Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, cubinator said:

I don't think SpaceX intends to make any more large Falcon rockets. They want to use Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy to fund development of BFR.

Which is, right now, a concept and may be influenced by purchasers of the FH. We have to see first how much pent up demand is for FH, if it is great then they may choose a different roadmap.
In Elon Musk's case the situation with Tesla is not going well, so he may want to increase the revenue stream of his entire business. If you are strapped for cash are you going to devote large amount of resources to developing an unknown or use what you have to leverage more income so that your development is more secure. If we look at the problem with FH, it appears in gossip that the lag since its proposal to implementation is due to development of the core (structure  and thrust capability). If these are now set in Block 5 then the can have alternatives of this that require substantially less R&D and are more readily accepted by the market place.

Right now I see as part of their business model is the intangible asset of F9 performance, some of that gets carried into the FH particularly if the first flight accomplishes any of its performance goals, more so if it accomplishes most. So the FH business could erupt quite quickly this year. Who wouldn't go for that and extend that. The only thing standing in their way right now is the ability to extend their business in the allotted space, they need to be able to produce boosters more rapidly than what they are doing, securing landing space and launch pads. If they do that just about every other West-bloc launch company will be wiped but into the public sector or government sponsored public sector business. With England now stepping out of the Eu and the weakening of the Eurozone . . . . . .

There is another more sinister reason for doing this. There is no way for SpaceX to stop foriegn governments (like the big C) from pouring lots of money into and essentially copying SpaceX business model, and although SpaceX could complain, by the time all the suits are over with, they will have missed the boat. We would hear about this stuff only after its a thing. This is not to mention the other 2 US competitors that are looking at SpaceX and gravitating in their direction. We don't need SpaceX clones to hurt them, just provide a similar function at a similar cost. So their future lies in rapid innovations; the way to stop copy cat competitors is to innovate faster than they can copy. If we take a look at the Japanese car market in the late 70s to Present one of the benefits they had over western markets was to test small and innovate quickly. The infamous Prius started out as a compact car with few of the features of the 3rd to 5th generation of vehicles. When gen 3 cars hit the US they virtually cornered the US hybrid market. Many of the cars we see in the US were tested in smaller markets first and then innovated to suit the west. Basically they started out with a managable thing then became more aggressive about changing as they were comfortable with that. This is going to be once the large players (Russia, China, and coming India) realize what SpaceX will do to their future business model . . . .of course they are going to try to emulate SpaceX's immediate success. I can see no reason why China would not do this, in fact all the observations we see is they tend to move on a global scale into markets they see as futurisitic (Solar panels) or under-performing.

BFR is a large and expensive wholesale change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFR makes far more sense than adding more boosters to FH (something which is quite simply not going to happen, and not really worth spending a lot of time on).

BO is working on a 7m rocket, that could easily have an 8+ m fairing. As has already been stated, the added mass to LEO is not the issue, it's a matter of payloads that are mass, not volume limited. The only mass-limited payloads are in fact propellants right now.

BFR/BFS is a much more elegant solution than some sort of extra-booster FH.

On topic for current events:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Starman4308 said:

First: why is a low CoG preferable again? I'm under the impression a low CoG would make it less aerodynamically stable, not more stable.

Second: what complex payloads? Maybe a handful for NASA/ESA, but hardly worth the cost of developing a Falcon Super for. It'd probably be cheaper to use a FH in expendable or partially-expendable mode than to once again go through the enormous cost of developing a new rocket for those very few payloads. While SpaceX has ambitious plans of its own... those ambitious plans are planned to go up on the vastly more capable BFR.

Third: I'm pretty sure aerodynamics and structural integrity are more complicated than "moar booster and moar fairing". If it was simple, SpaceX would just build a bigger fairing.

Sure, you can further develop the Falcon 9 platform, but... why? The conventional commercial payloads that are your bread and butter are already handled by the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. Almost all scientific payloads can be handled by the F9/FH. Occasional super-heavy payloads can be handled by an expendable-configuration FH, and there's no funded plan for a lot of super-heavy payloads.

While Musk still has his grand plans for scaling up, the Falcon 9 isn't the right platform for that. You still use an expendable upper, you're talking an additional 18 first-stage engines (and thus points of vibration and catastrophic failure) per core, payloads are still limited in volume by a 5-meter fairing, and a lot of miscellaneous hardware is tuned to relatively small payloads in a 5-meter fairing. Payload adapters, the horizontal assembly building (where now you have to have one booster atop another), all that is geared to the current size of the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.

By the time you finish reengineering the Falcon platform into a true SHLV, the final production process will probably not look a lot like the original F9/FH production pipeline... and you still don't have payloads for it. It'd be the private-enterprise version of the SLS boondoggle.

There are a few things you can gain. First the aerodynamic problem is simple to solve, control Q and turn later. That's easily done with more dV. Again the straighter you go up at start the less you B12 and B34 would have to burn back to land. There's a bit of a boom problem, but as long as you fire to subsonic speed before M*P reached a certain threshold, that's solvable.

See other post. We don't really have a viable heavy payload market because the providers are either foreign (and have had major recent Whoopsies). If they start looking at FH as being a cheap easy alternative to SLS and DIV heavy . . . . Russians latest (who really cares, sorry). . .then will that widen the market . . . .take a look at SpaceX F9 and ask the question . . has that broadened the market? They also have a better marketing strategy, because they increase the excitement, that creates the need, which they sell to. They cannot help but increase the need if FH is successful, two boosters and a core recovered at the same time, that's Harry Houdini on steroids.

Musk is not the ONLY purchaser that has money and wants to head out of EM SOI and I am sure that NASA is sitting there waiting. The latest sort of silencing of the Dream Chaser is really about the fact that NASA expects SX to way beat the cost for the same function soon, they are not making any further commitments to SNC, I think the same will happen to ULA soon. NO matter what your space dream is, sample return, asteroid harvesting, Mars landing there is just simply a lack of GTG equipment right now . . .so why would anyone plan for what they could not do. The flip-side if that was what you want and there is the GTG stuff available, whats to stop you.

As far as why would you do it, because its less of a change than BFR, it would probably be faster, and its something that the market place would better understand.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tater said:

BFR makes far more sense than adding more boosters to FH (something which is quite simply not going to happen, and not really worth spending a lot of time on).

BO is working on a 7m rocket, that could easily have an 8+ m fairing. As has already been stated, the added mass to LEO is not the issue, it's a matter of payloads that are mass, not volume limited. The only mass-limited payloads are in fact propellants right now.

BFR/BFS is a much more elegant solution than some sort of extra-booster FH.

On topic for current events:

 

Yep. Also, the point of BFR is not to replace FH or to haul some super-heavy payloads to orbit. It’s going to replace every other rocket by being much cheaper to launch due to reusability. Being able to fit 150t of payload is a nice bonus, but not the main purpose. 

Edited by sh1pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes years to develop a new launch vehicle.

SpaceX needs to start NOW on the next generation vehicle, or they will be sandbagged by BO. Bezos is all-in for reusable vehicles, and the NG factory is already built. 7m rockets WILL be flying from the Cape in the next few years, and they will also be working on their own follow-on vehicle as soon as they have some experience with NG.

F9 already does most of what FH was originally envisioned to do because of incremental performance improvements. FH merely allows larger GEO sats with full booster reuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Yep. Also, the point of BFR is not to replace FH or to haul some super-heavy payloads to orbit. It’s going to replace every other rocket by being much cheaper to launch due to reusability. Being able to fit 150t of payload is a nice bonus, but not the main purpose. 

Both stages of BFR are concepts, they not only have one major issue to deal with but 2, and both are serious rocket problems in an of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PB666 said:

Both stages of BFR are concepts, they not only have one major issue to deal with but 2, and both are serious rocket problems in an of themselves.

They will have F9 and FH, which can service virtually any customer payload that is not volume-limited. They need to expend all dev work on a next generation vehicle, not waste time on some complex FH variant that buys them very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tater said:

They will have F9 and FH, which can service virtually any customer payload that is not volume-limited. They need to expend all dev work on a next generation vehicle, not waste time on some complex FH variant that buys them very little.

Why not do both. Besides BFR is a concept, they don't even have a working model of the rocket to test in anyway, they barely have an engine that works, and the first models are likely 6 years down the road for the first stage. Everyone here wants SpaceX to be on Mars tomorrow. That however clouds the judgement of what is going to get SX to mars. Tesla ain't going to get Musk to Mars. Its the LEO trade. Noone here knows what the business is going to be like when FH is online. So they must focus on cornering and expanding the LEO business if they want the resources to create BFR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Why not do both. Besides BFR is a concept, they don't even have a working model of the rocket to test in anyway, they barely have an engine that works, and the first models are likely 6 years down the road for the first stage. Everyone here wants SpaceX to be on Mars tomorrow. That however clouds the judgement of what is going to get SX to mars. Tesla ain't going to get Musk to Mars. Its the LEO trade. Noone here knows what the business is going to be like when FH is online. So they must focus on cornering and expanding the LEO business if they want the resources to create BFR.

They don’t need new rockets to expand LEO operations though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PB666 said:

Why not do both. Besides BFR is a concept, they don't even have a working model of the rocket to test in anyway, they barely have an engine that works, and the first models are likely 6 years down the road for the first stage. Everyone here wants SpaceX to be on Mars tomorrow. That however clouds the judgement of what is going to get SX to mars. Tesla ain't going to get Musk to Mars. Its the LEO trade. Noone here knows what the business is going to be like when FH is online. So they must focus on cornering and expanding the LEO business if they want the resources to create BFR.

FH with extra boosters is a dead end. It's a small rocket at 3.7m diameter.  FH isn't getting anyone to Mars, either. It's not terribly useful at getting stuff to the Moon, either. Certainly not is people are part of the cargo (or crew vehicles/habs).

It will take a few years to get BFR up and running, but I bet we see some sort of test vehicles well before 6 years (grasshopper-like).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a partial list of what would be needed for a Falcon Super:

An upgraded vehicle assembly building and procedures to handle vertical separation between the core and boosters.

A further reinforced core.

A heavier-duty payload attachment point.

Probably a bigger fairing (entailing significantly different aerodynamics, requiring a whole new round of modeling).

Potentially additional grid fins to reduce aerodynamic instability on the way up.

In all likelihood, a bigger second stage.

Probably an extra pair of barges and/or landing spots for boosters.

 

You basically need to redesign everything except the radially attached booster F9 cores, for a marginal increase in capacity that almost nobody needs.

Meanwhile, the BFR would represent a huge leap in capabilities: full reusability, super-heavy and large-volume payloads, etc. I'm a bit skeptical of it; I'm not convinced it can be reused often enough without major damage or loss-of-vehicle to make it more economical than F9/FH flights, but a super-heavy Falcon would represent a huge investment for a small increase in capabilities that there is no current market call for.

It's not the engineering or the rocket science, it's the economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a super heavy is not a thing. It took a year to rebuild SLC-40. It would take at least as long to build out a new HIF, and new TEL for such a vehicle, and it would have to be at 39A.

On top of that, the craft would likely require a new blast trench and sound supression. Part of the reason for the downscale of BFR was to accommodate to the existing launch facility.

 

 

Weather has apparently been updated to 90% "go" for Zuma.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

Here's a partial list of what would be needed for a Falcon Super:

An upgraded vehicle assembly building and procedures to handle vertical separation between the core and boosters.

A further reinforced core.

A heavier-duty payload attachment point.

Probably a bigger fairing (entailing significantly different aerodynamics, requiring a whole new round of modeling).

Potentially additional grid fins to reduce aerodynamic instability on the way up.

In all likelihood, a bigger second stage.

Probably an extra pair of barges and/or landing spots for boosters.

 

You basically need to redesign everything except the radially attached booster F9 cores, for a marginal increase in capacity that almost nobody needs.

Meanwhile, the BFR would represent a huge leap in capabilities: full reusability, super-heavy and large-volume payloads, etc. I'm a bit skeptical of it; I'm not convinced it can be reused often enough without major damage or loss-of-vehicle to make it more economical than F9/FH flights, but a super-heavy Falcon would represent a huge investment for a small increase in capabilities that there is no current market call for.

It's not the engineering or the rocket science, it's the economics.

You have just listed all the reasons for not going with BFR also. Do you mean by huge leap . . . . . . .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

And if SpaceX is going to have to have fast-track assembly they need to be able to assembly onto or close to launch pad anyway.

So lets list what BFR concept needs to develop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpaceX_BFR_launch_vehicle.jpg

First. An assymetric core that connects to the assymetric first stage.
2nd. design a core capable of supporting the first stage.
3rd. A tested rocket design that can carry the first stage to S1/S2 staging.
4th. A VAB and launch pad capable of launching just the first stage.
5th. A new methane compression and storage systems (Kerolox does  not need compression)
6th. A new methane onboard fuel tank capable of keeping methane in the liquid form (upper stage).
7th. A new frame for both 1st and secon stage.
8th. A new first and second stage interconnect.
9th. Configuring 1 stage engines and testing

 . . . . . .
100th
 . . . . . . .

 

List goes on for several pages.

The list for expanding the FH is a fraction of the work involved of producing BFR from scratch period, so it is possible to do the first and work the second. A good reason for that is by increasing the PL size and complexity also is a teaching tool.

The falcon 9 is 'Just a rocket' there is nothing special about its design except that it has a few features that allow it to reland (most of that is computational). BFR is not even close to being a falcon, its using a non-standard fuel, its using a assymetrical upper stage, its going to attempt to do more than what apollo did in many stages in two stages . . . . . . . .
All of these issues are likely to result in significant design changes and delays. Thats the best reason to branch out.

Do you really think the markets going to wait a decade for BFR. Bezos is nothing, look to Asia, that is where the competition will come from.

 

 

26 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, a super heavy is not a thing. It took a year to rebuild SLC-40. It would take at least as long to build out a new HIF, and new TEL for such a vehicle, and it would have to be at 39A.

On top of that, the craft would likely require a new blast trench and sound supression. Part of the reason for the downscale of BFR was to accommodate to the existing launch facility.

 

 

Weather has apparently been updated to 90% "go" for Zuma.

Same is also true for BFR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main question is what Moar Boosters approach is going to achieve for the Falcon rocket. Not much, I don't think. It will probably be able to compete with SLS, Energia, or whatever SHLV the Russians and Chinese will come up with. Is there's a huge market for super heavy rockets? Don't think so. Even if it's less work than BFR, it'll have a very hard time recouping its R&D costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PB666 said:

5th. A new methane compression and storage systems (Kerolox does  not need compression)

6th. A new methane onboard fuel tank capable of keeping methane in the liquid form (upper stage).

Your other points aside...

Neither of these is as problematic as you make them out to be. Liquid methane compression and storage is very well understood and is, in fact, common practice - natural gas (which is mostly methane) is easiest to transport as a liquid. The upper stage methane tank isn't a problem either. Methane boils at a substantially higher temperature than liquid oxygen, which means any tank capable of storing LOX for any length of time will be more than capable of doing the same for methane.

Also, saying that there is "nothing special" about F9 doesn't do the vehicle justice. Its fuselage is made of an Al-Li alloy, which has only been used as a cryogenic tank material once before, on the STS external tank. The propellants it uses are cooled almost to their freezing points, which is also unique. The exclusive use of hydraulic actuators is also noteworthy, since pyrotechnic separators are (as far as I can tell) the industry standard. The avionics are designed to be fault-tolerant instead of fault-proof and, unlike most other LV's, are not wildly out of date in comparison to modern electronics. The manufacturing techniques used are unlike those used by the rest of the LV industry. All this, without mentioning the design of Merlin 1D, which is noteworthy as, if not the most, one of the most sophisticated gas-generator engines ever flown.

Heck, by this standard it's hard to see ways in which the BFR is going to be more complicated to design than F9 was. Let's see-

Untested tank material? Check.

Untested engines? Check.

Never-before-used propellant? Check.

New spacecraft design? Check.

New interstage adapter? Check.

New reaction control system? Check.

The list goes on. The main differences seem to be scale, pace of development, and the asymmetrical upper stage.

Am I exaggerating and simplifying? Yes, but the point stands. BFR development isn't going to be easy, but it's not like any of this going to be all that new for SpaceX. Further development of FH, on the other hand... it's not clear whether it's physically possible to attach more cores to FH, never mind whether it makes sense to do so on any level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one key issue with a hypothetical Falcon Super that doesn't apply to the BFR. There's no economically sensible reason to even try in the first place.

From a risk/reward perspective, the BFR is questionable: it's a huge investment in time, capital, and research for something vastly over-specced for 95% of what it'll do. If it works, it expands SpaceX's envelope to super-heavy lift and fully reusable launch of virtually any commercial payload, dramatically reducing costs. If it fails, it's a flop.

From a risk/reward perspective, a super-Falcon is, right out of the gate, a bad idea. The cost and risk, while less than that of the BFR, is still substantial, and the reward?

A small increase in SpaceX's launch capabilities envelope. A small increase that covers precisely no realistic commercial payload, and does not substantially reduce cost/ton as did the original development of the Falcon 9. With the improvements to the Falcon 9 itself, even the FH has less of a mission than it used to have.

For a rocket to be an economically viable prospect, it has to fly often enough to justify its development cost. If the BFR works as spectacularly well as Elon Musk hopes, it'll be flying quite possibly more than once a month. A Falcon Super would fly almost never, since very few payloads would fit in the narrow window between FH capacity and FS capacity.

 

Telecom companies on hearing the improvement in payload capacity: "Oh joy. Now send up another 10-ton bird to GTO on a Falcon Heavy.".

NASA on hearing the improvement: "This would be awesome for all these projects we will never have money for. Can we have a Falcon 9 for this heavily cut-down unmanned mission?"

Politicians: "This rubbish isn't adding jobs to my district. NASA, cancel your Falcon 9 order and plan another SLS mission. Money? No, you can't have that; I need to cut taxes again."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the BFR is not just a launch vehicle guys. Just sayin ya know.

The BFR (if all goes well) is going to be a:

-ISS cargo Spacecraft

-Manned Spacecraft

-Space to Surface Transport System

-Deep Space Capability Spacecraft

-Every place in the Solar System expect for Gas Giants, Stars and problem Venus lander

-Reusable Spacecraft and Booster

-(Hopefully) Space Repair vehicle (like the shuttle, so it can repair the James Webb telescope for example)

-Intercontinental Balistic (Manned) Missle.

-Did i forget anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NSEP said:

-Did i forget anything?

It is also a series of Powerpoint slides.

I'm not super-confident in the BFR; it needs to run basically accident-free for hundreds of flights, with only occasional refurbishment, to be economically viable. Were I in Musk's shoes right now, I'd probably go for a less ambitious MFR (Medium Falcon Rocket) with a payload closer to FH levels, to test the concepts that will be necessary for BFR to be viable without risking quite as much expensive hardware at a time.

Right now, even if a Falcon 9 fails every 1/5 launches, he's still ahead of the market by a wide margin. If a BFR fails every 1/50 launches, its economic future is in question because they cost so much to build, and they will be launching with much less than the full 150 tons-to-LEO capacity. Remember, he's banking on re-using the hardware so many times that the relatively trivial cost of fuel becomes one of the limiting factors... and if he can't re-use it enough times, he falls behind people who manufacture much less hardware per launch.

EDIT: And yet it's still a better idea than a super-Falcon.

Edited by Starman4308
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 With BFR flying there isn't much need for ISS. After all, it can make a round trip to Mars with dozens of people on board. Just pack all of the scientific instruments in one BFR and send it to LEO. Deorbit it every once in a while for resupply and crew rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

 With BFR flying there isn't much need for ISS. After all, it can make a round trip to Mars with dozens of people on board. Just pack all of the scientific instruments in one BFR and send it to LEO. Deorbit it every once in a while for resupply and crew rotation.

It has been done before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacelab

And yet still there was MIR, and ISS after that. A big, dedicated station does have many advantages over a mobile module. That's why we build stations in Antarctica with permanent buildings, instead of just dropping a couple of adapted cargo containers and calling it a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same is true for BFR, but the effort is not wasted. It’s wasted effort on a dead end. Falcon super heavy is not a thing. It will not be a thing, it’s not worth thinking about.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starman4308 said:

There is one key issue with a hypothetical Falcon Super that doesn't apply to the BFR. There's no economically sensible reason to even try in the first place.

From a risk/reward perspective, the BFR is questionable: it's a huge investment in time, capital, and research for something vastly over-specced for 95% of what it'll do. If it works, it expands SpaceX's envelope to super-heavy lift and fully reusable launch of virtually any commercial payload, dramatically reducing costs. If it fails, it's a flop.

From a risk/reward perspective, a super-Falcon is, right out of the gate, a bad idea. The cost and risk, while less than that of the BFR, is still substantial, and the reward?

A small increase in SpaceX's launch capabilities envelope. A small increase that covers precisely no realistic commercial payload, and does not substantially reduce cost/ton as did the original development of the Falcon 9. With the improvements to the Falcon 9 itself, even the FH has less of a mission than it used to have.

For a rocket to be an economically viable prospect, it has to fly often enough to justify its development cost. If the BFR works as spectacularly well as Elon Musk hopes, it'll be flying quite possibly more than once a month. A Falcon Super would fly almost never, since very few payloads would fit in the narrow window between FH capacity and FS capacity.

 

Telecom companies on hearing the improvement in payload capacity: "Oh joy. Now send up another 10-ton bird to GTO on a Falcon Heavy.".

NASA on hearing the improvement: "This would be awesome for all these projects we will never have money for. Can we have a Falcon 9 for this heavily cut-down unmanned mission?"

Politicians: "This rubbish isn't adding jobs to my district. NASA, cancel your Falcon 9 order and plan another SLS mission. Money? No, you can't have that; I need to cut taxes again."

There are economical reasons even if you just don't want see them.

One is that economic cost of BFR dev = ~10 * (economic cost SH)
SH could be three years away, BFR could be 10 years away.
Money is money and time is money. Or to think of it like this, if the rate of borrowed money on risky adventures is 10% and you are borrowing for 10 years prior to a productive payback, your cost have doubled.

Whats going to happen to spaceX when the F9 markets starts to dry up when real competion begins. . . .go smaller, looks like Bezos and a few other are targeting that market.
Go to BFR, Which I repeat over and over again . . 100% concept, my prediction, nothing about BFR stated today will be what it is when, if and when, it becomes a reality.
Realities are never identical to concepts, if they were we would all driving around in cars that look like Batmobiles and fly like the jetsons car.

I think you guys are totally hung up on what you want to be and not on the realities of the marketplace. Mars is not a marketplace, the only marketplace right now is a sample return mission which, if it were to occur, would likely be unmanned.

Guys, sorry to have pulled you out of your Mars dream bubble, go back into . . . .we will see what comes to past in 6 years or so.

 

 

1 hour ago, NSEP said:

Don't forget that the BFR is not just a launch vehicle guys. Just sayin ya know.

The BFR (if all goes well) is going to be a:

-ISS cargo Spacecraft

-Manned Spacecraft

-Space to Surface Transport System

-Deep Space Capability Spacecraft

-Every place in the Solar System expect for Gas Giants, Stars and problem Venus lander

-Reusable Spacecraft and Booster

-(Hopefully) Space Repair vehicle (like the shuttle, so it can repair the James Webb telescope for example)

-Intercontinental Balistic (Manned) Missle.

-Did i forget anything?

BFR is a concept, like a said if all concepts became things we would driving batmobiles that fly and can refold into a suitcase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PB666 said:

BFR is a concept, like a said if all concepts became things we would driving batmobiles that fly and can refold into a suitcase.

We'll see if it sticks its hand out of the paper phase this year.

Im in no way saying the BFR is going to build bases on Mars, only if all goes well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...