I have thought for some time that a two core Falcon could be done with the upper stage and fairing above one core. Vectored first stage thrust is capable of keeping course. This is speculation only, I use the Shuttle hanging off of the external tank as an example.Matthew
seems like this solution creates alot of problems...which one(s) is it supposed to solve?
What about a Falcon medium with two outer first stage cores, then a single middle second stage core, same diameter, but with a metholox upper stage engine. Like this: booster > ==== second stage > ===< payload booster > ====
This is just nonsense. There is no redeeming value. It just adds costs. It can't use existing TELs. It doesnt fit in the 40 hangar
Yes, it would have to fly out of 39A. How much have they spent on ASDS activities so far? So let's turn it over to the manifest analysis people to see how many of these large birds there are to fly.
Days like these I think we need a SpaceX Crackpot Ideas forum.
Quote from: Jim on 02/25/2016 05:11 pmThis is just nonsense. There is no redeeming value. It just adds costs. It can't use existing TELs. It doesnt fit in the 40 hangarYes, it would have to fly out of 39A. How much have they spent on ASDS activities so far? So let's turn it over to the manifest analysis people to see how many of these large birds there are to fly.
1. a bar could be placed near the bottom between the outer boosters to keep them stable and fall away with separation of the upper stage. 2. It is all just an exercise trying to use existing infrastructure, manufacturing, and launch facilities at 39A, as a go between. 3. Only two boosters, an extended upper, or a metholox upper in between them. No interstage would be needed.