Quote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.Why is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.Why is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.Why is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.And in case you had forgotten: SpaceX was already working on improved Falcon 9, aka v1.1, when Falcon 9 v1.0 had yet to fly. Much like SpaceX was already working on an improved launcher (aka Falcon 5) while Falcon 1 had yet to fly.The more your repeat your mantra of "Why?", "What's the reason?" the more you confirm the fact that your really don't "get" SpaceX.That company is not run by logical reasoning alone. It is run by passion as well. And the latter makes for seemingly irrational or illogical decision making.And I for one am glad it happens. Had it not been for seemingly irrational and/or illogical decision making than mankind never would have sent anything into space. After all, mankind did just fine without spaceflight for the better part of 500,000 years.Yet, spaceflight exists.
Here is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.
Quote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.
Why is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.
Why is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.
Why is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.
And in case you had forgotten: SpaceX was already working on improved Falcon 9, aka v1.1, when Falcon 9 v1.0 had yet to fly. Much like SpaceX was already working on an improved launcher (aka Falcon 5) while Falcon 1 had yet to fly.
The more your repeat your mantra of "Why?", "What's the reason?" the more you confirm the fact that your really don't "get" SpaceX.That company is not run by logical reasoning alone. It is run by passion as well. And the latter makes for seemingly irrational or illogical decision making.
Quote from: Jim on 06/23/2017 01:47 pmQuote from: ThePonjaX on 06/23/2017 04:06 amWell seems the idea of a Raptor S2 gets boost.Interview with Gwynne Shotwell On the Space Showfrom notes on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ix76m/interview_with_gwynne_shotwell_on_the_space_show/QuoteThere have been dozens of Raptor tests(!) Initially intended for Mars, we are also looking at Raptor's utility for the Falcon program.Wrong. Where is does she says just second stage? It be more likely both stages using Raptor. Unlikely. Boosters and first stages will need to be recovered. Which cannot be done when they are sporting Raptors.
Quote from: ThePonjaX on 06/23/2017 04:06 amWell seems the idea of a Raptor S2 gets boost.Interview with Gwynne Shotwell On the Space Showfrom notes on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ix76m/interview_with_gwynne_shotwell_on_the_space_show/QuoteThere have been dozens of Raptor tests(!) Initially intended for Mars, we are also looking at Raptor's utility for the Falcon program.Wrong. Where is does she says just second stage? It be more likely both stages using Raptor.
Well seems the idea of a Raptor S2 gets boost.Interview with Gwynne Shotwell On the Space Showfrom notes on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ix76m/interview_with_gwynne_shotwell_on_the_space_show/QuoteThere have been dozens of Raptor tests(!) Initially intended for Mars, we are also looking at Raptor's utility for the Falcon program.
There have been dozens of Raptor tests(!) Initially intended for Mars, we are also looking at Raptor's utility for the Falcon program.
Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.
It be more likely both stages using Raptor.
If they have to start adding Methane to the pad structure to use a Raptor before the BFR, same thing.
Been watching this, thus far undecided.Running up another fuel should almost be a non-issue IMO, plumbing wise up the erector. Running that up within the next 12 months? That is another unneeded issue. F9 doesn't seem to need a new US. I am only a layman, but it seems that FH might need a better US. Not adding that for F9 means LC-40 has no need, only SLC-39 would need the mod.Something that I saw asked at least twice, can the current US get stretched to about 2x the current F9 config? FH may need something with more push. I just don't see Merlin needed for this at this time...I know this is off topic for this thread. but can the current F9 US get more or less doubled in capacity, and taps added to fuel a larger US without *too significant* modifications to the current erector to give the FH better capability?
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.Why is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.Why is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.Why is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.And in case you had forgotten: SpaceX was already working on improved Falcon 9, aka v1.1, when Falcon 9 v1.0 had yet to fly. Much like SpaceX was already working on an improved launcher (aka Falcon 5) while Falcon 1 had yet to fly.The more your repeat your mantra of "Why?", "What's the reason?" the more you confirm the fact that your really don't "get" SpaceX.That company is not run by logical reasoning alone. It is run by passion as well. And the latter makes for seemingly irrational or illogical decision making.And I for one am glad it happens. Had it not been for seemingly irrational and/or illogical decision making than mankind never would have sent anything into space. After all, mankind did just fine without spaceflight for the better part of 500,000 years.Yet, spaceflight exists.and so... that necessitates a RUS? i'm not following...
Is it worth it if ITS comes on line in 3 years?
However I think there is value in gaining flight experience with Raptor at relatively low cost
... I think there is value in gaining flight experience with Raptor at relatively low cost ...
by your same logic, they'll have to send a precursor raptor to mars in order to test it there before they send ITS.
Quote from: Roy_H on 06/27/2017 04:16 pmHowever I think there is value in gaining flight experience with Raptor at relatively low cost There is no value in just flying an engine for experience