Big Fucking Rocket!!!

[Yazata]

That's what SpaceX is calling it. (More formally the BFR) And it is fucking big, much bigger than the Saturn 5 moon rocket. It's the latest version of their proposed ITS (Interplanetary Transportation System).

Here's Elon Musk explaining it at the International Astronautical Union meeting in Australia today (Sept 29, Australia is almost a day ahead of the US, our canary in a coal mine to warn us of what tomorrow holds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0BB2bCDPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcVpMJp9Th4

They are planning to have it flying in 5 years! It will be capable of traveling to the lunar surface and back without refueling. And it will be able to carry enough cargo to start a Moon base.

It will be able to go to Mars too. Musk wants to send two unmanned supply missions to Mars in 2022. A manned expedition (penciled in for 2025) will have to refuel on Mars, so it will need a rocket fuel plant. Luckily Mars has CO2 in its atmosphere and H2O, which can be worked up into O2 and CH4 (Methane) fuel.

How will SpaceX afford to build and fly their Big Fucking Rockets? By using them for Earth-to-Earth flights too. They can carry as many passengers as an Airbus and arrive at any point on Earth in not much more than 30 minutes. Travel anywhere on the planet in less than an hour and get a excursion into outer space while doing it. (Become an astronaut!)

Here's a video about the Earth transportation potential:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...qE-ultsWt0

[Magical Realist]

Syne will scold you for posting profanity. He's worried about the virgin ears of children here. He's their self-appointed guardian.

[C C]

That's what SpaceX is calling it. [...] Here's Elon Musk explaining it [...]

Another compensation project. Like Al-Waleed bin Talal building the Jeddah Tower.

- - -

[Syne]

The Earth-to-Earth flights sound like the most revolutionary part of the project. After all, we haven't been back to the moon in how many decades? Why would Mars be any different?

---

Syne will scold you for posting profanity. He's worried about the virgin ears of children here. He's their self-appointed guardian.

Sure, buddy, like I did here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4249-p...k#pid14035
Or here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-3417-p...k#pid13426
Or here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-3715-p...k#pid12379

I mentioned it once about topic titles here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4019-post-12959.html

But since the admin didn't seem concerned, I never pursued it. After all, any such liability fall on him.

[RainbowUnicorn]

for many years i have pondered why passenger planes cant be compartmentalised to break into different pods & drop people by parachute.
drop pods.
being able to pick up pods to add them to a main flight frame that is self propelled.
they could be dropped from flight and land at landing zones saving massive amounts of fuel & time.
not to mention the safety factor of being able to have the pods automatically close & pressurise and self descend in an emergency.
having smaller cargo pods that can be trucked after being dropped would also save considerable cost.
effectively being able to drop a container without having to land. then being able to pick up and transport the cargo/passenger pod back to an airport pick up point, already loaded or empty.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUWDiW-ljJI

"1 or 2 hundred thousand dollars, the median house price in the usa"

that is not real economics.
the mode house price is the only real figure relative to affordable consumer reach.
the average US house is around 380,000.00 (twice the price mentioned by the narator  & well outside the afforability of 90% of society)


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS

[Image: fredgraph.png?g=fit5]

i am not trying to debunk the science or the person.
simply pointing out an error in the pricing affordability cost range to the average house buyer.
the average house buyer will not be able to afford a trip to the moon or mars.