Xd the great Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Brotoro said: I would think they could build a set of clamps on a separate landing pad to practice landing the BFR away from the launch pad. I would do that, anyway. I would have the falcons practice this first on land based landings. Still, having a empty booster expolde is no big deal, as the expolsion power is low. 18 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Clamps are rarely on the sides outside of on Soyuz who uses the booster top mount as hardpoint. Shuttle had the clamps on the SRB who was majority of the weight. Falcon 9 have them on the octaweb who is the structure who hold the engines. Assumes BFR will do the same, it would also need an structure to hold engines and also lift the rocket during burn. I dont know how the octaweb works, but using that for supporting the booster sounds dangerous. 45 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: We're getting silly now Refer to my Sea Dragon comment above... Booyeah, reuseable sea dragon. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 39 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Now I question the accuracy of the landings a bit here, also landing on the launch pad as if you crash you will loose the pad Airplanes land on their "launch pad" all the time. And yes, if they crash it does cause some problems. So they try hard not to crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, Xd the great said: I would have the falcons practice this first on land based landings. Still, having a empty booster expolde is no big deal, as the expolsion power is low. I dont know how the octaweb works, but using that for supporting the booster sounds dangerous. Booyeah, reuseable sea dragon. What? The octaweb is simply an frame who hold the engines and distribute the force from the engines to the rocket. its lots of attachment points to the bottom tank but the frame let you dristubute load so you can burn with 1 or 3 engines and handle engine out better. it also make it easier to swap out engines and let you do static burns with rocket. You will need hardpoints for the engines anyway. And yes landing on an landing pad has benefits outside of not destroying the pad and the tower. you can design the landing clamps so they have more margin of error, might even give them an range of movement including suspension. Downside is that you need to move the first stage to pad but in the start you will inspect it anyway. An landing booster has less fuel but BFR is huge, 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Airplanes land on their "launch pad" all the time. And yes, if they crash it does cause some problems. So they try hard not to crash. Yes, but an plane has an pretty large area to land on, +-3 meter sideway and +-50 meter lengthwise will still be nominal at least in bad weather. Planes can abort and try again. With BFR we taking about +-15 cm or something, with an special landing structure this could be +-1 meter I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Ok, so I still dont understamd how something as thin as engine bells that can be dented by hand is able to support a bfr booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Ok, so I still dont understamd how something as thin as engine bells that can be dented by hand is able to support a bfr booster. Not the engine bells, the structure holding the engines. think of it as the trust plates in KSP 1.41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor42 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Ok, so I still dont understamd how something as thin as engine bells that can be dented by hand is able to support a bfr booster. It won't be the engine bells that hold the whole rocket, it will be the structure that holds the engines on which the rocket will be standing. Someone correct me if I said this wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I'll be surprised if they end up actually landing directly on hard structure. Almost everything that "lands" uses some kind of suspension in order to reduce the peak shock loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor42 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I'll be surprised if they end up actually landing directly on hard structure. Almost everything that "lands" uses some kind of suspension in order to reduce the peak shock loads. I think they'll use some kind of suspension on launch pad. *Picture of suspension on rocket jumps to my mind (read as HUGE shock absorbers on BFR)* *Smiles* Edited July 27, 2018 by Raptor42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, Raptor42 said: I think they'll use some kind of suspension on launch pad. They lose a lot of operational flexibility that way. It's much easier overall to put the suspension on the vehicle, even though you then have to carry it around with you. 8 minutes ago, Raptor42 said: *Picture of suspension on rocket jumps to my mind (read as HUGE shock absorbers on BFR)* *Smiles* A380 max landing weight is almost 400,000 kg. Is landing weight of BFR going to be more than that? A380 landing gear struts are very big and expensive, but we're not talking about anything unprecedented here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: They lose a lot of operational flexibility that way. It's much easier overall to put the suspension on the vehicle, even though you then have to carry it around with you. Are we talking BFR (AKA booster) or BFS? I don't think the booster will have any kind of legs, unless they will be somehow hidden in the fins by the base of the rocket. But then what's the point of carrying that on the rocket since it will have to land back on the pad anyway. I really don't see a reason to fly the booster from one place to another. BFS will most likely have some kind of shock absorbing leg structures. If they want to land it on Mars or the Moon there's simply no other way to do it. And if the Mars/Moon version has them then the Earth-to-Earth version will have them too because that extra mass won't affect it that much +they will be needed in case of emergency landing (not on the pad). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: They lose a lot of operational flexibility that way. It's much easier overall to put the suspension on the vehicle, even though you then have to carry it around with you. A380 max landing weight is almost 400,000 kg. Is landing weight of BFR going to be more than that? A380 landing gear struts are very big and expensive, but we're not talking about anything unprecedented here. Yes you can build it but I still think an separate landing pad makes sense. For landing you want suspension and preferable some mobility. The launch clamps has to hold the weight of the entire fueled BFR but neither want or need the landing features. You might want clampdown to. Still some chance they add legs they would not weight that many tons, BFR is wider and probably has lower center of gravity than F9 so you don't need so large legs. You can cut a lot and still get something safer than landing on pad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Still have a real, pressing need for something even bigger? We're getting silly now Refer to my Sea Dragon comment above... 1. Build payload 2. Leave payload on launch pad. 3. Build 4 - 5 if you want to be certain - BFRs. 4. Move BFRs to a safe distance, build large scaffolds, put each BFR on scaffold, nose down. 5. Light BFRs. Marvel as the Earth is pushed out of the way, leaving your implausibly large payload in space. Trust me - I'm not an engineer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 58 minutes ago, Raptor42 said: I think they'll use some kind of suspension on launch pad. *Picture of suspension on rocket jumps to my mind (read as HUGE shock absorbers on BFR)* *Smiles* I picture giant bouncy castles on bottom of bfr booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 The most likely possibility will be hydraulic launch clamps which reach up and hug the BFR octaweb (heiskaitriakontaweb?); these will have powerful enough hydraulics to be able to move a meter or two in any direction and therefore help guide the BFR down. When they come to rest, the whole vehicle will be fully supported by the pad structure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 29 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The most likely possibility will be hydraulic launch clamps which reach up and hug the BFR octaweb (heiskaitriakontaweb?)..... Elon should name the BFR the Heisenberg and the BFS the Schrodinger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 27 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The most likely possibility will be hydraulic launch clamps which reach up and hug the BFR octaweb (heiskaitriakontaweb?); these will have powerful enough hydraulics to be able to move a meter or two in any direction and therefore help guide the BFR down. When they come to rest, the whole vehicle will be fully supported by the pad structure yes, thought of that one you raise it up on hydraulic, this also give you some sideways movement to grab and then down to make it softer. Not sure how you would build this but in lowest position it will rest on the pad, might even be latched down for static tests. Nothing says you can not have more attachment points after landing either. You land using 3 or 4 who is designed for land and catch, then you use others for clamp down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Elon should name the BFR the Heisenberg and the BFS the Schrodinger. Elon wants to call the first BFS "Heart of Gold". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, cubinator said: Elon wants to call the first BFS "Heart of Gold". That will be the name of a ship, not the name of the vehicle itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: That will be the name of a ship, not the name of the vehicle itself. So you think the booster and spacecraft should have class names. I'd think more like Culture class names (GSV, GCU, etc). BFS Heart of Gold, fore example. Maybe dump BFR/BFB/BFS in favor of "Light Booster Vehicle" or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 31 minutes ago, tater said: So you think the booster and spacecraft should have class names. I'd think more like Culture class names (GSV, GCU, etc). BFS Heart of Gold, fore example. Maybe dump BFR/BFB/BFS in favor of "Light Booster Vehicle" or something. BFG is nice enough for the class, you might want to differentiate upper stages, cargo, tanker and manned not just BFS. Guess we will get multiple manned configurations once that ball start running but that would be mostly interior and life support Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 The BF part (not Shotwell's version ) is at least descriptive (as the Culture classes are). I sort of like the idea of keeping it, just because everyone knows what the F is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 So apparently they may be folding the legs on the Telstar booster after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: So apparently they may be folding the legs on the Telstar booster after all... WHAT SORCERY IS THIS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 IT IS HAPPENING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.