SpaceX Big Falcon SpaceShip has a new design with three larger fins

SpaceX has shown a new rendering of the SpaceX BFR spaceship with three large mini-wings (fins). There is now a dark heat shield along the belly.

SpaceX has signed the world’s first private passenger to fly around the Moon aboard the BFR launch vehicle—an important step toward enabling access for everyday people who dream of traveling to space. SpaceX will announce who is flying and why on Monday, September 17.

Images from September 2017 showed two smaller fins.

185 thoughts on “SpaceX Big Falcon SpaceShip has a new design with three larger fins”

  1. Indeed, if they painted it red and decorated it with a checkered pattern it would look quite like Tintin’s rocket to the Moon.

  2. The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. ” Providing structural support while only dealing with 38% Earth’s gravity should help, too.

  3. Looks like, as before it was 4 Raptors and two vacuum Raptors was it not? Perhaps that previous setup was when there was still some unknowns about the Raptor (performance OR manufacturing/lifetime) which have subsequently been revealed. Personally I feel better about the new proposed setup: continues the same rocket core configuration that they’ve been using for so long.

  4. Yep. And makes sense if they need the fins anyway. They ought to have retractable legs somewhere, though. This is required for landing on unprepared terrain. Probably at the tip of the wings? The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. Not sure about the changes on the thrusters. I would need some more data to know how if they made such big changes as removing vacuun Raptors.

  5. NASA jobs. The FAA has less strict requirements and that’s all they need to send humans paying for the trip themselves.

  6. Undoubtedly has landing legs in the three mini wings. Looks like we changed the # of Raptors from 6 to 7 and removed the vacuum raptors?

  7. Indeed if they painted it red and decorated it with a checkered pattern it would look quite like Tintin’s rocket to the Moon.

  8. The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. “”Providing structural support while only dealing with 38{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Earth’s gravity should help”””” too.”””

  9. Looks like as before it was 4 Raptors and two vacuum Raptors was it not? Perhaps that previous setup was when there was still some unknowns about the Raptor (performance OR manufacturing/lifetime) which have subsequently been revealed.Personally I feel better about the new proposed setup: continues the same rocket core configuration that they’ve been using for so long.

  10. Yep. And makes sense if they need the fins anyway.They ought to have retractable legs somewhere though. This is required for landing on unprepared terrain. Probably at the tip of the wings?The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements.Not sure about the changes on the thrusters. I would need some more data to know how if they made such big changes as removing vacuun Raptors.

  11. NASA jobs. The FAA has less strict requirements and that’s all they need to send humans paying for the trip themselves.

  12. Undoubtedly has landing legs in the three mini wings.Looks like we changed the # of Raptors from 6 to 7 and removed the vacuum raptors?

  13. Looking more and more like X34. Hopefully it turns into what the Space Shuttle was supposed to be on steroids..

  14. Unless it’s not coming back to Earth, the structural support needs to handle Earth gravity. In fact, unless it’s going to be supported on some sort of cradle before launch, Earth gravity with full fuel and payload. OTOH, the shock absorbing system for landings only needs to handle a landing with nearly empty tanks.

  15. Looking more and more like X34. Hopefully it turns into what the Space Shuttle was supposed to be on steroids..

  16. Unless it’s not coming back to Earth the structural support needs to handle Earth gravity. In fact unless it’s going to be supported on some sort of cradle before launch Earth gravity with full fuel and payload.OTOH the shock absorbing system for landings only needs to handle a landing with nearly empty tanks.

  17. The world is getting more and more retrofuturistic. Which is good, the vision of future in the 90s but specially in the noughties stank.

  18. The world is getting more and more retrofuturistic.Which is good the vision of future in the 90s but specially in the noughties stank.

  19. I keep wondering if they have any plans for an escape system in case the tanks blow. The cut-aways look to maybe have a large bulkhead between the tanks and passenger area. Even if that part could separate, what then. During ascent…emergency parachutes? Could they have a pusher system like Dragon v2? Once in orbit and beyond, hmm.

  20. Oh, agreed. People risk their lives all the time for lesser things, why should doing a loop around the Moon have to be safe?

  21. I mean that’s my philosophy. If you’re willing to sign on the dotted line and get fried in the upper atmosphere, I don’t see why NASA gets to stick its dick in and protect you. Your own risk.

  22. I keep wondering if they have any plans for an escape system in case the tanks blow. The cut-aways look to maybe have a large bulkhead between the tanks and passenger area. Even if that part could separate what then.During ascent…emergency parachutes? Could they have a pusher system like Dragon v2?Once in orbit and beyond hmm.

  23. Oh agreed. People risk their lives all the time for lesser things why should doing a loop around the Moon have to be safe?

  24. I mean that’s my philosophy. If you’re willing to sign on the dotted line and get fried in the upper atmosphere I don’t see why NASA gets to stick its dick in and protect you. Your own risk.

  25. As far as I know, it still is a VTOL rocket, capable of landing in any body with solid surface we care to land on in the Solar System. And the booster and its fuel still are placed below it for launching. And it is planed to do refueling in space. Things the shuttle didn’t do.

  26. That makes me wonder if this is a design customized for Mars. Designed never to land on Earth again but to be refueled in orbit.

  27. I noticed the ports for fuel transfers seem to be gone from the tail section. Unless they are hidden in the wings or behind those shields, the bits on the nose may not be retractable canards. They may be for nose-to-nose propellant transfer. Not the best option, but possible. It would be safer than trying to push high pressure propellant through your landing gear. I suspect the real option would be to put both fuel/oxygen probes in the tail fin, since it doesn’t have to swivel. Another issue would be spinning nose to nose for artificial gravity on the way to Mars.

  28. As far as I know it still is a VTOL rocket capable of landing in any body with solid surface we care to land on in the Solar System. And the booster and its fuel still are placed below it for launching.And it is planed to do refueling in space. Things the shuttle didn’t do.

  29. That makes me wonder if this is a design customized for Mars. Designed never to land on Earth again but to be refueled in orbit.

  30. I noticed the ports for fuel transfers seem to be gone from the tail section. Unless they are hidden in the wings or behind those shields the bits on the nose may not be retractable canards. They may be for nose-to-nose propellant transfer. Not the best option but possible. It would be safer than trying to push high pressure propellant through your landing gear. I suspect the real option would be to put both fuel/oxygen probes in the tail fin since it doesn’t have to swivel. Another issue would be spinning nose to nose for artificial gravity on the way to Mars.

  31. Fission and fusion rockets still are rockets. Same for Orion. But those are radioactive and fusion rockets have yet to exist. Fission rockets and Orion could exist today if we wanted, they’re just too dirty. There’s also microwave beaming rockets, but we have yet to see a working example. The other options are lightsails, magnetic sails and other space environment exploiting technologies, but those are too weak for launching anything. Oh, and momentum transfer tethers, space elevators, space-trams and other concepts that don’t exist yet and mostly seem still unfeasible. So yes, rockets are the present and will be how we go to space for a while. And that’s fine. We haven’t stopped using wheels and they were invented millennia ago.

  32. Guy conventional rocketry is gonna be with us awhile. Until someone lets people risk a NERVA type rocket or we get a fusion rocket of some kind or something like that Big bombs to space are it.

  33. I’m still waiting unt we can abandon conventional rocketry. Makes me wonder if companies like SpaceX could engage more in R&D.

  34. Fission and fusion rockets still are rockets. Same for Orion. But those are radioactive and fusion rockets have yet to exist. Fission rockets and Orion could exist today if we wanted they’re just too dirty. There’s also microwave beaming rockets but we have yet to see a working example.The other options are lightsails magnetic sails and other space environment exploiting technologies but those are too weak for launching anything.Oh and momentum transfer tethers space elevators space-trams and other concepts that don’t exist yet and mostly seem still unfeasible.So yes rockets are the present and will be how we go to space for a while. And that’s fine. We haven’t stopped using wheels and they were invented millennia ago.

  35. Guy conventional rocketry is gonna be with us awhile. Until someone lets people risk a NERVA type rocket or we get a fusion rocket of some kind or something like that Big bombs to space are it.

  36. I’m still waiting unt we can abandon conventional rocketry. Makes me wonder if companies like SpaceX could engage more in R&D.

  37. Again, this is contrary to their philosophy of conserving engineering resources by designing multi-purpose rockets.

  38. Go look at REL and their space plane engine the SABRE. I think that is the best option for true STO and other applications.

  39. Again this is contrary to their philosophy of conserving engineering resources by designing multi-purpose rockets.

  40. Go look at REL and their space plane engine the SABRE. I think that is the best option for true STO and other applications.

  41. Antimatter sounds more futuristic than nuclear, but it actually is simpler. The main thing is just making the stuff in usable quantities. The engines themselves should be fairly simple. And the storage would just be magnetic. Search “Antimatter Atoms Successfully Stored for the First Time” that was back in 2010. There is still a lot of basic stuff to do even if you had grams of antimatter. You need to be able to regulate the flow of antimatter to the engines. Advanced magnetics or lasers? But the biggest hurdle is just making the stuff without wasting a lot of energy…this should not be glossed over. There probably is some kind of nuclear reaction that can make the stuff. Then you need a way to avoid it contacting other matter and getting it collected and stored. And it would be best if we stored most larger quantities of antimatter offworld or made it only as immediately needed. But I agree. This is likely at least 40-80 years from a practical spacecraft…unless there is a surge in R&D. Rockets may however be assisted in launch by mass drivers on the Moon or Mars increasing range. They may be able to completely eliminate the need for fuel to escape the gravity well. But to get anywhere they would still need fuel. That can pose its own issues. You need a long mass driver to make the acceleration manageable so you don’t have to build your vehicles super robust to withstand the forces. And humans can only take so much, even if you were not reliant on them being conscious. Such systems are not practical on earth for humans because our gravity is strong and atmosphere dense. It could be done, but the cost would be astronomical. A cargo launcher would be expensive as well, but maybe a tenth the cost. At the moment, it does not look justifiable. That could change, but cheap reusable rockets look like they will be preferred for some time. But on the Moon especially, a mass driver would be great and reasonably affordable if it was built largely

  42. Antimatter sounds more futuristic than nuclear but it actually is simpler. The main thing is just making the stuff in usable quantities. The engines themselves should be fairly simple. And the storage would just be magnetic. Search Antimatter Atoms Successfully Stored for the First Time”” that was back in 2010. There is still a lot of basic stuff to do even if you had grams of antimatter. You need to be able to regulate the flow of antimatter to the engines. Advanced magnetics or lasers?But the biggest hurdle is just making the stuff without wasting a lot of energy…this should not be glossed over. There probably is some kind of nuclear reaction that can make the stuff. Then you need a way to avoid it contacting other matter and getting it collected and stored.And it would be best if we stored most larger quantities of antimatter offworld or made it only as immediately needed.But I agree. This is likely at least 40-80 years from a practical spacecraft…unless there is a surge in R&D.Rockets may however be assisted in launch by mass drivers on the Moon or Mars increasing range. They may be able to completely eliminate the need for fuel to escape the gravity well. But to get anywhere they would still need fuel. That can pose its own issues. You need a long mass driver to make the acceleration manageable so you don’t have to build your vehicles super robust to withstand the forces. And humans can only take so much”” even if you were not reliant on them being conscious. Such systems are not practical on earth for humans because our gravity is strong and atmosphere dense. It could be done but the cost would be astronomical. A cargo launcher would be expensive as well but maybe a tenth the cost. At the moment it does not look justifiable. That could change but cheap reusable rockets look like they will be preferred for some time. But on the Moon especially”” a mass driver would be great and reasonably affordable if it was bui”

  43. It isn’t going to be refurbished/worked on in orbit so it is going to land somewhere. Mars is a long way off and SpaceX pretends that they are going to launch these on earth (ballistic trajectory to carry people places). So no, not designed to stay in vacuum forever.

  44. No definitely standardized the engines. Vacuum Raptors have much larger engine bells. In this photo the engine bells are all the same size. I’d guess they went to 6 vacuum raptors. Makes sense as the only time you need a sea level raptor is when the BFS is mostly empty and the lower performance of the vacuum engine isn’t a big deal.

  45. The Shuttle was a horrible engineering compromise on a number of levels. They had to kill the intended horizontal take off and landing reusable booster. Ordered to use aluminum instead of titanium, which drove the need for those amazing but very fragile tiles, which was why the Discovery disaster happened. It also happened because they didn’t carry the already built inspection drone, to save a few pounds on launch, on the theory that if they found a busted tile, they might be forced to launch a risky rescue mission, instead of just letting them die on reentry. Challenger was because the solid fuel boosters, which were supposed to be one piece, had to be broken up into segments so they could be shipped from a particular Congressman’s district. SpaceX benefits enormously due to not having to make politically ordered compromises. Well, most of the time, they did have to ditch retro landing on the Dragon due to NASA demands.

  46. It isn’t going to be refurbished/worked on in orbit so it is going to land somewhere. Mars is a long way off and SpaceX pretends that they are going to launch these on earth (ballistic trajectory to carry people places).So no not designed to stay in vacuum forever.

  47. No definitely standardized the engines. Vacuum Raptors have much larger engine bells.In this photo the engine bells are all the same size. I’d guess they went to 6 vacuum raptors. Makes sense as the only time you need a sea level raptor is when the BFS is mostly empty and the lower performance of the vacuum engine isn’t a big deal.

  48. The Shuttle was a horrible engineering compromise on a number of levels. They had to kill the intended horizontal take off and landing reusable booster. Ordered to use aluminum instead of titanium which drove the need for those amazing but very fragile tiles which was why the Discovery disaster happened. It also happened because they didn’t carry the already built inspection drone to save a few pounds on launch on the theory that if they found a busted tile they might be forced to launch a risky rescue mission instead of just letting them die on reentry.Challenger was because the solid fuel boosters which were supposed to be one piece had to be broken up into segments so they could be shipped from a particular Congressman’s district.SpaceX benefits enormously due to not having to make politically ordered compromises. Well most of the time they did have to ditch retro landing on the Dragon due to NASA demands.

  49. Agreed – but the more they keep tweaking it and the more it ends up looking like the space shuttle, the more I worry that they’re pushing the limits of that philosophy too far. Seems like the wings are mostly for better control when landing heavy loads on Mars, not that useful anywhere else in the Solar system, and possibly making a tailward vertical landing on Earth harder? They’ve already demonstrated that wings aren’t needed for landing on Earth, and BFRSpaceships landing on Earth will generally be landing with light loads. They ultimately may need to have several variations of a core BFR spaceship. They’re already thinking of doing that (eventually) for their ‘tankers’. Maybe they should think in terms of designing a variant for Mars – though that would likely add a couple years to the schedule for Mars. 🙁

  50. Agreed – but the more they keep tweaking it and the more it ends up looking like the space shuttle the more I worry that they’re pushing the limits of that philosophy too far. Seems like the wings are mostly for better control when landing heavy loads on Mars not that useful anywhere else in the Solar system and possibly making a tailward vertical landing on Earth harder? They’ve already demonstrated that wings aren’t needed for landing on Earth and BFRSpaceships landing on Earth will generally be landing with light loads. They ultimately may need to have several variations of a core BFR spaceship. They’re already thinking of doing that (eventually) for their ‘tankers’. Maybe they should think in terms of designing a variant for Mars – though that would likely add a couple years to the schedule for Mars. 🙁

  51. The tricky thing is getting the vacuum Isp bell to operate predictably at sea level during landing, when quite throttled down.

  52. The tricky thing is getting the vacuum Isp bell to operate predictably at sea level during landing when quite throttled down.

  53. Green” foam made no difference. The “ramp” portion was always made of the original foam, and that was the part which killed them. The vessel had always had small and large shed foam pieces, in fact it almost lead to the loss of the orbiter on re-entry on two other occasions prior to the change in the bulk area foam formulation. The vessels as built and operated were always a crapshoot, effectively never left protoype, and almost failed catastrophically about fives times as often as it actually did. Many flights came within seconds of tragedy… …or more accurately, manslaughter at least.

  54. If you want to be a LITTLE more conspiracy theoretical… Challenger solid rockets failed because the putty was changed to one with without asbestos, because environmentalists made using it, even in tiny critical amounts, just too hard. Discovery tiles were broken by chunks of foam falling off the fuel tank. The foam had recently been changes to a new formula that was more environmentally friendly.

  55. Green”” foam made no difference. The “”””ramp”””” portion was always made of the original foam”” and that was the part which killed them. The vessel had always had small and large shed foam pieces in fact it almost lead to the loss of the orbiter on re-entry on two other occasions prior to the change in the bulk area foam formulation. The vessels as built and operated were always a crapshoot effectively never left protoype and almost failed catastrophically about fives times as often as it actually did. Many flights came within seconds of tragedy……or more accurately”” manslaughter at least.”””

  56. If you want to be a LITTLE more conspiracy theoretical…Challenger solid rockets failed because the putty was changed to one with without asbestos because environmentalists made using it even in tiny critical amounts just too hard.Discovery tiles were broken by chunks of foam falling off the fuel tank. The foam had recently been changes to a new formula that was more environmentally friendly.

  57. Oh, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, they didn’t deliberately make the Shuttle less safe. Safety was just way down the priorities list. The key compromise, IMO, was the aluminum instead of titanium airframe. With a titanium airframe they could have used a much more durable thermal protection system, because it wouldn’t have to have those fantastic insulating properties. But according to accounts I’ve heard, they really did avoid inspecting Discovery for suspected damage, because they might have been forced to mount a rescue mission if they had found damage. They preferred risking the Shuttle and its crew. This was phrased as “a rescue mission wouldn’t have been possible”, but that wasn’t remotely true.

  58. Oh I’m not suggesting a conspiracy they didn’t deliberately make the Shuttle less safe. Safety was just way down the priorities list.The key compromise IMO was the aluminum instead of titanium airframe. With a titanium airframe they could have used a much more durable thermal protection system because it wouldn’t have to have those fantastic insulating properties.But according to accounts I’ve heard they really did avoid inspecting Discovery for suspected damage because they might have been forced to mount a rescue mission if they had found damage. They preferred risking the Shuttle and its crew. This was phrased as a rescue mission wouldn’t have been possible”””” but that wasn’t remotely true.”””

  59. Oh, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, they didn’t deliberately make the Shuttle less safe. Safety was just way down the priorities list. The key compromise, IMO, was the aluminum instead of titanium airframe. With a titanium airframe they could have used a much more durable thermal protection system, because it wouldn’t have to have those fantastic insulating properties. But according to accounts I’ve heard, they really did avoid inspecting Discovery for suspected damage, because they might have been forced to mount a rescue mission if they had found damage. They preferred risking the Shuttle and its crew. This was phrased as “a rescue mission wouldn’t have been possible”, but that wasn’t remotely true.

  60. Oh I’m not suggesting a conspiracy they didn’t deliberately make the Shuttle less safe. Safety was just way down the priorities list.The key compromise IMO was the aluminum instead of titanium airframe. With a titanium airframe they could have used a much more durable thermal protection system because it wouldn’t have to have those fantastic insulating properties.But according to accounts I’ve heard they really did avoid inspecting Discovery for suspected damage because they might have been forced to mount a rescue mission if they had found damage. They preferred risking the Shuttle and its crew. This was phrased as a rescue mission wouldn’t have been possible”””” but that wasn’t remotely true.”””

  61. Green” foam made no difference. The “ramp” portion was always made of the original foam, and that was the part which killed them. The vessel had always had small and large shed foam pieces, in fact it almost lead to the loss of the orbiter on re-entry on two other occasions prior to the change in the bulk area foam formulation. The vessels as built and operated were always a crapshoot, effectively never left protoype, and almost failed catastrophically about fives times as often as it actually did. Many flights came within seconds of tragedy… …or more accurately, manslaughter at least.

  62. Green”” foam made no difference. The “”””ramp”””” portion was always made of the original foam”” and that was the part which killed them. The vessel had always had small and large shed foam pieces in fact it almost lead to the loss of the orbiter on re-entry on two other occasions prior to the change in the bulk area foam formulation. The vessels as built and operated were always a crapshoot effectively never left protoype and almost failed catastrophically about fives times as often as it actually did. Many flights came within seconds of tragedy……or more accurately”” manslaughter at least.”””

  63. If you want to be a LITTLE more conspiracy theoretical… Challenger solid rockets failed because the putty was changed to one with without asbestos, because environmentalists made using it, even in tiny critical amounts, just too hard. Discovery tiles were broken by chunks of foam falling off the fuel tank. The foam had recently been changes to a new formula that was more environmentally friendly.

  64. If you want to be a LITTLE more conspiracy theoretical…Challenger solid rockets failed because the putty was changed to one with without asbestos because environmentalists made using it even in tiny critical amounts just too hard.Discovery tiles were broken by chunks of foam falling off the fuel tank. The foam had recently been changes to a new formula that was more environmentally friendly.

  65. Oh, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, they didn’t deliberately make the Shuttle less safe. Safety was just way down the priorities list.

    The key compromise, IMO, was the aluminum instead of titanium airframe. With a titanium airframe they could have used a much more durable thermal protection system, because it wouldn’t have to have those fantastic insulating properties.

    But according to accounts I’ve heard, they really did avoid inspecting Discovery for suspected damage, because they might have been forced to mount a rescue mission if they had found damage. They preferred risking the Shuttle and its crew. This was phrased as “a rescue mission wouldn’t have been possible”, but that wasn’t remotely true.

  66. The tricky thing is getting the vacuum Isp bell to operate predictably at sea level during landing, when quite throttled down.

  67. The tricky thing is getting the vacuum Isp bell to operate predictably at sea level during landing when quite throttled down.

  68. “Green” foam made no difference. The “ramp” portion was always made of the original foam, and that was the part which killed them. The vessel had always had small and large shed foam pieces, in fact it almost lead to the loss of the orbiter on re-entry on two other occasions prior to the change in the bulk area foam formulation. The vessels as built and operated were always a crapshoot, effectively never left protoype, and almost failed catastrophically about fives times as often as it actually did. Many flights came within seconds of tragedy…
    …or more accurately, manslaughter at least.

  69. Agreed – but the more they keep tweaking it and the more it ends up looking like the space shuttle, the more I worry that they’re pushing the limits of that philosophy too far. Seems like the wings are mostly for better control when landing heavy loads on Mars, not that useful anywhere else in the Solar system, and possibly making a tailward vertical landing on Earth harder? They’ve already demonstrated that wings aren’t needed for landing on Earth, and BFRSpaceships landing on Earth will generally be landing with light loads. They ultimately may need to have several variations of a core BFR spaceship. They’re already thinking of doing that (eventually) for their ‘tankers’. Maybe they should think in terms of designing a variant for Mars – though that would likely add a couple years to the schedule for Mars. 🙁

  70. Agreed – but the more they keep tweaking it and the more it ends up looking like the space shuttle the more I worry that they’re pushing the limits of that philosophy too far. Seems like the wings are mostly for better control when landing heavy loads on Mars not that useful anywhere else in the Solar system and possibly making a tailward vertical landing on Earth harder? They’ve already demonstrated that wings aren’t needed for landing on Earth and BFRSpaceships landing on Earth will generally be landing with light loads. They ultimately may need to have several variations of a core BFR spaceship. They’re already thinking of doing that (eventually) for their ‘tankers’. Maybe they should think in terms of designing a variant for Mars – though that would likely add a couple years to the schedule for Mars. 🙁

  71. It isn’t going to be refurbished/worked on in orbit so it is going to land somewhere. Mars is a long way off and SpaceX pretends that they are going to launch these on earth (ballistic trajectory to carry people places). So no, not designed to stay in vacuum forever.

  72. It isn’t going to be refurbished/worked on in orbit so it is going to land somewhere. Mars is a long way off and SpaceX pretends that they are going to launch these on earth (ballistic trajectory to carry people places).So no not designed to stay in vacuum forever.

  73. No definitely standardized the engines. Vacuum Raptors have much larger engine bells. In this photo the engine bells are all the same size. I’d guess they went to 6 vacuum raptors. Makes sense as the only time you need a sea level raptor is when the BFS is mostly empty and the lower performance of the vacuum engine isn’t a big deal.

  74. No definitely standardized the engines. Vacuum Raptors have much larger engine bells.In this photo the engine bells are all the same size. I’d guess they went to 6 vacuum raptors. Makes sense as the only time you need a sea level raptor is when the BFS is mostly empty and the lower performance of the vacuum engine isn’t a big deal.

  75. If you want to be a LITTLE more conspiracy theoretical…

    Challenger solid rockets failed because the putty was changed to one with without asbestos, because environmentalists made using it, even in tiny critical amounts, just too hard.

    Discovery tiles were broken by chunks of foam falling off the fuel tank. The foam had recently been changes to a new formula that was more environmentally friendly.

  76. The Shuttle was a horrible engineering compromise on a number of levels. They had to kill the intended horizontal take off and landing reusable booster. Ordered to use aluminum instead of titanium, which drove the need for those amazing but very fragile tiles, which was why the Discovery disaster happened. It also happened because they didn’t carry the already built inspection drone, to save a few pounds on launch, on the theory that if they found a busted tile, they might be forced to launch a risky rescue mission, instead of just letting them die on reentry. Challenger was because the solid fuel boosters, which were supposed to be one piece, had to be broken up into segments so they could be shipped from a particular Congressman’s district. SpaceX benefits enormously due to not having to make politically ordered compromises. Well, most of the time, they did have to ditch retro landing on the Dragon due to NASA demands.

  77. The Shuttle was a horrible engineering compromise on a number of levels. They had to kill the intended horizontal take off and landing reusable booster. Ordered to use aluminum instead of titanium which drove the need for those amazing but very fragile tiles which was why the Discovery disaster happened. It also happened because they didn’t carry the already built inspection drone to save a few pounds on launch on the theory that if they found a busted tile they might be forced to launch a risky rescue mission instead of just letting them die on reentry.Challenger was because the solid fuel boosters which were supposed to be one piece had to be broken up into segments so they could be shipped from a particular Congressman’s district.SpaceX benefits enormously due to not having to make politically ordered compromises. Well most of the time they did have to ditch retro landing on the Dragon due to NASA demands.

  78. Agreed – but the more they keep tweaking it and the more it ends up looking like the space shuttle, the more I worry that they’re pushing the limits of that philosophy too far.

    Seems like the wings are mostly for better control when landing heavy loads on Mars, not that useful anywhere else in the Solar system, and possibly making a tailward vertical landing on Earth harder? They’ve already demonstrated that wings aren’t needed for landing on Earth, and BFRSpaceships landing on Earth will generally be landing with light loads.

    They ultimately may need to have several variations of a core BFR spaceship. They’re already thinking of doing that (eventually) for their ‘tankers’. Maybe they should think in terms of designing a variant for Mars – though that would likely add a couple years to the schedule for Mars. 🙁

  79. It isn’t going to be refurbished/worked on in orbit so it is going to land somewhere. Mars is a long way off and SpaceX pretends that they are going to launch these on earth (ballistic trajectory to carry people places).

    So no, not designed to stay in vacuum forever.

  80. No definitely standardized the engines. Vacuum Raptors have much larger engine bells.

    In this photo the engine bells are all the same size. I’d guess they went to 6 vacuum raptors. Makes sense as the only time you need a sea level raptor is when the BFS is mostly empty and the lower performance of the vacuum engine isn’t a big deal.

  81. The Shuttle was a horrible engineering compromise on a number of levels. They had to kill the intended horizontal take off and landing reusable booster. Ordered to use aluminum instead of titanium, which drove the need for those amazing but very fragile tiles, which was why the Discovery disaster happened. It also happened because they didn’t carry the already built inspection drone, to save a few pounds on launch, on the theory that if they found a busted tile, they might be forced to launch a risky rescue mission, instead of just letting them die on reentry.

    Challenger was because the solid fuel boosters, which were supposed to be one piece, had to be broken up into segments so they could be shipped from a particular Congressman’s district.

    SpaceX benefits enormously due to not having to make politically ordered compromises. Well, most of the time, they did have to ditch retro landing on the Dragon due to NASA demands.

  82. Antimatter sounds more futuristic than nuclear, but it actually is simpler. The main thing is just making the stuff in usable quantities. The engines themselves should be fairly simple. And the storage would just be magnetic. Search “Antimatter Atoms Successfully Stored for the First Time” that was back in 2010. There is still a lot of basic stuff to do even if you had grams of antimatter. You need to be able to regulate the flow of antimatter to the engines. Advanced magnetics or lasers? But the biggest hurdle is just making the stuff without wasting a lot of energy…this should not be glossed over. There probably is some kind of nuclear reaction that can make the stuff. Then you need a way to avoid it contacting other matter and getting it collected and stored. And it would be best if we stored most larger quantities of antimatter offworld or made it only as immediately needed. But I agree. This is likely at least 40-80 years from a practical spacecraft…unless there is a surge in R&D. Rockets may however be assisted in launch by mass drivers on the Moon or Mars increasing range. They may be able to completely eliminate the need for fuel to escape the gravity well. But to get anywhere they would still need fuel. That can pose its own issues. You need a long mass driver to make the acceleration manageable so you don’t have to build your vehicles super robust to withstand the forces. And humans can only take so much, even if you were not reliant on them being conscious. Such systems are not practical on earth for humans because our gravity is strong and atmosphere dense. It could be done, but the cost would be astronomical. A cargo launcher would be expensive as well, but maybe a tenth the cost. At the moment, it does not look justifiable. That could change, but cheap reusable rockets look like they will be preferred for some time. But on the Moon especially, a mass driver would be great and reasonably affordable if it was built largely

  83. Antimatter sounds more futuristic than nuclear but it actually is simpler. The main thing is just making the stuff in usable quantities. The engines themselves should be fairly simple. And the storage would just be magnetic. Search Antimatter Atoms Successfully Stored for the First Time”” that was back in 2010. There is still a lot of basic stuff to do even if you had grams of antimatter. You need to be able to regulate the flow of antimatter to the engines. Advanced magnetics or lasers?But the biggest hurdle is just making the stuff without wasting a lot of energy…this should not be glossed over. There probably is some kind of nuclear reaction that can make the stuff. Then you need a way to avoid it contacting other matter and getting it collected and stored.And it would be best if we stored most larger quantities of antimatter offworld or made it only as immediately needed.But I agree. This is likely at least 40-80 years from a practical spacecraft…unless there is a surge in R&D.Rockets may however be assisted in launch by mass drivers on the Moon or Mars increasing range. They may be able to completely eliminate the need for fuel to escape the gravity well. But to get anywhere they would still need fuel. That can pose its own issues. You need a long mass driver to make the acceleration manageable so you don’t have to build your vehicles super robust to withstand the forces. And humans can only take so much”” even if you were not reliant on them being conscious. Such systems are not practical on earth for humans because our gravity is strong and atmosphere dense. It could be done but the cost would be astronomical. A cargo launcher would be expensive as well but maybe a tenth the cost. At the moment it does not look justifiable. That could change but cheap reusable rockets look like they will be preferred for some time. But on the Moon especially”” a mass driver would be great and reasonably affordable if it was bui”

  84. Again, this is contrary to their philosophy of conserving engineering resources by designing multi-purpose rockets.

  85. Again this is contrary to their philosophy of conserving engineering resources by designing multi-purpose rockets.

  86. Go look at REL and their space plane engine the SABRE. I think that is the best option for true STO and other applications.

  87. Go look at REL and their space plane engine the SABRE. I think that is the best option for true STO and other applications.

  88. Antimatter sounds more futuristic than nuclear, but it actually is simpler. The main thing is just making the stuff in usable quantities. The engines themselves should be fairly simple. And the storage would just be magnetic. Search “Antimatter Atoms Successfully Stored for the First Time” that was back in 2010.

    There is still a lot of basic stuff to do even if you had grams of antimatter. You need to be able to regulate the flow of antimatter to the engines. Advanced magnetics or lasers?

    But the biggest hurdle is just making the stuff without wasting a lot of energy…this should not be glossed over. There probably is some kind of nuclear reaction that can make the stuff. Then you need a way to avoid it contacting other matter and getting it collected and stored.

    And it would be best if we stored most larger quantities of antimatter offworld or made it only as immediately needed.

    But I agree. This is likely at least 40-80 years from a practical spacecraft…unless there is a surge in R&D.

    Rockets may however be assisted in launch by mass drivers on the Moon or Mars increasing range. They may be able to completely eliminate the need for fuel to escape the gravity well. But to get anywhere they would still need fuel. That can pose its own issues. You need a long mass driver to make the acceleration manageable so you don’t have to build your vehicles super robust to withstand the forces. And humans can only take so much, even if you were not reliant on them being conscious.

    Such systems are not practical on earth for humans because our gravity is strong and atmosphere dense. It could be done, but the cost would be astronomical. A cargo launcher would be expensive as well, but maybe a tenth the cost. At the moment, it does not look justifiable. That could change, but cheap reusable rockets look like they will be preferred for some time. But on the Moon especially, a mass driver would be great and reasonably affordable if it was built largely from materials mined on the Moon.

  89. Fission and fusion rockets still are rockets. Same for Orion. But those are radioactive and fusion rockets have yet to exist. Fission rockets and Orion could exist today if we wanted, they’re just too dirty. There’s also microwave beaming rockets, but we have yet to see a working example. The other options are lightsails, magnetic sails and other space environment exploiting technologies, but those are too weak for launching anything. Oh, and momentum transfer tethers, space elevators, space-trams and other concepts that don’t exist yet and mostly seem still unfeasible. So yes, rockets are the present and will be how we go to space for a while. And that’s fine. We haven’t stopped using wheels and they were invented millennia ago.

  90. Fission and fusion rockets still are rockets. Same for Orion. But those are radioactive and fusion rockets have yet to exist. Fission rockets and Orion could exist today if we wanted they’re just too dirty. There’s also microwave beaming rockets but we have yet to see a working example.The other options are lightsails magnetic sails and other space environment exploiting technologies but those are too weak for launching anything.Oh and momentum transfer tethers space elevators space-trams and other concepts that don’t exist yet and mostly seem still unfeasible.So yes rockets are the present and will be how we go to space for a while. And that’s fine. We haven’t stopped using wheels and they were invented millennia ago.

  91. Guy conventional rocketry is gonna be with us awhile. Until someone lets people risk a NERVA type rocket or we get a fusion rocket of some kind or something like that Big bombs to space are it.

  92. Guy conventional rocketry is gonna be with us awhile. Until someone lets people risk a NERVA type rocket or we get a fusion rocket of some kind or something like that Big bombs to space are it.

  93. I’m still waiting unt we can abandon conventional rocketry. Makes me wonder if companies like SpaceX could engage more in R&D.

  94. I’m still waiting unt we can abandon conventional rocketry. Makes me wonder if companies like SpaceX could engage more in R&D.

  95. As far as I know, it still is a VTOL rocket, capable of landing in any body with solid surface we care to land on in the Solar System. And the booster and its fuel still are placed below it for launching. And it is planed to do refueling in space. Things the shuttle didn’t do.

  96. As far as I know it still is a VTOL rocket capable of landing in any body with solid surface we care to land on in the Solar System. And the booster and its fuel still are placed below it for launching.And it is planed to do refueling in space. Things the shuttle didn’t do.

  97. That makes me wonder if this is a design customized for Mars. Designed never to land on Earth again but to be refueled in orbit.

  98. That makes me wonder if this is a design customized for Mars. Designed never to land on Earth again but to be refueled in orbit.

  99. I noticed the ports for fuel transfers seem to be gone from the tail section. Unless they are hidden in the wings or behind those shields, the bits on the nose may not be retractable canards. They may be for nose-to-nose propellant transfer. Not the best option, but possible. It would be safer than trying to push high pressure propellant through your landing gear. I suspect the real option would be to put both fuel/oxygen probes in the tail fin, since it doesn’t have to swivel. Another issue would be spinning nose to nose for artificial gravity on the way to Mars.

  100. I noticed the ports for fuel transfers seem to be gone from the tail section. Unless they are hidden in the wings or behind those shields the bits on the nose may not be retractable canards. They may be for nose-to-nose propellant transfer. Not the best option but possible. It would be safer than trying to push high pressure propellant through your landing gear. I suspect the real option would be to put both fuel/oxygen probes in the tail fin since it doesn’t have to swivel. Another issue would be spinning nose to nose for artificial gravity on the way to Mars.

  101. I keep wondering if they have any plans for an escape system in case the tanks blow. The cut-aways look to maybe have a large bulkhead between the tanks and passenger area. Even if that part could separate, what then. During ascent…emergency parachutes? Could they have a pusher system like Dragon v2? Once in orbit and beyond, hmm.

  102. I keep wondering if they have any plans for an escape system in case the tanks blow. The cut-aways look to maybe have a large bulkhead between the tanks and passenger area. Even if that part could separate what then.During ascent…emergency parachutes? Could they have a pusher system like Dragon v2?Once in orbit and beyond hmm.

  103. Oh, agreed. People risk their lives all the time for lesser things, why should doing a loop around the Moon have to be safe?

  104. Oh agreed. People risk their lives all the time for lesser things why should doing a loop around the Moon have to be safe?

  105. I mean that’s my philosophy. If you’re willing to sign on the dotted line and get fried in the upper atmosphere, I don’t see why NASA gets to stick its dick in and protect you. Your own risk.

  106. I mean that’s my philosophy. If you’re willing to sign on the dotted line and get fried in the upper atmosphere I don’t see why NASA gets to stick its dick in and protect you. Your own risk.

  107. The world is getting more and more retrofuturistic. Which is good, the vision of future in the 90s but specially in the noughties stank.

  108. The world is getting more and more retrofuturistic.Which is good the vision of future in the 90s but specially in the noughties stank.

  109. Unless it’s not coming back to Earth, the structural support needs to handle Earth gravity. In fact, unless it’s going to be supported on some sort of cradle before launch, Earth gravity with full fuel and payload. OTOH, the shock absorbing system for landings only needs to handle a landing with nearly empty tanks.

  110. Unless it’s not coming back to Earth the structural support needs to handle Earth gravity. In fact unless it’s going to be supported on some sort of cradle before launch Earth gravity with full fuel and payload.OTOH the shock absorbing system for landings only needs to handle a landing with nearly empty tanks.

  111. Indeed, if they painted it red and decorated it with a checkered pattern it would look quite like Tintin’s rocket to the Moon.

  112. Indeed if they painted it red and decorated it with a checkered pattern it would look quite like Tintin’s rocket to the Moon.

  113. The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. ” Providing structural support while only dealing with 38% Earth’s gravity should help, too.

  114. The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. “”Providing structural support while only dealing with 38{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Earth’s gravity should help”””” too.”””

  115. Fission and fusion rockets still are rockets. Same for Orion. But those are radioactive and fusion rockets have yet to exist. Fission rockets and Orion could exist today if we wanted, they’re just too dirty. There’s also microwave beaming rockets, but we have yet to see a working example.

    The other options are lightsails, magnetic sails and other space environment exploiting technologies, but those are too weak for launching anything.

    Oh, and momentum transfer tethers, space elevators, space-trams and other concepts that don’t exist yet and mostly seem still unfeasible.

    So yes, rockets are the present and will be how we go to space for a while. And that’s fine. We haven’t stopped using wheels and they were invented millennia ago.

  116. Looks like, as before it was 4 Raptors and two vacuum Raptors was it not? Perhaps that previous setup was when there was still some unknowns about the Raptor (performance OR manufacturing/lifetime) which have subsequently been revealed. Personally I feel better about the new proposed setup: continues the same rocket core configuration that they’ve been using for so long.

  117. Looks like as before it was 4 Raptors and two vacuum Raptors was it not? Perhaps that previous setup was when there was still some unknowns about the Raptor (performance OR manufacturing/lifetime) which have subsequently been revealed.Personally I feel better about the new proposed setup: continues the same rocket core configuration that they’ve been using for so long.

  118. Yep. And makes sense if they need the fins anyway. They ought to have retractable legs somewhere, though. This is required for landing on unprepared terrain. Probably at the tip of the wings? The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. Not sure about the changes on the thrusters. I would need some more data to know how if they made such big changes as removing vacuun Raptors.

  119. Yep. And makes sense if they need the fins anyway.They ought to have retractable legs somewhere though. This is required for landing on unprepared terrain. Probably at the tip of the wings?The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements.Not sure about the changes on the thrusters. I would need some more data to know how if they made such big changes as removing vacuun Raptors.

  120. NASA jobs. The FAA has less strict requirements and that’s all they need to send humans paying for the trip themselves.

  121. NASA jobs. The FAA has less strict requirements and that’s all they need to send humans paying for the trip themselves.

  122. Undoubtedly has landing legs in the three mini wings. Looks like we changed the # of Raptors from 6 to 7 and removed the vacuum raptors?

  123. Undoubtedly has landing legs in the three mini wings.Looks like we changed the # of Raptors from 6 to 7 and removed the vacuum raptors?

  124. Guy conventional rocketry is gonna be with us awhile. Until someone lets people risk a NERVA type rocket or we get a fusion rocket of some kind or something like that Big bombs to space are it.

  125. As far as I know, it still is a VTOL rocket, capable of landing in any body with solid surface we care to land on in the Solar System. And the booster and its fuel still are placed below it for launching.

    And it is planed to do refueling in space.

    Things the shuttle didn’t do.

  126. I noticed the ports for fuel transfers seem to be gone from the tail section. Unless they are hidden in the wings or behind those shields, the bits on the nose may not be retractable canards. They may be for nose-to-nose propellant transfer. Not the best option, but possible. It would be safer than trying to push high pressure propellant through your landing gear. I suspect the real option would be to put both fuel/oxygen probes in the tail fin, since it doesn’t have to swivel.
    Another issue would be spinning nose to nose for artificial gravity on the way to Mars.

  127. I keep wondering if they have any plans for an escape system in case the tanks blow. The cut-aways look to maybe have a large bulkhead between the tanks and passenger area. Even if that part could separate, what then.

    During ascent…emergency parachutes? Could they have a pusher system like Dragon v2?

    Once in orbit and beyond, hmm.

  128. I mean that’s my philosophy. If you’re willing to sign on the dotted line and get fried in the upper atmosphere, I don’t see why NASA gets to stick its dick in and protect you. Your own risk.

  129. Unless it’s not coming back to Earth, the structural support needs to handle Earth gravity. In fact, unless it’s going to be supported on some sort of cradle before launch, Earth gravity with full fuel and payload.

    OTOH, the shock absorbing system for landings only needs to handle a landing with nearly empty tanks.

  130. “The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements. ”

    Providing structural support while only dealing with 38% Earth’s gravity should help, too.

  131. Looks like, as before it was 4 Raptors and two vacuum Raptors was it not? Perhaps that previous setup was when there was still some unknowns about the Raptor (performance OR manufacturing/lifetime) which have subsequently been revealed.

    Personally I feel better about the new proposed setup: continues the same rocket core configuration that they’ve been using for so long.

  132. Yep. And makes sense if they need the fins anyway.

    They ought to have retractable legs somewhere, though. This is required for landing on unprepared terrain. Probably at the tip of the wings?

    The extra weight for reinforcing the wings + landing gear to carry the ship should be similar to the weight of the landing gear and winglets as separated elements.

    Not sure about the changes on the thrusters. I would need some more data to know how if they made such big changes as removing vacuun Raptors.

Comments are closed.