#31 2018-08-24 05:09:24

Re: Where are we now?

#32 2018-08-24 09:07:10

Re: Where are we now?

#33 2018-08-24 19:20:28

Re: Where are we now?

#34 2018-08-24 20:27:01

Re: Where are we now?

#35 2018-08-25 00:32:42

Re: Where are we now?

#36 2018-08-25 08:09:09

Re: Where are we now?

#37 2018-08-26 15:23:53

Re: Where are we now?

#38 2018-08-30 07:52:40

Re: Where are we now?

#39 2018-08-30 08:52:46

Re: Where are we now?

#40 2018-08-31 11:33:21

Re: Where are we now?

#41 2018-08-31 17:12:22

Re: Where are we now?

#42 2018-09-01 14:23:23

Re: Where are we now?

#43 2018-09-01 20:30:36

Re: Where are we now?

#44 2018-09-01 22:06:21

Re: Where are we now?

#45 2018-09-01 23:56:34

Re: Where are we now?

#46 2018-09-02 10:13:44

Re: Where are we now?

#47 2018-09-02 10:34:20

Re: Where are we now?

#48 2018-09-02 10:59:16

Re: Where are we now?

#49 2018-09-02 12:33:23

Re: Where are we now?

#50 2018-09-02 14:44:12

Re: Where are we now?

Board footer