Wonder what the difference in cost was to have the boosters land like they did (which is pretty freakin cool) versus the parachute into the sea and then retrieve method used by the space shuttle...
If I remember reading about the shuttle booster that splashed into the sea, the sea salt water pretty much mess it up beyond simple refurb. It's not just merely retrieving the hardware. They wanted to get a quick turnaround and reuse. That's why they also want to recover the fairing via steering parachute and catch the fairings from a boat with a big net before it splashes.
The BFR system is intended to be fully re-usable so we cannot be conclude that the FH will be cheaper than the BFR on a per flight basis.
If I remember reading about the shuttle booster that splashed into the sea, the sea salt water pretty much mess it up beyond simple refurb. It's not just merely retrieving the hardware. They wanted to get a quick turnaround and reuse. That's why they also want to recover the fairing via steering parachute and catch the fairings from a boat with a big net before it splashes.
He considers it a test platform for technologies that the BFR will also need. Mainly dealing with double-digit numbers of engines, I think.I highly doubt that Musk would have spent half a billion dollars developing the Falcon Heavy if he thought he was going to make it obsolete a few years after its maiden flight.
He considers it a test platform for technologies that the BFR will also need. Mainly dealing with double-digit numbers of engines, I think.
I highly doubt that Musk would have spent half a billion dollars developing the Falcon Heavy if he thought he was going to make it obsolete a few years after its maiden flight.
He considers it a test platform for technologies that the BFR will also need. Mainly dealing with double-digit numbers of engines, I think.
Wonder what the difference in cost was to have the boosters land like they did (which is pretty freakin cool) versus the parachute into the sea and then retrieve method used by the space shuttle...
The goal is the rapid re-usability. Those need to land, refuel and be reused quickly.
Parachutes and hard water landing don't go well with the above idea.
Thing is if you got those engines soaked in salt water the refurbishment process would probably be very difficult, with the shuttle's boosters they were solid so that's not an issue.I understand that...I was just wondering what the difference in cost was to be able to get them to land like that...guess the cost would need to account for the change in dollar value between then and now...
I highly doubt that Musk would have spent half a billion dollars developing the Falcon Heavy if he thought he was going to make it obsolete a few years after its maiden flight.
It will not be just a few years. I suspect we will not see the first full flight of the entire BFR system before 2024. Even after first flight, certification by the US govt for both NASA and USAF payloads can take several years.
I now listed below by tynopik was a lot of good reasons why FH wasn't canceled.
IMHO opinion, a key reason why FH development was finished, is because of National Security payloads. In the future if you want to bid on national security payload contracts you will need to have a launch system capable of meeting all the USAF payload and orbital insertion requirements, which the F9 cannot do. So without the FH, SpaceX faced a future 4-6 years down the road that they couldn't bid on USAF launch contracts.
I bet there was some heated meetings at SpaceX about the FH and if they should cancel it and just focus on BFR. By finishing development of the FH SpaceX makes sure they don't run into the issues if development of the BFR runs longer than planned, and we all know it will.
And I still wager that we will see BFR launch before SLS block 2.
considering the first SLS B2 flight isn't scheduled till 2029, I should hope so
Wow, I didn't realize that, what a freaking shame. In 2012 they estimated the SLS would cost $18B to develop which includes the Orion capsule and a NASA official is quoted as saying that he HOPES to get launch prices, which include the cost of the vehicle, down to "just" $1.5-2 billion per launch. How much it ends up costing, including all of the future upgrades, is anyone's guess but suffice to say it's going to be a lot more than $18B. In contrast the Falcon Heavy is projected to cost about $90M a launch. With all of that money it is likely going to take them longer to launch the block 2 than it will have taken SpaceX to design, build and launch 3 vehicles including one that is more powerful than the SLS, pretty much completely reusable with a propulsively landing spaceship/second stage that can on paper take 100 people to the moon or mars in one go. All of that for a metric shitload less money. The big boys like Boeingbribedonate so much to lawmakers but it seems like NASA would be better off just letting SpaceX design and build their rockets from now on.
I think you are a little long on the timeline given what I've seen them do so far, they have gotten this far in 15 years starting from basically scratch. Granted I am not as optimistic as the poster I was replying to and thinking we will see a launch in 2 years either but I am hoping for 4-5 years and think it's entirely doable. I think their biggest hurdle, development wise, is going to be the 2nd stage. As far as the USAF payloads, are the revenue generated by them really that important to spend half a billion dollars to ensure you don't have a few year gap in your ability to bid on their contracts?
And I still wager that we will see BFR launch before SLS block 2.
just got all my posters in yesterday, ordered a few falcon heavy launch posters and one of the twin boosters landing side by side.
Oh what did you get if you don't mind asking and where?