BFR upper stage uses
SpaceX seems to be the favorite topic for my blog posts, although I did not intend to make this blog focuses solely on their plans. But main attraction is that, unlike many other schemes, their past results make their designs much closer to possible near future. Majority of other schemes rely almost exclusively on government only funding and the need of public acceptance to spend huge amounts of money for building castles in the sky.
But BFR is different in three aspects. First, its development architecture and funding really depends on a single person - Elon Musk, who is prepared to risk all of his (already huge) fortune to make it happen. Second, BFR architecture is really looking into multiple revenue streams, which reduce or might even eliminate need for government funding. Third, Elon Musk is a master of "dual use" of technologies where solution in one area represents a driver for development and acceptance of the other. Falcon 9 booster used the same engine as Falcon 1. Falcon 9 second stage used the same engine, same tooling, same diameter as the first stage. Powered reentry and landing of the booster was tested after booster primary missions were completed. Fairing reentry and landing are being and tested after its primary mission is completed. Autopilot was introduced to already selling Teslas. Powerwalls used the same battery packing technology as Teslas. SolarCity solar panels were a perfect match for Powerwalls. The list goes on and on. None of these aspects is unique to SpaceX and Elon Musk. But it can rarely be found in the sane company.
Most people from the industry completely dismissed any point-to-point human transportation pivot from IAC2017 presentation. It cannot use existing airports. Would normal person really want to sit on a large bomb that is slowly detonating under them? On the other hand, fully fueled Airbus A380 can have over 50% of their weight in fuel. Is it that much of a perceived risk to go from 50% to 90%? And what about reentry and sonic booms? Well, that is solved by using a mobile launch platform located out on the sea. What about risks associated with rocket launches, which is order of magnitude less secure than ? That is the real issue.
But again, what really surprised me how the whole concept really works in expanding the potential market. It is not likely that rapid point-to-point market will ever be major transportation market. But it can find its niche. Rapid military deployment anywhere on the world? I mean, deploying 200 special forces anywhere on the world in 50 minutes? That is unprecedented. Sending equipment in the same time frame? There is a market for safe and rapid intercontinental traffic. Concorde managed to charge ten times the regular intercontinental rate for only twice the speed.
In the latest AMA on Reddit, Elon Musk confirmed that they will first start with Grasshopper style hops of few hundred kilometers. And that upper stage itself has SSTO capability. And that it would be used for point-to-point transport. But the interesting part is not mentioned at all: how will stages be mated again on the mobile platform? Or should they be?
BFR in full configuration would have capacity on par with Boeing 747-400 or Airbus A380. That is probably too big capacity of early generation of soft landing ICBMs. Also, many countries would be highly concerned allowing ICBMs flying over their heads on regular basis. So it might be much easier to address shorter hops that do not cross over additional countries. Flight from Los Angeles to New York is around six hours. New York to London eight hours. London to Dubai seven hours. Dubai to Perth ten hours. Perth to Auckland eight hours. Auckland to Hawaii nine hours. Hawaii to Los Angeles six hours. Each of these hops avoids major world powers (with the exception of USA) and crosses only a single country (with the exception of London to Middle East route). Such twenty minute hops could easily allow round the world trip in less than 24 hours. And the best part is that they would require only BFR upper stage deltaV of around 6km/s and capacity of a hundred passengers. Which would literally enable "gas and go" principle.
So the first application of such transport mechanism would likely be NYC-LA or NYC to London routes, since they would be perceived as low risk from geopolitical aspect. It would make Hawaii much "closer" to the mainland. And make Australia easily accessible and closer to US.
Frequent launches and landings would make BFR orders of magnitude safer than any other space vehicle. And probably much cheaper also due to sharing of development costs and technology with its P2P cousin. BFR as a system is a bridge too far. But BFS (BFR upper stage) is much more feasible near term vehicle.
But BFR is different in three aspects. First, its development architecture and funding really depends on a single person - Elon Musk, who is prepared to risk all of his (already huge) fortune to make it happen. Second, BFR architecture is really looking into multiple revenue streams, which reduce or might even eliminate need for government funding. Third, Elon Musk is a master of "dual use" of technologies where solution in one area represents a driver for development and acceptance of the other. Falcon 9 booster used the same engine as Falcon 1. Falcon 9 second stage used the same engine, same tooling, same diameter as the first stage. Powered reentry and landing of the booster was tested after booster primary missions were completed. Fairing reentry and landing are being and tested after its primary mission is completed. Autopilot was introduced to already selling Teslas. Powerwalls used the same battery packing technology as Teslas. SolarCity solar panels were a perfect match for Powerwalls. The list goes on and on. None of these aspects is unique to SpaceX and Elon Musk. But it can rarely be found in the sane company.
Most people from the industry completely dismissed any point-to-point human transportation pivot from IAC2017 presentation. It cannot use existing airports. Would normal person really want to sit on a large bomb that is slowly detonating under them? On the other hand, fully fueled Airbus A380 can have over 50% of their weight in fuel. Is it that much of a perceived risk to go from 50% to 90%? And what about reentry and sonic booms? Well, that is solved by using a mobile launch platform located out on the sea. What about risks associated with rocket launches, which is order of magnitude less secure than ? That is the real issue.
But again, what really surprised me how the whole concept really works in expanding the potential market. It is not likely that rapid point-to-point market will ever be major transportation market. But it can find its niche. Rapid military deployment anywhere on the world? I mean, deploying 200 special forces anywhere on the world in 50 minutes? That is unprecedented. Sending equipment in the same time frame? There is a market for safe and rapid intercontinental traffic. Concorde managed to charge ten times the regular intercontinental rate for only twice the speed.
In the latest AMA on Reddit, Elon Musk confirmed that they will first start with Grasshopper style hops of few hundred kilometers. And that upper stage itself has SSTO capability. And that it would be used for point-to-point transport. But the interesting part is not mentioned at all: how will stages be mated again on the mobile platform? Or should they be?
BFR in full configuration would have capacity on par with Boeing 747-400 or Airbus A380. That is probably too big capacity of early generation of soft landing ICBMs. Also, many countries would be highly concerned allowing ICBMs flying over their heads on regular basis. So it might be much easier to address shorter hops that do not cross over additional countries. Flight from Los Angeles to New York is around six hours. New York to London eight hours. London to Dubai seven hours. Dubai to Perth ten hours. Perth to Auckland eight hours. Auckland to Hawaii nine hours. Hawaii to Los Angeles six hours. Each of these hops avoids major world powers (with the exception of USA) and crosses only a single country (with the exception of London to Middle East route). Such twenty minute hops could easily allow round the world trip in less than 24 hours. And the best part is that they would require only BFR upper stage deltaV of around 6km/s and capacity of a hundred passengers. Which would literally enable "gas and go" principle.
So the first application of such transport mechanism would likely be NYC-LA or NYC to London routes, since they would be perceived as low risk from geopolitical aspect. It would make Hawaii much "closer" to the mainland. And make Australia easily accessible and closer to US.
Frequent launches and landings would make BFR orders of magnitude safer than any other space vehicle. And probably much cheaper also due to sharing of development costs and technology with its P2P cousin. BFR as a system is a bridge too far. But BFS (BFR upper stage) is much more feasible near term vehicle.
Comments
Post a Comment