ThatGuyWithALongUsername

Do you have anything else to say, other than constantly repeating extremely pessimistic comments? Saying something once is good enough... I am really holding back an https://www.xkcd.com/386/-style retort, I have to get to work on an essay, darn it... EDIT: Though, I will add, looking at the FH timeline for comparison, the mars flights may slip into the 2030's and I would not be surprised. But I think the BFR, or... something like it (once the design settles completely)... will eventually fly.

There's the catch, isn't it...

In the slightly late news, the humans-on-mars timeline appears to have officially shifted a bit, unless Elon is making a distinction between the first to land on Mars and the first to colonize it. It has now slipped from 2024 to 2025-2028, which is... a bit less "aspirational," I guess. Also in line with his "moon base" comments earlier. That's around 2025, evidently. Looking at the Mars transfer windows, the best fit is a 2026 launch. The next launch window isn't until 2029- remember, 2 years is an approximation.

*vodka. But still...

Eh, just enough to picture just about any nearby planet in a few pixels would be ok. Thanks to SCIENCE, we could get surface maps from these anyway, kind of similar to hubble's observations of Pluto. We could also find major moons around these. As to larger resolutions, I am still intrigued by that aragoscope concept mentioned above- it sounds doable, eventually.

Crazy idea: what about an ice giant? It could survive fine in the upper atmosphere, right? A balloon would probably be better since you probably wouldn't be going anywhere in particular, since, in the case of the friendlier of the two, there's almost no variation on the "surface." But still, maybe it could have its advantages!

A long, long time ago, before the 1.0 update, Ions had even higher thrust (still low, but higher nonetheless), better performance in atmospheres, and the aerodynamic model was worse. Ion gliders were great for slow but long-range gliders, especially on Duna. With the exception of that one Bradley Whistance video in 1.13, they have been impossible on Kerbin ever since.

This brings back KSP memories more than anything tbh... remember ion-powered planes?

Yep, they are. You are correct. See https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-spaceship-prototype-tank-dome-complete-hop-tests/ I think I get it now. This makes sense. You're saying that you aren't sure about the changes because they haven't been built yet and, more importantly, change rapidly, right?

Have some hardware then: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-spaceship-prototype-tank-dome-complete-hop-tests/

The Wikipedia discussion page sums this all up perfectly: "unsure if Elon is high right now." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BFR_(rocket)#Requested_move_20_November_2018

LOL, maybe Elon Musk is just trying to drive us all slowly crazy at this point... (IT'S WORKING)

I think it's supposed to match with "starlink" more than anything. No idea what the last comment was about, probably just wild future speculation... I don't think this is the case here... "Super Heavy" simply means it is... well, super heavy. Quite a bit heavier than, say the (Falcon) Heavy. This tweet seems to back up the single-stick design:

WHAT EDIT: I thought this would merge, sorry- blame @CatastrophicFailure

Uh Elon what

Makes sense. The design of the BFB hasn't changed at all from 2017, and not that much from 2016. It seemed a bit placeholder-y in the 2018 presentation, as we didn't really get any more details on it. Grid fins were accidentally completely forgotten in the first renderings, which could hint that this design isn't going to stay. This seems epecially likely since the BFS is nearing the next phase of development, with testing starting hopefully within a year and parts of the design becoming more concrete, while the BFB is still neglected. Development on the BFB, although assumed to be "easier," is clearly not at the same stage as the BFS and is thus a prime candidate for more design change. It's also a bit less insane than changing a two-month-old design.

I tried a 14 engine booster with no success, but I have not yet tried a full BFR 31 engines quite yet. I had the idea but had no more time to try it. Assuming the Raptors can gimbal a lot... it just might work. Very reminiscent of a certain space shuttle. Perhaps I'll try that next...

BTW, I tried a "biamese" design with only 2 ships and it didn't really work. TWR was just terrible. This was in RO/RSS with @Nessus_'s configs. Added 2 engines to side BFS. No crossfeed. Long story short, you need 3 cores or more/ better Raptors. Considering the insane performance of Merlin engines, I wouldn't be surprised if the Raptors got another upgrade- and that, combined with adding a few more, just might save this design. Otherwise, looks like you need 3 cores.

That makes a lot of sense. Also, eliminating the BFB would get rid of the need to land back on the launch mount and cramp 30+ engines on a stage the same diameter as the BFS with 7 engines. I can see a lot of development time that can be shaved off here. In addition, you could dock a full tanker to it in LEO and increase payload capacity to Mars without refueling.

I'm not kidding, I just had a similar idea, but you beat me to it More specifically, why would we need 3 BFS's (?)? One on it's own can SSTO, albeit without much payload, so just strap one tanker BFS to the side and call it a day- that should be enough.

Couldn't see anything I guess the trajectory is sufficiently different from OA-5, which, according to Google Earth, would be visible.

Time for plan B. Duct tape is always the answer.

Well... the weather's fine... but, um, I can't find the camera. Just perfect.

I wonder if this would be close enough to shore for a better video connection? Also, this really sounds like the kind of thing SpaceX would do. Remember who put a car in space once...

Now that's a cool picture. I missed this launch- kind of wish I didn't. Fitting, as its next mission will be a lunar lander!