Can someone explain to me where people get the guts to even mention this fucking thing in a semi-serious discussion?

>le everything is le religon top lel

FH has 27 engines and worked perfectly well

> what are lifting bodies.

STS crews didn’t have to handle 10 g during rentry, more like 3 g max

Much smaller rocket and engines, different design, and flown only once with minimal payload.

The N1 also "worked" a few times.

Communist engineering is great for only simple things...

>landing rockets don't carry people you stupid fuck, do you even know what kind of G's do you have to pull to brake from 10km/s?

You dont know what you are talking about. The BFR as envisioned for point to point travel is big and light, an ideal combination for aerobraking. Estimates are that it will pull around 3Gs. It is a concern but not a showstopper.

Dont get me wrong, I am very skeptical about BFR replacing airplanes, and certainly not in nearest decades. But this particular criticism is wrong.

Where BFR will really shine is what it was conceived to do in the first place - launching things into orbit. Thousands of tons every year for a price of $100 per kg is a realistic scenario.

N1 was an untested piece of shit with much bigger problems than a number of engines

>Hours to board a jet in america you nigger
Is that... relevant?
>And they aren't flying nukes
Rocket crashes cause less damage than most military bombs when crashing, the fucking debris is more dangerous.
Like that other guy said, you're sounding worryingly close to the first detractors of automobiles and combustion engines.

>landing rockets don't carry people you stupid fuck
Oh no
We didn't think of that when making rockets not designed to carry people
How awful

>what the fuck is this a religion?
Possibly

I bet you made the same thread about Falcon 9 in 2013. If you were even here back then.

>Actually naming you rocket BFR
the madman

Honestly it's nice to have someone who's not stupid AND has a sense of humour being the figurehead. Means the normies get interested for at least five minutes.

You sound like those 1910s mongoloids who complained that cars should be banned because they are too fast. Kys.

While I agree that user is a luddite I do also think that it won't catch on for financial reasons because we've seen the same thing with Concorde. Most people would rather sit in a plane for 6 hours and pay £500 than sit in one for 2 hours and pay £2,000. Maybe it will find a niche for business and government like Concorde did but it will never be widely popular like jumbos. Oh and don't forget the greenpeace nuts will fight it to the death. They only leave rocketry alone because it's a) infrequent and b) the only way to get into space.

>Mucus
man that is clever

it's like 'obummer' or 'drumpf', totally amazing. i laffed for like an hour

>Is that... relevant?
yes, extremely, especially if you market your new transportation method as something that takes you across pacific in 35 minutes
first of fucking all, and I'm repeating myself here and you are a fucking cunt for making me do it, 35 minutes is flight time for rockets that don't brake, rockets that would murder anyone inside them, no matter how fit and healthy they are, let alone fucking randos with fat wallets
>Rocket crashes cause less damage than most military bombs when crashing, the fucking debris is more dangerous.
Rockets like Soyuz carry 300 tons of fuel, same as an A380, 4000 tons of fuel in BFR would literally cause 10kt explosion, are you on fucking drugs?

>We didn't think of that when making rockets not designed to carry people
laugh it up faggot, you either brake for god knows how long completely shitting on that 35 minute figure or murder everyone inside, orbiter was a fucking glider and its reentry took forever and it still had to smother the crew 20 minutes with 3 G's there is no wonderful new idea your god and savior will pull from his urethra to go around this, you either do it or your rocket can't carry people

>I can and WILL go on if provoked

oh no....

I think its pretty likely that OP is still posting from the same basement, with the same disappointed parents upstairs

>BFR would literally cause 10kt explosion, are you on fucking drugs?
>You either brake for god knows how long completely shitting on that 35 minute figure or murder everyone inside, orbiter was a fucking glider and its reentry took forever and it still had to smother the crew 20 minutes with 3 G's there is no wonderful new idea your god and savior will pull from his urethra to go around this, you either do it or your rocket can't carry people

Finally someone admits it. The BFR is a fucking terrible idea. Yes, it is capable of causing a 10kt explosion if it were to fail. Musk wants to create a rideable nuke to transport people across the world. It would just be simpler to create a spaceplane.

BFR AKA N2

...

The issue with the n1 wasn't the number of engines though you retard, it was horrible build and engineering due to the government requiring them to cut corners to meet with their tight budget, and poor materials

falcon heavy works. Musk delivered.

Just because the Falcon Heavy worked doesn't mean the same can be said about the BFR or America's N1

You're focusing entirely on ONE use of the BFR, and that use is purely HYPOTHETICAL

The main purpose of the BFR is to go out into space, you fucking tool

>Comparing a rocket that hasn't been build yet with one that only failed due to the budget and time constraints the USSR out on okb-1 to compete with the bigger, more expensive Saturn v that was further along in it's development
The n1 didn't fail due to engine count

They said that one of the main challenges with the Falcon Heavy was dealing with the vibrations and extra thrust of all those engines together

They said the central core had to be completely redesigned for these reasons

Those were the problems that afflicted the N1, and clearly they didn't get to grips with them, but SpaceX have now successfully launched a rocket which DID tackle those problems

Stop being a fucking idiot

Heavy voice confirmed

You sound like you're about to bust a nut
You know being so stressed out cuts years off your life and more important, only invites misery into your wellbeing?

There's a fucking madman out their that's want to turn a fucking rocket into public transport. Why should I be calm that this opens the doors for terrorist to convert the BFR into a makeshift dirty bomb.

It drives me up the wall seeing people whiteknight faggot whose one company is 700 million dollars in debt because it's been selling cars cheaper than their manufacturing price for years to create a monopoly, and another lives off government subsidy, but likely does the same fucking thing with rockets, all the while the big man says big words and fags eat them up no matter what kind of horseshit it turns out to be when scrutinized.
Musk is selling fucking gimmicks and people are in awe.

People love madmen like him, they are daring and courageous. He’s the kind of man who can become legendary, like Newton or Washington. Barely any people left in the world with money and the gall to do what he’s doing

>How do you justify the horrendous fuel economy of a craft that - even if it could take same amount of people as biggest passenger aircraft - consumes almost 20 times more fuel?
Not accurate. Nearly 80% of the propellant is oxygen. It would only consume 4 or 5 times as much fuel, and the fuel would be cheap natural gas, which happens to cost about one quarter as much as jet fuel.

Point-to-point BFR would take about 750 tonnes of methane. A 747 takes about 150 tonnes of Jet A. Both should be able to seat about 400 or 500 passengers. Two 747s can do about two intercontinental flight per day at peak workload. Two BFRs should be able to do two intercontinental flights per hour at peak workload.

You are deluded if you believe there is ever going to be Earth-to-Earth travel on rockets. The Falcon Heavy launch had to be delayed for hours because it was a little bit too windy. And for earth to earth the weather doesn't have to be perfect on one location, but two. That alone is going to kill it.

i recall the exact same criticisms of the falcon heavy.

lol

The Falcon Heavy did nothing that hasn't already been done before. I mean, it's nice to see somebody is bringing back enthusiasm for space travel, but literally nothing about it was ground-breaking.

That's not some inherent property of rockets. If you believe it is, go watch some Soyuz launches in a snowstorm.

These are young rockets which have flown relatively few times (for Falcon Heavy, that was its maiden flight!), and by avoiding bad weather, they're minimizing the probability of failure while they accumulate flight data.

>literally nothing about it was ground-breaking.

>reflown side-boosters
>simultaneously landing of side-boosters
>nearly successful recovery of center core
>upper-stage restart after six hours in space
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
>first private superheavy
literally nothing

Planes don't fly if its windy either

holy shit kys retard

Man, ULA really is going all-out on the shill budget.

It's too bad we can't just build planes that can go into sub-orbit instead of rockets. OH WAIT-

Planes have a much higher tolerance to winds than a fucking rocket, are you seriously that stupid that you are comparing the two?

>>reflown side-boosters
Not relevant. Just because something has been flown doesn't mean that it hasn't been essentially turned new.
>simultaneously landing of side-boosters
And this is ground breaking how?
>nearly successful recovery of center core
>nearly successful
That's a neat way to call crashing into the ocean at 500mph
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
>"muh muh $90M!"
brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
It's not a super heavy. Both of the other super heavies lifted 100 tons into orbit. It's a heavy lifter, nothing more.

How is a missile full of kerosene a dirty bomb?

Plus, if Elon doesn't find a way to make a rocket launch really silent, launch and landing sites are going to have to be far away from urban centers. So a lot of the time you are safing in flight you are going to lose again in transfering to and from the "rocketport". So while the flight itself would be much shorter, the whole journey necessarily wouldn't.

>Expecting Muskrats to be knowledgeable about rocketry and aerospace.
There's your problem senpai.

Literally build a metro

>Planes have a much higher tolerance to winds than a fucking rocket
No they don't. They have much lower tolerance. Planes depend on things like airspeed, whereas rockets are naturally insensitive to such things.

What planes have is a long and very active history of flying, and demanding customers that expect flights to go in all but the most severe weather conditions. Rockets, on the other hand, have low flight rates and delay-tolerant customers who are generally installing assets that will be in use for years.

>Refueling 750 tons of methane and loading/offloading 500 passengers twice in an hour
>Somehow seating an entire 747 load of people + luggage in a BFR
This is your brain on popsci

youtube.com/watch?v=huM7PJBMYBY

FH is big, the Soyuz is a masterpiece of rocketry that has been flown over 1400 times and is rather small. Wind affects the FH, and bigger rockets in general, more. ULA delay Delta IV Heavy launches if there's too much wind, and that's a 100% successful rocket.

10 KILOTON EXPLOSION if the BFR fails launch. That's half of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. Musk is going to kill us all to achieve his wet dream of flying a rocket ship to Mars

>>reflown side-boosters
>Not relevant.
If you're just in the thread to be garbage, do it somewhere else.

>brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf
>"muh muh FAA fluff document guess!"
I repeat: go be garbage somewhere else.

>It's not a super heavy.
50 tonnes to LEO is the accepted cutoff between heavy and super heavy. And Energia only flew twice: one failure, one test flight.

You're trying to quibble over a technicality that you're wrong about. Because you're garbage.

bullied much?

BFR is probably not going up in a strong storm (after all, even plane flights get cancelled sometimes due to bad weather), but there is no reason to believe it cannot be designed to withstand moderate winds.

The main reason why rockets dont fly in strong winds is low flight rate leading to extreme risk aversion. It makes sense to cancel the launch at the drop of a hat and wait a few hours or days when the launches are few and far between anyway.

There is no need for this approach for rockets like BFR, where safety would be guaranteed not by being extremely risk averse, but by very high flight rates, similar to aeroplanes.

>Ad hominem
>Ad hominem
>Ad hominem
Nice.

>50 tonnes to LEO is the accepted cutoff between heavy and super heavy.
According to who? The Energia, N1 (had it succeeded), and the Saturn V were all capable of lifting 100 tons into orbit.

Face it, rockets will never ever get to an acceptable level of safety for commercial flights. They are quite literally bombs open at one end, and even all these years, they're still not safe.

I'd like to see how you're getting the equivalent of 10000 tons of TNT exploding from 1100 tons of fuel + oxidizer.
Even the N1 was only one kiloton with 2800 tons of fuel and oxidizer, although I'm not sure on the specifics of how kerosene compares to methane when exploding.
Also do you not know what a dirty bomb is?

>twice in an hour
Once per hour, moron. Two vehicles at two ports. And it doesn't matter how many people there are, you're not loading or unloading them one at a time.

>>Somehow seating an entire 747 load of people + luggage in a BFR
150 tonne payload to LEO, higher payload on suborbital trajectories. A 747 only has about a 170-220 (depending on model) tonne difference between its empty weight and maximum takeoff weight, and all fuel, passengers, and cargo have to fit into that.

BFR will carry at least as much as a 747.

How would that solve the problem of travelling to the launch site for 5 hours?

Also, generally speaking, there is no big demand for super-quick intercontinental transport. That is also what killed the Concorde.

An ad hominem is an argument that a claim is wrong because of who it comes from. An insult directed toward someone who has said something wrong and stupid is the opposite of that.

But you'd understand that if you weren't garbage.

>Nearly 80% of the propellant is oxygen
Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million
topped 747 fuel tank costs $80,000

these two things can literally fly the same distance, one is just slower

The N-1 never worked.

The inability to do the testing necessary before flight doomed the N-1. Russians did not have and would not fund construction of a test stand to allow test firings of all the engines together. The only way they could find the issues they'd have to address was to launch the whole fucking thing and see how it failed.

And they had to do that as fast as possible since they were in a race with the Americans, who they knew were ahead, and the other soviet lunar program which was competing for resources.

Throw into that the death of Korolev and his successor not having the necessary management experience, and they were fucked.

Still haven't refuted any of my arguments friendo. :^)

>and even all these years, they're still not safe.

All these years? We are still in the stone age when it comes to rocketry. It is only two years since first vertical landing of an orbital class stage. There is PLENTY of low hanging technological fruit left to pluck. I am not sure whether rockets will ever be safe enough for commercial travel. But neither are you. Nobody can say for sure where will this end.

The fuck are you nerds even talking about?

Landing rockets have been possible for a while, it's just that no one saw the need for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

>travelling to the launch site for 5 hours
You can travel across a country in 5 hours. Don't be an idiot.

>there is no big demand for super-quick intercontinental transport. That is also what killed the Concorde.
The Concorde was not "super-quick", it only cut travel times about in half, and it cost much more than a business-class overnight flight where you can catch a night's sleep in reasonable comfort.

BFR point-to-point is expected to be cost-competitive with economy flights and would be an order-of-magnitude reduction in travel time.

>Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million

Wrong. The cost of fuelling a BFR is around 500,000

quora.com/How-much-will-the-fuel-of-one-BFR-launch-cost

>Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million
Go ahead, present your source for this ridiculous bullshit claim that this is what it will cost for SpaceX to extract from the atmosphere and liquefy in bulk at the launch site for their own use.

>Quora

But part of the crappy build was that they did not have powerful enough engines, and so had to use a lot of them. This made the system overly complex, and interactions between engines hard to predict without a test-firing f the whole assembly, which they did not have the test stand to attempt. It also multiplied the chance of engine failure, requiring the KORS system to be cobbled together -- that being a cause of at least one of the failures.

That, of course, does not mean that a large number of engines is impossible. Nor does it mean that SpaceX is not capable of doing it. But it does bring its own sheaf of problems that need to be addressed.

>You can travel across a country in 5 hours. Don't be an idiot.

Yeah, and rocket launch near the equator, so literally you would have to do that.

That's a very pessimistic estimate, which assumes they'd be buying liquid oxygen retail and having it delivered.

If they were doing multiple launches per day, they would, of course, make their own on site.

>Once per hour, moron
he made a mistake, but I would bite my tongue if I wanted to suggest you can load 4000 tons of propellant and oxidizer in a fucking hour.
fueling up shuttle ET took almost a day and that thing was a dwarf compared to BFR

Now compare the internal space of the BFR vs the internal space of a 747SR.

>Yeah, and rocket launch near the equator, so literally you would have to do that.
Oh my God, I don't even know where to start with someone so fucking stupid that they've looked at this and concluded that BFR point-to-point suborbital flights would need to launch from somewhere near the equator. What are you even doing trying to discuss this stuff?

It's this fucking idiot again
You'll know the one if you scroll down a bit.
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/62674866

You actually believe that BFR p2p flights will ever be a thing. There's no helping you.

CSM main engine restarted consistently over multiple missions with zero failures. (It was not attempted on Apollo 13)

That does not impact whether or not the recent restart impresses you. But it does make it less ground-breaking.

>not sure if trolling or an idiot..

An artist's rendering is not convincing evidence of what we can build and make work.

you're the reason we haven't found immortality and I'm not fucking dank alien bitches on alpha centauri

Kys.

High flight rate does not create less risk by some magic. Rather, acceptably low risk allows frequent flight rates.

How about you do it, dumbass?

fuck that's orgasmic hnngggg

Because I'm not the one trying to convince people that a BFR can somehow seat the same number of people as a 747 designed for maximum capacity.

high flight rate helps uncover uncommon anomalies or modes of failure and as such greatly reduces risk

low flight rate is by far the main cause of both high launch costs and also rockets being relatively dangerous

all that changes in a radical way if you rocket is flying every day instead of once a month

I dont even know why Mr safe the environment Elon Musk wants to pollute the environment so heavily just to safe some hours on a trip where it doesn't even matter that much how long it takes, because 99% of the people very rarely or never take it. That seems just so unnecessary. "Yeah we ruined the earth, but shit son, I just couldnt bare the idea of having to cram my ass into this airplane for 10 hours more".

>it does make it less ground-breaking.
No it doesn't. The CSM propulsive module was a pressure-fed hypergolic system that sacrificed performance for space-storable propellant and simple, reliability-centric design, whereas the Falcon 9/H upper stage is a high-performance, standard upper stage with lox/rp-1 propellant. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It's a big deal that the Falcon 9/H upper stage can, for instance, coast to GEO and then circularize a payload there, without needing a costly orbital insertion stage.