totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[IncongruousGoat]

4 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

IAC is only a few weeks out, did they ever confirm that Elon or Gwynne would have a presentation?

No, but Hans Konigsmann, the SpaceX VP of Build and Flight Reusability, is going to be giving a talk on reusability. I for one am excited - we'll get to hear how Block 5 has been working out so far.

[CatastrophicFailure]

21 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

It's on their official twitter though. Previously their artist renderings were accurate.

Every redesign it gets closer and closer to actual Buck Rogers. 

Fascinating development, tho. Elon did say a little while back that there would be BFR news/updates coming, only a month late if its Monday. 

[cubinator]

33 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

29 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Edit: is that... thing... a BFS? On the picture?

Fins??!! Fins! Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnsssss

 

15 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

https://www.spacex.com/webcast oooh

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

Also, there’s this:

 

I guess SpaceX got jealous of all those tweets ULA has been sending out last few days...

[Spaceception]

So it is new...https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1040406114825715713?s=19

 

Ninja'd by @CatastrophicFailure

Edited September 14, 2018 by Spaceception

[cubinator]

oooo

Edited September 14, 2018 by cubinator

[IncongruousGoat]

I'm of the opinion that Elon is just messing with us at this point. That render doesn't make much sense as a new version of BFR for a number of reasons, not least of which that it lacks any sea-level-optimized nozzles, which makes it incapable of landing on Earth. This is Elon Musk's Twitter account, people. It's not exactly a reputable news source. Hopefully this will all be cleared up in the stream on Monday.

[CatastrophicFailure]

7 minutes ago, cubinator said:

oooo

 

13 minutes ago, cubinator said:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

And, it’s official, we have oooo’s and AAAAAAAAA’s! 

 

 

 

Guys, take a closer look at the nose of that render, re: flipping and stability... does that look like a canard or some kind of rocket??

Edit: ENHANCE!

Zooming in on the direct from twitter image... YES, that does look like a deployable canard... and maybe a rocket pack... like for abort motors...

Edited September 14, 2018 by CatastrophicFailure
Deployable! Deployable! Not deplorable! Damp you, autocorrect! Damp you straight to help!

[mikegarrison]

9 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 Because SpaceX is a US-based company, same reason Rocket Lab needs FAA approval to launch from New Zealand. 

Continuing on with that, type certification is usually done in what is called the State Of Design. That is to say, the FAA certifies Boeing or Gulfstream airplanes, EASA certifies Airbus airplanes, etc. And then agencies have bi-lateral agreements to accept each other's certifications (possibly with reservations in certain areas).

Ultimately to fly in the US an airplane needs to be certified by the FAA or to fly in China it needs to be certified by the CAAC. But generally these agencies accept the original certification that was done in the state of design. Some countries completely delegate the role of certification and simply accept an FAA or EASA certification as-is without having a national agency of their own.

International aviation also has to follow the rules set up by ICAO. These ultimately derive from what is called The Chicago Convention and dates back to just after WW2. ICAO doesn't so much certify airplanes as they certify the states to certify airplanes.

Edited September 14, 2018 by mikegarrison

[HebaruSan]

Any possible exceptions if you fly from international waters to international waters, with any travel over nations going above the Karman Line?

[mikegarrison]

13 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Any possible exceptions if you fly from international waters to international waters, with any travel over nations going above the Karman Line?

Dunno. Obviously it's not a normal situation. Generally speaking, ICAO rules govern all air travel between states or that crosses over the airspace of any state (like say a flight from New York to Anchorage that crosses over Canada). ICAO has no jurisdiction on flights that are purely inside one state. (They also have no jurisdiction over military or state aviation -- International CIVIL Aviation Organization.)

[tater]

 

[mikegarrison]

On 9/12/2018 at 9:12 AM, tater said:

There are something like 100,000 flights a day right now. 100 fatal crashes a year would halt airline traffic until they figured it out, much less per day.

This slightly high. The worldwide number of scheduled flights per day in May 2018 was 89,638 (based on some analysis I did recently). Still, the point remains -- a fatal accident every 1000 flights would mean there were almost 90 fatal air crashes EVERY DAY.

On 9/12/2018 at 6:58 PM, AVaughan said:

If you change those numbers to 10,000 flights, (eg 3 flights per day, for nearly 10 years, which is probably closer to an airliner's lifespan than the 1000 flights you were proposing),

Long-haul airplanes are designed for 30-40 thousand flights. Shorthaul airplanes for even more than that.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

This slightly high. The worldwide number of scheduled flights per day in May 2018 was 89,638 (based on some analysis I did recently). Still, the point remains -- a fatal accident every 1000 flights would mean there were almost 90 fatal air crashes EVERY DAY.

I know, right?

Airline travel is about the safest thing any of us do. Meeting that standard will take, well, generations.

 

Regarding this new BFR image.

The wings look possibly hinged. There are landing legs at the end of them. It looks almost as if there is a (retractable?) canard at the nose.

All engines are the same, too. No vacuum raptors.

 

Passenger is Japanese...

[Ultimate Steve]

The SpaceX Reddit appears to be taking the new design seriously. They have zoomed in and adjusted the contrast or something and they have 2 notable theories. One, the bottom two fins might be on hinges. Two, there *might* be a piece of hardware along the outside of the 7 engines that pops out to act as one huge vacuum nozzle, although it's not extended in the picture. Alternately that space on the outside might be something to help with foreign object damage during landing/takeoff.

Either way, HYPE!

Unfortunately I'll be at musical practice at the time of the announcement in a building with internet that blocks livestreams. Hopefully there will be a rehost somewhere!

[tater]

7 engines means a lot of redundancy on landing...

Hmm. If it is not meant to land on the Moon, the dv requirements are far lower.

This means that the vac raptors might not be needed. Ie: perhaps this is in effect a LEO version. With refilling, it might still make it to a lunar free return.

A LEO version without optimized vacuum engines then has many engines for landing redundancy... I'm thinking of them taking this P2P that some of us have been bashing seriously, and wanting more ways to avoid a failure.

[RedKraken]

7 mid ratio engines? They don't look nearly as big as the 200ER vacs.

Butt-skirt vac attachment? 

And where are the landing gear? in the fins? back to 3 again?

Wow that is quite a revision.

Edit : Those bells close to 1.3m? Maybe they are standard 2017 sea-level.

Edited September 14, 2018 by RedKraken

[Ultimate Steve]

OOOOOO!!!!

With 7 SL Engines could that work better as an abort system now?

[tater]

7 minutes ago, RedKraken said:

And where are the landing gear? in the fins? back to 3 again?

Thye tips habe deployable legs.

https://i.redd.it/yjwsc0n7o3m11.jpg

[Nibb31]

This design makes much more sense than the 2016 and 2017 designs. I really couldn't see those  doing any realistic re-entry and flip-over maneuvers, nor could I see fitting a landing gear wide enough for unprepared terrain, high enough to keep the engines safe, and strong enough to support the ship and cargo in 1G.

This version solves most of those problems. I'm pretty sure the lower fins fold upwards on re-entry, giving it a DreamChaser-like profile.

The petals could be for vacuum propulsion, but they could also be some sort of device to protect the engines during re-entry and landing.

One thing that this design breaks is the back to back refueling method. I suppose they could still have nose-to-nose docking, which actually provides more flexibility (ability to transfer crew, ability to fire the engines while docked...)

[tater]

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

This design makes much more sense than the 2016 and 2017 designs. I really couldn't see those  doing any realistic re-entry and flip-over maneuvers, nor could I see fitting a landing gear wide enough for unprepared terrain, high enough to keep the engines safe, and strong enough to support the ship and cargo in 1G.

This version solves most of those problems. I'm pretty sure the lower fins fold upwards on re-entry, giving it a DreamChaser-like profile.

The petals could be for vacuum propulsion, but they could also be some sort of device to protect the engines during re-entry and landing.

One thing that this design breaks is the back to back refueling method. I suppose they could still have nose-to-nose docking, which actually provides more flexibility (ability to transfer crew, ability to fire the engines while docked...)

No problem, butt-to-butt is still doable, just roll a ship 180 degrees or so.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

The petals could be for vacuum propulsion, but they could also be some sort of device to protect the engines during re-entry and landing.

You think they deploy to form a sort of meta-engine bell?

This is gonna make the 1 month wait for a launch exciting...

[RedKraken]

I wonder what they will call it? butt-petals? vac-skirt?

[Nibb31]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

You think they deploy to form a sort of meta-engine bell?

Speculation at this point, but that explains the lack of vacuum Raptors.

9 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

No problem, butt-to-butt is still doable, just roll a ship 180 degrees or so.

Not with the petal things in the way. I still think D2-like nose-to-nose docking is more flexible and provides more contingency options (evacuation, rescue, tug operation, access to ISS and other vehicles)

Edited September 14, 2018 by Nibb31