It might also be a vehicle for large things that people can't launch
even now without major contortions, here's looking at you JWST! Just
imagine how good a telescope you could send up if you didn't have to
pack it into an A5 fairing. Or what about those SAR satellites with
big radar dishes?
When you can build bigger things and just throw mass at the problem,
it would seem to help reduce the problem space, or at least change
it.
If you could launch a GTO satellite with and simple folder antenna,
but one which comes out at 200x200', woulnd't that be a game changer?
Dunno... I think having a cheap, but system to access will pull out
all kinds of new systems. Or even better yet, look at how cubesats
have let people concetrate more on the internals, and less on the
packaging. Sorta like how containers revolutionized shipping.
I think of BFR more as the early container ship design, not as the end
goal, but one that is needed to kick start the industry.
Just imagine what box-sats could do, where you have standard cubic
meter volumes to work with. So a BFR loaded with a bunch of box-sats
would be an impressive thing to see.
Looking at how they ship those huge ring cranes in standard shipping
container sized pieces, with the standard mounting lugs so they stack
nicely. Having a standard like this lets people innovate in other
areas. Seems like a win.
But it's certainly not going to be quick, but maybe in 15 years we
will see something like this happen. Interesting times.
John
Rand> Not sure I agree with that. I think that if SpaceX gets a BFR
Rand> working, then it will be a vehicle for bulk cargo. Not things
Rand> that intrinsically need a big vehicle, but people who want to
Rand> deliver commodities to orbit at low cost. Think pipeline to (and
Rand> to a lesser degree, from) orbit, or transcontinental railroad to
Rand> space.
Rand> On 10/3/21 17:55, William Claybaugh wrote:
Rand> John:
Rand> This is similar to the argument that ELV’s could compete w/ RLV’s if
they could be produced
Rand> and fly thousands of time per year. And I agree that the very
limited data doesn’t prove
Rand> which is most correct.
Rand> But first mover’s have a real advantage: if ELV’s had manically
pursued low cost—something
Rand> that your employer notably acted to oppose—than that might be the
path things ran down. But
Rand> that is over: SpaceX dropped ELV prices by a factor of four and then
built a partial RLV that
Rand> prices at about one-third of ELV prices, RLV’s are now the canonical
solution.
Rand> If SpaceX gets a BFR working then there will not be a space in the
market for twenty tons at
Rand> six or eight times as many launches: first mover likely wins for the
next few decades, not
Rand> least because payloads will get sized for that vehicle.
Rand> Assuming no world war.
Rand> Bill
Rand> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 3:45 PM John Schilling
<john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rand> Mars only requires a BFR if you insist on flying to the surface
of Mars in a spaceship you
Rand> launched from the surface of Earth. Which, admittedly, is what
Apollo and fifty years of
Rand> science fiction have programmed people to expect. But if you are
willing to use on-orbit
Rand> assembly, and if you're planning to go to Mars a *lot* you really
ought to, then what
Rand> matters is large *total* launch capacity at low cost per ton, and
no need for any single
Rand> launch to be >20 tons.
Rand> Whether a few larger launches or many smaller ones gets you lower
overall cost per ton is
Rand> uncertain, but the effect is probably not large. There are
economies of scale for larger
Rand> launch vehicles, but there are also economies of scale for higher
flight rates, and they
Rand> very roughly cancel. So no, you don't need either a BFR or new
physics to go to Mars.
Rand> If you want to pay for your trip to Mars in part by selling
launch services to customers
Rand> whose interests lie closer to home, it is probably advantageous
to offer flights on demand
Rand> on a rocket scaled to the LEO and GEO markets.
Rand> John Schilling
Rand> On 9/30/2021 5:15 PM, Troy Prideaux wrote:
Rand> From my (albeit naïve) understanding, Elon’s driving goal has
always been Mars – which
Rand> ultimately requires (in the absence of new physics) a BFR.
Rand>
Rand> Troy
Rand>
Rand> From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
Rand> Anthony Cesaroni
Rand> Sent: Friday, 1 October 2021 10:10 AM
Rand> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rand> Subject: [AR] Re: Nothing to do with rockets.
Rand>
Rand> Hi Bill,
Rand>
Rand> One could argue that the plateau was reached with the 747 and
finally the A-380.
Rand> Operational costs and the overestimate of the hub model in
the case of the latter. The
Rand> 777 appears to be able to sustain the “jumbo” mission and
operational cost models
Rand> currently as I understand it. That said, I’m not sure that
it’s apples to apples when
Rand> it comes to comparing any of this to spacecraft. Elon
certainly believes bigger is
Rand> better and it will be required for his mission goals.
Rand>
Rand> Best.
Rand>
Rand> Anthony J. Cesaroni
Rand> President/CEO
Rand> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
Rand> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
Rand> (941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
Rand> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Rand>
Rand> From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of William
Rand> Claybaugh
Rand> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 7:53 PM
Rand> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rand> Subject: [AR] Re: Nothing to do with rockets.
Rand>
Rand> Rand:
Rand>
Rand> Just like the airlines.
Rand>
Rand> Bill
Rand>