LLV

Attached: DZPBkxsVAAAmQO_.jpg-large.jpg (1123x826, 195K)

Attached: DZPFUQvU8AAYZAb.jpg-large.jpg (1124x765, 144K)

Attached: DZO_MRNV4AAIbKk.jpg-large.jpg (1111x739, 197K)

When will the first BFR be built?

it's being built right now (engines, avionics, etc)! But the main superstructure will be assembled at San Pedro

Project development draft study: portoflosangeles.org/MND/WWM/WWM_MND.pdf
Map of the SpaceX future facilities: google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1XjAcDFzI2kP4XTtdG_sWLf1OTF5V-XoH&ll=33.73223177519197,-118.27027380000004&z=17
Port approval form: portoflosangeles.org/Board/2018/March 2018/03_15_18_Special_Agenda_Item_7.pdf

>Aprox. 750 employees
>32m(!) tall, 18859m2 main building
>demolition/new construction expected to take 16-18 months total; this is split into many phases (like the gigafactory)
>large items (composite pressure vessels from Janicki) will arrive to the factory up to three times per month!
>Finished vessels would need to be transported via water due to their size
>Regular F9 recovery ops will take place at the facility as well
>Factory will consist of general manufacturing procedures such as welding, composite curing, cleaning, painting, and assembly operations
>The facility is next to the Coast Guard, a minimum security prison, and a historic site; pretty run-down overall
>Vehicle transport will be done via barge. Barge will remain in port when not in use
>"Operations would involve development and manufacture of prototypes and first generations vessels within the proposed building. The facility would also establish the development processes prior to implementing production on a larger scale, which would not be accommodated in the proposed facility."
>This means that San Pedro will not be the only BFR factory, only the initial one

Attached: 1521557228586.png (947x709, 1.3M)

2020-2021 if the timeline sticks, BFS obviously much earlier.

What the fuck is a BFS

I think he meant BFB

BFB = booster = the fat cylinder 1st stage
BFR = the 2nd stage. There will be cargo BFR, tanker BFR, and crew BFR

Ah, but the booster doesn't matter without the BFR having been built, right?

Meme leader, standing by

I recently watched a documentary from the early 60s and they always call them missiles, never rockets. Since when do people use the word rocket instead of missile?

I'd say that Lunar refueling is likely not something that'll be done any time soon, since it'll be far easier to just fly back to Earth to fuel there, even if it cuts payload in half

yeah, they plan to do BFR before BFB - short hops in Texas before orbit

Any info on the dimensions of the facility? Interested about the doors in particular, and whether 12m diameter cylinders would fit through them...

were they not just producing parts for the ship (BFS)? Is it known if they're building new parts for the booster (other than Raptors)? I did hear about this shortly after FH but can't quite remember the wording.

32m tall, so you can figure out the doors from this

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 2.56.38 PM.png (1934x694, 96K)

... and here's the floorplan size

585x218' or something like that

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 2.54.46 PM.png (1448x1392, 520K)

A prototype is currently being built at SpaceX's factory at Hawthorne, the booster will likely be built later at this factory by the water.

BFS = the spaceship

I want Blue Origin to succeed just so SpaceX has somebody to compete with

Bezos has $100,000,000,000. Blue Origin won't fail

>X is too big to fail
I think I've heard that one before

Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has transcended such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why, you might ask? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

Attached: cislunar_100.jpg (1871x663, 290K)

100 billion dollars circumvents the too big to fail meme.

define 'fail'

And Google is too rich for Glass to fail?

dissolved, sold off

spacenews.com/space-communications-as-the-industry-launches-new-products-military-cant-decide-what-to-buy/

>According to industry sources, companies likely to compete in the Blackjack program include Iridium, SpaceX, Telesat and LeoSat.

>DARPA’s interest in small-satellite LEO services reflects a growing consensus that these constellations are better positioned than large geosynchronous orbit (GEO) spacecraft to survive enemy attacks in a future war.

Money on the SLS are spent entirely for the benefit of the American public.

Indeed one could say the SLS program is the heart on soul of American space science.

Only America has the SLS and we must protect that crucial part of America's interests.

SLS is the heart and soul of America's science and we can't let that go.

We need the SLS, America needs the SLS, Science needs the SLS.

SLS is the rocket that symbolizes the American Dream.

Go, SLS, fly high, like a true American Eagle!

>Gerstenmaier (chief of human spaceflight for NASA) then said NASA's exploration program will require the unique capabilities of the SLS rocket. "I think it's still going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS kind of capability to get them out into space," he said.
>One difficulty with Gerstenmaier's response to Hale's question is that NASA does not, in fact, yet have any "large-volume, monolithic pieces" that could only be launched by the Space Launch System. The cornerstone of its 2020s exploration plans is the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, a small space station to fly in orbit around the Moon. The first piece of this station, a power and propulsion module, will launch in 2022 aboard a commercial rocket.
Did NASA just admit that they are full of shit?
arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/nasa-chief-explains-why-agency-wont-buy-a-bunch-of-falcon-heavy-rockets/

>n-n-no Mr. President, it might look like Elon's rocket is an order of magnitude less expensive than ours, b-but we need the SLS now more than ever because mumble mumble monolithic pieces
>gib more funding plox

They'll be pushing for the sls or something similar even if the bfr is landing routinely on the moon. It is not about rockets or missions.

Pork politics

roomba being worked on

Attached: vZlReWZ.jpg (4032x3024, 879K)

The SLS is required in order to build the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, because the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway was designed to require SLS. Also it hasn't been designed yet, but when it is it will require SLS. Funding for designing it hasn't been allocated yet, but if and when it is, it will be on the basis that it require SLS. As you can see, SLS is clearly required by SLS requirements and Falcon Heavy is not SLS and so therefore does not meet the requirements of being SLS.

I imagine a scenario eight or ten years from now when a BFR is hauling 150 tons into orbit every week, and once a year a 150 ton SLS mission is launched that costs more than all 52 BFR launches combined

And That's A Good Thing

Once BFR and Glenn pass governmental test launches SLS will be over, its 2011 technology, conceived in 2005.

Attached: 1465145935423.gif (500x375, 495K)

nice copy of the comment from the Ars article you have there

However, pretty much this.

SLS will likely become legit jobs program to prop up the contractors and their industrial capability/expertise on the basis of national interests in times of coldwar.

>hauling 150 tons into orbit every week
every day

>costs more than all 52 BFR launches combined
all 365

>SLS will be over, its 2011 technology, conceived in 2005.
its literally 80s technology, 90s tops

>inb4 a bill enforcing the use of sls for any BLEO activity

it's one thing to bring launch costs down, but what about space hardware? How much of its cost is connected to the weight restrictions and once-per-decade sort of planning?

The whole 8 billion JWST thing got me thinking about this. Will cheap $/kg to LEO instantly mean that the cost of production of satellites and space habitats and probes will also plummet?

Well, Bigelow Airspace claims they can build a habitat with over twice the pressurized volume of the ISS for $500 million

Which is still a great deal of money, but still it means you could toss up about 300 of them for the cost of the ISS.

Attached: ba2100 model.jpg (945x851, 128K)

Hardware in orbit will cost the same as hardware on Earth as soon as it has a similar level of access to all the things needed to maintain stuff. In particular, spare parts and skilled labor available with lead times under about a week. That will only be feasible once there is a decent amount of infrastructure and living space already in orbit.
The good news is that anything which makes satellite maintenance possible at any level will lead to a massive reduction in costs because satellites are currently designed to go without servicing for their entire lifespan.

Well building in space will always have the issue of lacking an atmosphere, noone builds air tight buildings on Earth, even if you needed a clean room all it takes is an increased pressure inside to prevent anything from flowing in

every single state contributes to SLS. Sure, most of it is Alabama and Florida, but due to the distributed nature of SLS there will simply never be the votes to cancel it.

so when are we going to have feasible alternatives to chemical propulsion

never

>implying

Attached: 1504936017856.jpg (630x405, 57K)

>3.5 terravolts to get the same thrust as a single RD-180 and thats if it even works

SLS fanboy culture inside and outside NASA.

So, if you had to suck Elons cock in order to get a ticket to Mars, would you do it?
[spoiler]I would do it even if there was nothing in for me[/spoiler]

if you had to reddit reddit a le reddit would your reddit your reddit

[reddit/]EDIT: im surprised this doesn’t work i’ve been browsing The Veeky Forums all morning! :)]]]{reddit]\\/\

Nuclear propulsion for in-system is extremely viable if you can get past the anti nuclear imbeciles. For getting shit into orbit though we are pretty much stuck with chemical, unless a legit fusion rocket can be made to work, even then I'm sure those same anti nuclear cunts will throw a shitfit.

it's dead jim

I keep an eye on woodward's work and even on the entertainingly insane pares warp drive guy, but this emdrive thing is completely dead. Shawyer is a washed up fraud who can't produce anything and the chinks are just running an op to confuse the us.

if you combine this tech with cheap reusable rockets you can get crazy with the scale of in-orbit construction. We could daisy-chain a few dozen of these into an honest to god 700 meter wide space megastation with full earth gravity via rotation, all for less than the iss cost. shit's fuckin neato man

NASA wants to keep deveelopimg the sls. Instead of buying dozens of Falcon Heavies and assembling large things in space for lunar and beyond missions.

Attached: 6t2S5zu.jpg (501x640, 347K)

I know man, but it doesn't matter. Reusable is clearly the future. The richest man on earth is also investing in it, the indians are trying to build a spaceplane,and i bet you the chinese are covertly trying to narrow the gap.

FH is hot garbage, NASA will most likely just scrap developing the EUS and replace it with ACES. Then we will have a launch vehicle that can lift 200t that is free from Elon Musk's incestous fraudulent bullshit.

t. Increasingly nervous NASA beauracrat

>large things

The Deep Space Gateway isn't large, it's actually a lot smaller than the ISS with none of it's 4 meter wide modules weighing more than 10 tons. The Falcon Heavy would only need a longer fairing to be capable of sending every module into TLI in reusable mode.

(And extending the fairing is doable according to musk; they just haven’t bothered doing it yet)

The FH doesn't have a reusable mode. Stop eating the bullshit Musk is feeding you.

Bezos isn't investing his entire fortune into Blue Origin though.

?

27/28 Merlins and both fairings is pretty good for a rocket.

>with full earth gravity via rotation
Please remember that this is a meme and material strength is a serious issue.

Landing is not reusing. Please tell me, how many times does SpaceX reuse a Falcon 9 that they have landed?

The same one or just over all?

Because Block3/4 aren't the prime time reuse models. That's Block5 that's launching this year.
We should start seeing F9s that are reused multiple times through 2018/19.

Ah, the good old "the next rocket is going to be the reusable one I swear"-argument.

Well, let's just wait and see for the Block 5 then

That has been their roadmap for a long time, mate.

You gotta remember that Falcon9 was not made to be reusable from the beginning. First they needed to start launching things to get money to help fund their development of reuse.
They needed to start landing some so they could inspect them and see what is wearing, what they need to replace with different materials or redesign so they can reduce wear.

They are not Blue Origin. They never planned to bring the Falcon 9 to market as reusable but rather continue to develop it while providing commercial services.

No, it wasn't.

popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a7446/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023/

nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/musk-plans-reusability-falcon-9-rocket/

Also, incremental changes are not going to magically increase the number of reuses by 1000%.

Are you all autistic?

I don't get your point.

Yes, they always planned for the Falcon 9 to become reusable. But they were launching it commercially before they stuck legs on it. They were launching it commercially before they successfully landed one.
It was never "as soon as we land one we will be launching it over and over again".

yes, it was, and they only planned for the Block 5 in 2016 when they saw it's not reusable as it is. If they actually achieve reusability with some incremental changes remains to be seen. As it is, reusing Falcon 9s is more expensive, then not landing them at all. So far SpaceX is suffering the same fate as the Space Shuttle, where re-use ended up being more expensive than not re-using.

>As it is, reusing Falcon 9s is more expensive, then not landing them at all.
But less expensive than building a new one.
That's already fact, even with the Block3/4 ones they reused.

There is already

Attached: images (8).jpg (259x194, 7K)

How do we stop spacex?
They are disrupting markets and threatening international cooperation and scientific progress.
America should have laws in place to prevent such behavior. Any normal country has.

Stopping them would be unAmerican.

ACES is a fucking meme

Well the #1 issue they have is not wanting rockets to blow up, if they were a military agency that could ignore FAA/other bureaucracies, while taking serious risks of failure during launches

Then they would be much further ahead
(more budget from the beginning would have also helped em)

Why do you guy keep shiting the SLS? Amercia has money let buy BOTH SLS AND FALCON HEAVY. SLS will be usefull to lauch large thing while we wait for BFR become a reality.

Well, yeah. It also hampers their plans to launch passengers to the Space Station.
Kinda amusing that in order to human rate the Falcon 9 they need to launch it 7 times successfully without making any changes to the hardware, then you think back to how many successful launches NASA had of previous launch vehicles before stuffing people inside.

SLS is using a lot of old hardware, sucking up billions and taking a long time.
There also aren't any solid missions for it. It has massive lift capabilities but no solid plans for it. A lot of the things they want to launch could be launched on other platforms.

So far, they have had 7 re-flights of 1-stage boosters and i think 2-3 re-flights of the dragon capsules

why dont you just git gud?