Talk-Polywell.org

So why wouldn't we want a Falcon Heavy with the improvements used on Falcon 9?

Well, they have a US Military payload schedued in 2018 so they can't slip TOO far.

Because very few payloads need FH. It requires another manufacturing line and takes away development time and money from ITS.
ITS, at least as it was presented a year ago, would be cheaper to operate and more reusable, while offering a lot more payload. Musk wants ITS anyway for his mars program, which cant be done with FH. They are still doing FH, but it has gotten a lot less development time than originally planned, because the improved F9 already can do most payloads now. For all these reasons, FH has been delayed until now.

I thought the long pole in the tent has been the pad certs.

ladajo wrote:I thought the long pole in the tent has been the pad certs.

For FH? They already have the pad and TEL ready for that. For ITS, this will be a bit of a challenge, but I suspect that Musk will present a smaller version of ITS at IAC in a couple of days.

I thought the actual permits for the pad were still pending.

ladajo wrote:I thought the actual permits for the pad were still pending.

They were, but applied for
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/ ... meout=1000

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/ ... meout=1000

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/ ... meout=1000

I think they may have been issued but checking for sure. I do know the permitting and testing is done at McGregor for FH.
The next real question is musk hinted that the test payload would be the most ridiculous thing he could think of and the speculation has been hilarious. I am personally voting for a Jeff Bezos statue in the doctor evil position.
Edit found it 2.The sidebar pretty clearly states "BEGINNING OF LAUNCH WINDOW: 31 October 2017" That's the earliest it is legally allowed to launch according to the official documentation. Please do not get too excited as this stuff is issued 6 months out easy , so basically all we know for sure is the mission is a go but the date is not settled. There are currently upgrades in progress at 39A and 40

Thanks for hunting that down.
Also, this was the other piece which failed to surface in my brain during my drive-by...

There are currently upgrades in progress at 39A and 40

And may well be the LIMFAC for the boost date. I also suspect that the landing pads are not settled yet either for the multiple boosters. Can't remember. I must be getting old.

So, I love the BFR concept. And the name makes me giggle like a kid... Big F'in Rocket...
However, it is the end of Falcon as well. 2022/23 could be a banner year, with the first commercial landings on Mars!
We will see.

End of Falcon

Skipjack wrote:Because very few payloads need FH. It requires another manufacturing line and takes away development time and money from ITS.
ITS, at least as it was presented a year ago, would be cheaper to operate and more reusable, while offering a lot more payload. Musk wants ITS anyway for his mars program, which cant be done with FH. They are still doing FH, but it has gotten a lot less development time than originally planned, because the improved F9 already can do most payloads now. For all these reasons, FH has been delayed until now.

I got the impression that the modularity and commonality make those issues moot. You want a 9, fine. You want a heavy, just stra them together. Thebsecond stage MIGHT be different, but doesn't have to be.

Because I am too lazy to go look, is ITS and BFR the same thing?

ladajo wrote:Because I am too lazy to go look, is ITS and BFR the same thing?

yes ,sort of..... the real difference being getting it down to 2 working consumables instead of five currently used.

kunkmiester wrote: I got the impression that the modularity and commonality make those issues moot. You want a 9, fine. You want a heavy, just stra them together. Thebsecond stage MIGHT be different, but doesn't have to be.

They found out that this is actually not the case. They had to redesign the first stages of all 3 elements so they would be able to take the loads.

No one is going to mention the Earth-to-Earth transportation concept? Is this lunacy or could this happen?

It was in the article on BFR that I linked (I think, much water under my bridge since then...)

Sooo... rough napkin math, stealing from a comment at the BFR video link...
~$100K in fuel per flight
Say 50% overhead on that per flight
100 pax (200lbs avg weight per pax = 20,000lbs pax cargo weight...hmmm...)
Roughly $1,500 per pax cost...

If I was an international airline, I would be really worried...
especially if he can fly 150 or 200 pax per flight... more a volume than cargo mass issue I think...