SpaceX starts BFS and BFR rocket test site for 2019 tests

SpaceX has begun working on the South Texas rocket testing facility that will be used for SpaceX BFS launching and landing tests late in 2019.

58 thoughts on “SpaceX starts BFS and BFR rocket test site for 2019 tests”

  1. People forget that while canceled at the moment, SpaceX ultimately plans to build the ITS. Which would have a launch capacity of 300 tons and be reusable. It was shelved essentially because they realized the development cost was too high for current cash flow in the launch market (probably double to tipple that of the BFR, which they have since also staged the development of for cost/cash flow reasons due to overall demand). I bet if Starlink takes off and gives them the huge cash flow they hope, they would re-start the ITS project.

    Reply
  2. People forget that while canceled at the moment SpaceX ultimately plans to build the ITS. Which would have a launch capacity of 300 tons and be reusable. It was shelved essentially because they realized the development cost was too high for current cash flow in the launch market (probably double to tipple that of the BFR which they have since also staged the development of for cost/cash flow reasons due to overall demand). I bet if Starlink takes off and gives them the huge cash flow they hope they would re-start the ITS project.

    Reply
  3. I thought BFR was just the new design of ITS? You’re saying they’re two entirely separate designs and ITS is still planned? This is documented somewhere? I got from all his speeches on BFR that this is the new design, there is no other design.

    Reply
  4. I thought BFR was just the new design of ITS? You’re saying they’re two entirely separate designs and ITS is still planned? This is documented somewhere? I got from all his speeches on BFR that this is the new design there is no other design.

    Reply
  5. I think he pulled a spacecraft with 42 engines out of thin air, it was an arbitrary first design target. BFR seems like the sweet-spot to me because the first stage booster puts the spacecraft just outside the atmosphere at speed, and the second stage is sized for re-entry. Sure you could build a bigger spacecraft for marginal gains but there is a limit here, just like the 747 is too big for most passenger routes, the twin-jet is the sweet spot when it comes to passenger travel. If BFR is the 737 then the analogous 787 rocket will probably be only marginally bigger than the BFR, and unless there is a need to launch a single payload that size then there is really not a huge incentive to go bigger and bigger, there needs to be “manageable chunks”.

    Reply
  6. Maybe they go with a Heavy BFR, where they use a 2-3 BFR boosters and put a monster cargo, fuel, or man rated vehicle on the second stage. They could get to 200-300 tons with full reuse that way as well.

    Reply
  7. I am making a prediction. Sure it’s not what they have currently planned, but it is what they originally wanted. If we have learned anything from the F9 progression and the FH, along with the current BFR plans, it is that SpaceX believes in scaling up. that is what the ITS is, a scaled up BFR. Just like the BFR will start with non-vacuum raptors and a 100T lift capacity it will eventually replace the engines with vacuum versions. I don’t think it is a stretch to think they might scale up the final version of the BFR into something that resembles the ITS if they are initially successful and have the money to do so.

    Reply
  8. I am making a prediction. Sure it’s not what they have currently planned but it is what they originally wanted. If we have learned anything from the F9 progression and the FH along with the current BFR plans it is that SpaceX believes in scaling up. that is what the ITS is a scaled up BFR. Just like the BFR will start with non-vacuum raptors and a 100T lift capacity it will eventually replace the engines with vacuum versions. I don’t think it is a stretch to think they might scale up the final version of the BFR into something that resembles the ITS if they are initially successful and have the money to do so.

    Reply
  9. The name can remain the same or not, but the design will be a new one. They really need the experience of BFR to define any upcoming rockets. And of course, there needs to be an actual demand for such big rockets. Currently even BFR could struggle to find clients requiring all that payload, probably launching several payloads at once to make the launch worth it.

    Reply
  10. The name can remain the same or not but the design will be a new one. They really need the experience of BFR to define any upcoming rockets.And of course there needs to be an actual demand for such big rockets. Currently even BFR could struggle to find clients requiring all that payload probably launching several payloads at once to make the launch worth it.

    Reply
  11. It’s to be expected, so long as the demand is there; Rockets just get better as they get larger, within limits we’re nowhere near.

    Reply
  12. It’s to be expected so long as the demand is there; Rockets just get better as they get larger within limits we’re nowhere near.

    Reply
  13. It’s to be expected, so long as the demand is there; Rockets just get better as they get larger, within limits we’re nowhere near.

    Reply
  14. It’s to be expected so long as the demand is there; Rockets just get better as they get larger within limits we’re nowhere near.

    Reply
  15. The name can remain the same or not, but the design will be a new one. They really need the experience of BFR to define any upcoming rockets. And of course, there needs to be an actual demand for such big rockets. Currently even BFR could struggle to find clients requiring all that payload, probably launching several payloads at once to make the launch worth it.

    Reply
  16. The name can remain the same or not but the design will be a new one. They really need the experience of BFR to define any upcoming rockets.And of course there needs to be an actual demand for such big rockets. Currently even BFR could struggle to find clients requiring all that payload probably launching several payloads at once to make the launch worth it.

    Reply
  17. The name can remain the same or not, but the design will be a new one. They really need the experience of BFR to define any upcoming rockets.

    And of course, there needs to be an actual demand for such big rockets. Currently even BFR could struggle to find clients requiring all that payload, probably launching several payloads at once to make the launch worth it.

    Reply
  18. I think he pulled a spacecraft with 42 engines out of thin air, it was an arbitrary first design target. BFR seems like the sweet-spot to me because the first stage booster puts the spacecraft just outside the atmosphere at speed, and the second stage is sized for re-entry. Sure you could build a bigger spacecraft for marginal gains but there is a limit here, just like the 747 is too big for most passenger routes, the twin-jet is the sweet spot when it comes to passenger travel. If BFR is the 737 then the analogous 787 rocket will probably be only marginally bigger than the BFR, and unless there is a need to launch a single payload that size then there is really not a huge incentive to go bigger and bigger, there needs to be “manageable chunks”.

    Reply
  19. I think he pulled a spacecraft with 42 engines out of thin air it was an arbitrary first design target. BFR seems like the sweet-spot to me because the first stage booster puts the spacecraft just outside the atmosphere at speed and the second stage is sized for re-entry. Sure you could build a bigger spacecraft for marginal gains but there is a limit here just like the 747 is too big for most passenger routes the twin-jet is the sweet spot when it comes to passenger travel. If BFR is the 737 then the analogous 787 rocket will probably be only marginally bigger than the BFR and unless there is a need to launch a single payload that size then there is really not a huge incentive to go bigger and bigger there needs to be manageable chunks””.”””

    Reply
  20. Maybe they go with a Heavy BFR, where they use a 2-3 BFR boosters and put a monster cargo, fuel, or man rated vehicle on the second stage. They could get to 200-300 tons with full reuse that way as well.

    Reply
  21. Maybe they go with a Heavy BFR where they use a 2-3 BFR boosters and put a monster cargo fuel or man rated vehicle on the second stage. They could get to 200-300 tons with full reuse that way as well.

    Reply
  22. I am making a prediction. Sure it’s not what they have currently planned, but it is what they originally wanted. If we have learned anything from the F9 progression and the FH, along with the current BFR plans, it is that SpaceX believes in scaling up. that is what the ITS is, a scaled up BFR. Just like the BFR will start with non-vacuum raptors and a 100T lift capacity it will eventually replace the engines with vacuum versions. I don’t think it is a stretch to think they might scale up the final version of the BFR into something that resembles the ITS if they are initially successful and have the money to do so.

    Reply
  23. I am making a prediction. Sure it’s not what they have currently planned but it is what they originally wanted. If we have learned anything from the F9 progression and the FH along with the current BFR plans it is that SpaceX believes in scaling up. that is what the ITS is a scaled up BFR. Just like the BFR will start with non-vacuum raptors and a 100T lift capacity it will eventually replace the engines with vacuum versions. I don’t think it is a stretch to think they might scale up the final version of the BFR into something that resembles the ITS if they are initially successful and have the money to do so.

    Reply
  24. Elon has said at the International Space Congress that future generations of BFR will get bigger and bigger. So we know that much.

    Reply
  25. Elon has said at the International Space Congress that future generations of BFR will get bigger and bigger. So we know that much.

    Reply
  26. I thought BFR was just the new design of ITS? You’re saying they’re two entirely separate designs and ITS is still planned? This is documented somewhere? I got from all his speeches on BFR that this is the new design, there is no other design.

    Reply
  27. I thought BFR was just the new design of ITS? You’re saying they’re two entirely separate designs and ITS is still planned? This is documented somewhere? I got from all his speeches on BFR that this is the new design there is no other design.

    Reply
  28. People forget that while canceled at the moment, SpaceX ultimately plans to build the ITS. Which would have a launch capacity of 300 tons and be reusable. It was shelved essentially because they realized the development cost was too high for current cash flow in the launch market (probably double to tipple that of the BFR, which they have since also staged the development of for cost/cash flow reasons due to overall demand). I bet if Starlink takes off and gives them the huge cash flow they hope, they would re-start the ITS project.

    Reply
  29. People forget that while canceled at the moment SpaceX ultimately plans to build the ITS. Which would have a launch capacity of 300 tons and be reusable. It was shelved essentially because they realized the development cost was too high for current cash flow in the launch market (probably double to tipple that of the BFR which they have since also staged the development of for cost/cash flow reasons due to overall demand). I bet if Starlink takes off and gives them the huge cash flow they hope they would re-start the ITS project.

    Reply
  30. I think he pulled a spacecraft with 42 engines out of thin air, it was an arbitrary first design target. BFR seems like the sweet-spot to me because the first stage booster puts the spacecraft just outside the atmosphere at speed, and the second stage is sized for re-entry. Sure you could build a bigger spacecraft for marginal gains but there is a limit here, just like the 747 is too big for most passenger routes, the twin-jet is the sweet spot when it comes to passenger travel. If BFR is the 737 then the analogous 787 rocket will probably be only marginally bigger than the BFR, and unless there is a need to launch a single payload that size then there is really not a huge incentive to go bigger and bigger, there needs to be “manageable chunks”.

    Reply
  31. Maybe they go with a Heavy BFR, where they use a 2-3 BFR boosters and put a monster cargo, fuel, or man rated vehicle on the second stage. They could get to 200-300 tons with full reuse that way as well.

    Reply
  32. I am making a prediction. Sure it’s not what they have currently planned, but it is what they originally wanted. If we have learned anything from the F9 progression and the FH, along with the current BFR plans, it is that SpaceX believes in scaling up. that is what the ITS is, a scaled up BFR. Just like the BFR will start with non-vacuum raptors and a 100T lift capacity it will eventually replace the engines with vacuum versions. I don’t think it is a stretch to think they might scale up the final version of the BFR into something that resembles the ITS if they are initially successful and have the money to do so.

    Reply
  33. I thought BFR was just the new design of ITS? You’re saying they’re two entirely separate designs and ITS is still planned? This is documented somewhere? I got from all his speeches on BFR that this is the new design, there is no other design.

    Reply
  34. People forget that while canceled at the moment, SpaceX ultimately plans to build the ITS. Which would have a launch capacity of 300 tons and be reusable. It was shelved essentially because they realized the development cost was too high for current cash flow in the launch market (probably double to tipple that of the BFR, which they have since also staged the development of for cost/cash flow reasons due to overall demand). I bet if Starlink takes off and gives them the huge cash flow they hope, they would re-start the ITS project.

    Reply

Leave a Comment