Elon Musk's Recent Dinner Companions
Elon Musk made a secret appearance to elite US Marines and gave a stirring speech, Business Insider
As the guest of honor, Musk reportedly delivered the opening statement that appeared to make an impact to the group of elite Marines. “I will never forget it; it set the tone for his entire talk,” Musselman said. “He said, ‘I wanted to come and speak to this group,’ and I get the chills even saying it, ‘Because whenever there’s danger in the world, you all are the first to go and die.”
Vice President Mike Pence met with Elon Musk, source says, CNN
“Vice President Mike Pence discussed the National Space Council with entrepreneur and inventor Elon Musk during a trip to California last month, a source familiar with the meeting says. The two powwowed at a Los Angeles hotel one evening while the vice president was in the state for a fundraising swing. The conversation focused on the council, which aims to streamline and coordinate national space policy. Pence leads the panel at President Donald Trump’s direction.”
Think about what the BFR could do in terms of logistic support for US military forces in its ‘sub-orbital transport’ mode, as Musk highlighted in his recent presentation at IAC. It has a cargo carrying capacity of 150 tons to LEO. Let’s say in sub-orbital mode configured purely for cargo rather than passengers, that would equal almost two C-17s worth (each C-17 can carry approximately 80 tons of payload) – but unlike a C-17 which would take up to a day to get supplies to fighting forces, the BFR can deliver cargo to a forward operating base anywhere in the world in under 30 minutes.
Does anyone have any idea of the passenger carrying capacity of BFR in sub-orbital mode? How many troops could it deliver to an operational area at short notice?
Not really a new idea. Mc Donnell Douglas was proposing something similar in the 70s. The costs are still probably still prohibitive for all but the most emergency cargo.
Speaking of prohibitive costs, does Pence meeting with Musk offer a glimmer of hope that the Space council will stand up to ULA and the Alabama mafia and ditch SLS?
No.
No criticism to you and I’m as aware of realpolitik as the next person. However,I can’t help but dry heave at the habit we have as a species to always ask first of a new technology: “How many people can we kill with it and how fast?”
Like it or not, warfare has been the driver of technology for millions of years, basically since proto-humans started using stones, wood and bones to make weapons. Until recently the main driver for metallurgy for thousands of years has been weapons, from better swords, to better cannon, to ICBMs. Don’t knock it if BFR gets a big assist from DoD 🙂
I agree, and so does Arthur C. Clarke. You can’t really look at it like “this tech is used for war”. It’s really more like “if we are in war, then what can help us?” And now the equivalent is worked out in deterrence as well. Even purely defensive weapons that can’t kill any people figure into things.
With respect, I think that to try and isolate a technology from warfare is a bit naive. After all, how do you think we got to the Moon – it was the ballistic missile, a weapon of war, that was applied to space exploration. Satellites are a dual purpose technology – both civilian and military roles. Modern globalised society – including your smartphone – could not function without GPS, which started out life designed to make nuclear weapons more precise.
In terms of applying BFR to warfare, I think its pretty much a no-brainer. Here you have a very large and fully reusable launch capability, that can put 150 tons into LEO. That’s either very large and sophisticated satellites, including those with military purposes, or lots of smaller satellites in one go. The latter option is particularly useful for rapid reconstitution of lost satellite capability following an adversary’s ASAT attack, and like it or not, our adversaries will target our satellites from the outset of a major power war. So its not too much of a leap to also look at the sub-orbital application of BFR for rapid logistics support.
If that capability supports US and allied troops in a manner that prevents defeat in a future war, then that’s a good thing in my view. Or, one other military application – rapid casualty evacuation back to the US. Saving lives is a good thing, is it not?
Just to clarify, GPS and its predecessor (TRANSIT) weren’t directly used for missile guidance. The goal was to precisely determine the location of a mobile launching platform (as in a submarine) at the time of launch. After launch, the missile wouldn’t use GPS. I don’t know if that’s still the case; anyone who does probably shouldn’t be talking about it.
And, just to add to your list, the first rocket to enter space (cross the Karman line) was a V2 (A4.) So I’m afraid space has been militarized from the start.
I’m sure BFR would have some military applications, but I don’t quite see this one. As described, the sub-orbital flights would land at an off-shore platform, and one involving a fair amount of infrastructure. I suppose the off-shore part might be optional (if it’s driven by regulations or distance from cities, the military might have more flexibility.) But a substantial facility would probably be required. That doesn’t sound like a “forward operating base” to me. Also, those landings seem a little delicate and vulnerable. I’m not sure that would be a good idea anywhere near a war zone. But I could see rapid deployment to _rear_ areas during a war.
As far as the passenger capacity, I don’t think they’ve said. But the advertised, pressurized volume of 825 cubic meters is about 150% or 160% that of the passenger volume on a 787. In the all-economy configuration, airlines can cram 296 people on a 787. I assume the passengers on a BFR would all be flying first class, and I’d guess that would mean a factor of three fewer seats. Although, for such a short flight, perhaps not.
Agree – maybe a forward operating base is a bit too ambitious – but main rear area would work. As for it requiring substantial facilities, I don’t see that as a problem. If you look at US base facilities in Afghanistan or what we had in Iraq during the height of the 2003-11 Iraq war, the base facilities were quite large, and could be set up pretty quickly.
Somehow, I don’t see US troops flying first class on a BFR! 🙂 They would be crammed in, with their gear, much as they do on C-17s and C-130s.
FOBs aren’t necessarily primitive. Many are intended to support extensive air operations, after all. (The distinction between “Forward” and “Main” Operating Bases is merely the permanence of the latter and the assumed vulnerability of the former.)
That said, a military BFS would need to be designed differently to a civilian one. For example, it’s likely you would put more sea-level Raptors on the military one, so it can self-ferry back from the staging area to a main base or off-shore barge equipped with the full BFR system. (Musk has claimed such a BFS could launch directly into orbit, SSTO, but with virtually no payload. So it should be able to launch a thousand km or so back to the nearest full launch site. Or less distance with less fuel.)
(Likewise, you wouldn’t using the same seating as a civilian ship.)
—
IMO, if BFS’s were useful to the military, it would be pre-FOB. It would be to drop the first assault troops into, for example, a civilian airport in order to secure the site for further staging operations. If you’ve degrading the enemy’s ICBM early-warning systems, then the speed of travel means they would arrive without warning, allowing you to capture a key site or facility (potentially even behind enemy lines), giving you time to secure it before the enemy can respond.
I do not think you would want this in a forward operating theater were a shoulder mounted surface to air missile could take out 150 tons and a very valuable spacecraft.. planes will still be cheaper at the front?
Maybe not right in the front lines – you are making a good point re SAMs – but main rear area would be different. That would still be close enough to the front line to make a huge difference.
Diego Garcia
Wow, I never actually thought of the military application til now. In that case, the military would have to own them I’d guess, completely control the launch/flight, etc. Interesting to think about for sure.
Anybody that’s in to space— which is anyone reading these comments— should pick up Vance’s bio of Mr. Musk.
WARNING: What follows is the result of a liberal education; read at your own risk:
Do you love the poetry of William Wordsworth? I do. Among his ideas are the notion that a new baby arrives “trailing clouds of glory” — glory being an innate comprehension of life, the universe, and everything (with apologies). As very young children, he says, we have a connection with the universe not experienced as adults. And don’t we all experience this, at some degree or another? I know that I do.
But the connection slowly disintegrates.
Elon Musk never lost it. And with the addition of an adult’s ability to learn, he translates fanciful ideas into reality. Sometimes he is SO naive. He thought that bolting a couple of boosters onto an F9 would be mostly a simple hardware problem, for instance, only to learn it’s a bit more complex. But the basic idea, and the life cycle of the components, are proving to be successful.
/liberal education
I am not certain he thought it a simple hardware problem I suspect what he says in the media is mostly a means to market product I imagine he is well briefed on the technical issues surrounding his dreams and aspirations !!
I’d have to recommend reading the book; based solely on that, I’d say that Elon thinks in big pictures.
Yes, but he is a fast learner and keeps at it until the problem is solved.
Yes. And unlike some others in the spacebiz, he’s not afraid to make mistakes, and learn from them.
While we are on the Musk bandwagon: He’s taking a lot of flak for the vacillation among FH, BFR, and MCT. “Can’t he make up his mind?”, some say.
I’ve been a professional designer for nearly 40 years, and what I se in observing SX is nothing more than design iteration.
Same with a Blue Origin, except they do the iterations in private and not in public. But if you dig around on YouTube you will see a bit from flight hardware how the designs have changed from Goddard, to the first New Shepard, to the current New Shepard to the New Glenn as they moved from a SSTO RLV approach to a TSTO one.