…are falcon big. This is a cool video to give you a sense of scale.
15 thoughts on “Big Falcon Rockets”
So, are we serious yet? Or just fooling around with toy rockets?…. 🙂
Um landing legs don’t deploy on full-up F9H launch config….
Minor nit I know….
The Falcon Heavy hasn’t been called the F9H for several years now.
Showing my age. Old habits die hard.
The truth is size matters, but frequency matters more. I just feel that we could actually be doing a lot with F9H right now, no waiting. Zubrin had outlined a baseline for Mars direct that would have worked just fine with lots of F9Hs and Red Dragons. We’d need the Red Dragon, but there’s plenty of hardware to go round for F9Hs. We can even expend the non-Block 5 boosters if necessary and still have plenty to work with.
If NASA designed an Old West wagon train, the way they are proposing the Mars Mission, the single Conestoga Wagon would be the size of the Titanic… And they would need Paul Bunyan’s big blue ox Babe to pull it.
As the lovely and talented KfK asked, upon seeing this graphic “So tell me why we still need NASA?”
Heh. It’s a little disingenuous, though, to show the N-1 on that graph. (I did not zoom to see all of them to see if there were any others that never got used in a production sense.)
I think NASA would do much better if they had politicians and voters honestly asking “why do we need you?” They’d take more risks if not doing so was itself a huge risk to their continued existence.
That question should be the first one asked during every government agency’s appropriation hearings, with no chance at any money until it’s been answered to the panel’s satisfaction.
And a new answer, composed from scratch, should be required each year.
Politicians and honestly do not really belong in the same sentence.
If I understand correctly, the upper stage for the BFR is projected to weight 85 tons empty, which is about the same as a Shuttle orbiter yet will be far more capable.
Wings anyone?!?
Well it does have small delta wings in the current incantation. Also in current form the design seems to somewhat favor people over cargo. The ingress/egress capabilities for cargo and containers seems lacking. Especially when compared to the Shuttle bay. The depictions of BFS sitting upright on the moon delivering cargo via crane seems, well frankly, right out of a Colliers magazine illustration from the 50s. It’d be better to land into a capture silo so that ground transport could access cargo hatches directly. All of which are noticeably missing on BFS. Let’s see what New Glenn 3 comes up with. These details sure as hell won’t be missed by Bezos.
So yes roll-on, roll-off would be the preferred cargo transport mechanics. But I will grant that for the preliminary deliveries of heavy equipment needed to construct the lunar cargo landing pads to come, it will probably need the cranes for the first in-situ landings.
But cargo BFS can dispense with all the portals and fancy windows in favor of really usable cargo doors. And design for eventual roll-on / roll-off capability without changing the spacecraft architecture. Opposing doors for example would help that.
So, are we serious yet? Or just fooling around with toy rockets?…. 🙂
Um landing legs don’t deploy on full-up F9H launch config….
Minor nit I know….
The Falcon Heavy hasn’t been called the F9H for several years now.
Showing my age. Old habits die hard.
The truth is size matters, but frequency matters more. I just feel that we could actually be doing a lot with F9H right now, no waiting. Zubrin had outlined a baseline for Mars direct that would have worked just fine with lots of F9Hs and Red Dragons. We’d need the Red Dragon, but there’s plenty of hardware to go round for F9Hs. We can even expend the non-Block 5 boosters if necessary and still have plenty to work with.
If NASA designed an Old West wagon train, the way they are proposing the Mars Mission, the single Conestoga Wagon would be the size of the Titanic… And they would need Paul Bunyan’s big blue ox Babe to pull it.
As the lovely and talented KfK asked, upon seeing this graphic “So tell me why we still need NASA?”
Heh. It’s a little disingenuous, though, to show the N-1 on that graph. (I did not zoom to see all of them to see if there were any others that never got used in a production sense.)
Indeed.
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/careful-what-you-ask-for/
I think NASA would do much better if they had politicians and voters honestly asking “why do we need you?” They’d take more risks if not doing so was itself a huge risk to their continued existence.
That question should be the first one asked during every government agency’s appropriation hearings, with no chance at any money until it’s been answered to the panel’s satisfaction.
And a new answer, composed from scratch, should be required each year.
Politicians and honestly do not really belong in the same sentence.
If I understand correctly, the upper stage for the BFR is projected to weight 85 tons empty, which is about the same as a Shuttle orbiter yet will be far more capable.
Wings anyone?!?
Well it does have small delta wings in the current incantation. Also in current form the design seems to somewhat favor people over cargo. The ingress/egress capabilities for cargo and containers seems lacking. Especially when compared to the Shuttle bay. The depictions of BFS sitting upright on the moon delivering cargo via crane seems, well frankly, right out of a Colliers magazine illustration from the 50s. It’d be better to land into a capture silo so that ground transport could access cargo hatches directly. All of which are noticeably missing on BFS. Let’s see what New Glenn 3 comes up with. These details sure as hell won’t be missed by Bezos.
So yes roll-on, roll-off would be the preferred cargo transport mechanics. But I will grant that for the preliminary deliveries of heavy equipment needed to construct the lunar cargo landing pads to come, it will probably need the cranes for the first in-situ landings.
But cargo BFS can dispense with all the portals and fancy windows in favor of really usable cargo doors. And design for eventual roll-on / roll-off capability without changing the spacecraft architecture. Opposing doors for example would help that.