• Brainbit

    What do you think is this for the shell or the tanks? It should be possible to calculate the size because of the car and square lines on the floor. Does this follow Elon’s last BFS design?

  • Kirk

    Are you asking about diameter or length? Diameter-wise, the tanks are the shell — it is not a tank-within-a-shell design. (Though it is a tanks-within-a-tank design, with the smaller landing propellant tanks residing within the main methane tank.) https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/BFR-sections-1200×750.png

  • Michael Halpern

    That’s a Big “Falcon” Roller..

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    your interpretation sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky?

  • Michael Halpern

    Didn’t want to be sensored by disqus

  • SamuelRoman13

    A lot bigger than NGL. How do they get the piece off the tool? I do not see if it collapses. I would not think it would expand or not stick and slide off. A GEM sort of.

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    Model 3 is 4.7 metres, and the cylinder in slightly less than 2 car lengths in diameter – so somewhere close to 9 metres.

  • Jeff2Space

    Yes, this is the tool on which the carbon fiber will be wound to make the cylindrical sections of the tanks.

  • therealdmt

    Falckin’

  • Malatrope

    Usually the cylinder disassembles into three sections that can be removed internally. It’s quite a lot of effort. There is more tooling that isn’t shown (and probably isn’t built), and you won’t be doing any of this without overhead cranes.

    There are separation layers of paper or plastic put down first so that nothing will stick to the tool.

  • windbourne

    Really?
    I would have thought it was al-li. They are making the skin out of carbon fiber?

  • Michael Halpern

    Yup

    Edit making it light is an important part of having a stupid amount of payload capacity and being able to land with considerable payload hense carbon fiber

  • Jeff2Space
  • ReSpaceAge

    The shell and the tanks are one and the same. A single exterior wall I think I heard.

  • ReSpaceAge

    I don’t see an abort system, draco or other wise between that oxygen Tank and the payload section?

    Didn’t NASA make this mistake with shuttle?

    Doesn’t seem very wise!

  • Michael Halpern

    Nope, there is no dedicated abort system, no super dracos either, the idea is between redundancy and effective simplicity it won’t need it, maybe an abort flight profile but not an abort system. There are no side boosters, no copv, around every engine there are flak shields, and it carries extra fuel and can be refueled on orbit

    In the event of RUD chances are an abort system wouldn’t save you anyways

  • Kirk

    Their goal is for the LOX and Liquid Methane carbon fiber tanks to even be unlined. One of their job postings, recently declared filled, was for someone with:

    * At least 20 years of experience working on composite cryotanks.
    * At least 20 years of experience working on large-scale composite structures.
    * At least 5 years of experience in design and analysis and testing of composite structures/tanks.

  • Kirk

    Neither abort system nor parachute landing capability. Coming home it is propulsive landing or bust! May the goals be commensurate with the risk!

  • Pantagruel

    This is an integrated air-frame…the “shell” and the tanks are the same.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Making it up in volume is the approach. Lots of flights of the core hardware before people are put on it to characterize the system. The idea is this is enabled by full and rapid reuse.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    I love those job reqs like:

    “20 years experience building large composite spaceships”

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Gettin $h!t done

  • Michael Halpern

    Not a lot of risk, the system will be thoroughly tested before people ride it.

  • duheagle

    Just sprinkle a bit of flour on the rolling pin and the pie-in-the-sky-crust won’t stick. 🙂

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    Is the first ‘hopper’ going to be a subscale unit? That looks kinda small for a 30 foot diameter vehicle. Looks more like 25 odd feet or so.

  • ReSpaceAge

    A lot more going on in the tent than that.

    Just a small corner of the tent.

    Article coming soon https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c5bf0ff270a7d2c2522a58416189082c62e1c44b0f58eeb2d87ba3eaa78a1a6.png soon

  • Aerospike

    No parachutes or abort systems on airplanes either, yet people board them by the 100.000s every day around the world.

    (and commercial Airplanes are not exactly good gliders, even though unpowered landings have sometimes been successful.)

  • Aerospike

    Suprising you didn’t know this, considering you are one of the most vocal SpaceX supporters around. (Not meant in any negative way!) 🙂

  • SamuelRoman13

    You can scale it from the car if you l;ike.

  • windbourne

    Oh, probably saw it before, but for last 10 years, I’ve been suffering from memory/processing issues. Chances are good I read it, but could not pull it up.

  • Kirk

    Modern commercial airliners do glide fairly well, with L/D ratios of around 20. That may be one-half to one-third that of modern sailplanes, but it is better than a typical hang glider with an L/D of 15.

    The concern with modern airliners is their high stall speed, so not only will you not find them ridge soaring with hang gliders, but they need specially prepared landing strips. In the early days of aviation, and even today with small planes, every open field or dirt road was a potential emergency landing strip. If the field is soft enough, you might collapse your gear and bend your prop, but you’d still walk away. Toward the end of his 1928 book “Skyward”, Richard E. Byrd wrote of issues he foresaw with developing aviation, and high on the list was the every increasing landing speed of faster planes, with some approaching the ridiculously high speed of “a mile a minute”! The industry responded in two ways, with effective flaps which gave ever faster aircraft more reasonably landing speeds, and with better prepared runways allowing for high speed landings.

    The BFR is a hugely ambitious vehicle, and it is inspiring that a company is not only proposing such a design, but intends to develop it with its own funds and has already started on the first prototype. This is a space shuttle intended to not only exceed the payload capacity and reusability goals of the most optimistic early designs of the Space Transportation System, but also to land on and return from other worlds! To suggest that it will also achieve a 1,000 to 10,000 times increase in safety strains credulity. Both Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to meet an LOC of 1:270 for their crewed capsules.

    Risks are acceptable when commensurate with the goals of a mission. I’d gladly take the shuttle’s EOL LOC of 1:90 for a ride on one, and wouldn’t blink an eye at 1:10 for a trip to Mars. (Think of what people cheerfully face for an opportunity to summit certain peaks.) As Mr. Musk said, people will die. But that OK. Not living is a much worse fate.

  • Aerospike

    Totally agree with you here.
    The point I was trying to make was basically the same as yours: If we want to expand human presence out into the solar systems, we are going to have to accept certain risks.

  • Kirk

    I recall when, back in 2016, news leaked that SpaceX had entered into a $2B – $3B multi-year deal with carbon fiber supplier Toray Industries. That is a lot of fiber! Mr. Musk may have mentioned building his Mars rocket out of carbon fiber before that, but it was the first time I noticed.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    I did. I keyed off the 18″ rims on the Tesla. I was hoping someone else tried it and came up with different numbers.

  • disqus_QFnfw14A8G

    Even a Cessna seems to drop like a brick without power although accidents usually happen at low speed and alt.

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    BFS does have three landing engines and only needs one of them to function to be able to land. Flight and landing will be fully automated, so once the machine works reliably, the failure pathways shrink considerably. Hoping to achieve “airline like reliability” strikes me as quite plausible.
    After all, what could possibly go wrong?

  • Paul_Scutts

    Carbon Fibre

  • publiusr

    That’s the Mandrel for the AJ-260 replacement