Chris, considering the fixed engines would be the same as the engine that is landing, deep throttling for TVC should not be an issue. Indeed, the center gimbal may not even be used during ascent.
#1- We need to move/merge this to the other thread.#2-It's just bigger, plain and simple. It's taller, wider, and so is the fairing. The only thing that's stayed the same size are the Merlins, even if they are D's now.
Same diameter, same engine configuration, the core will be streched about 23 feet. Yes, it can still fit in the hanger at Pad-40.
Yes, it can still fit in the hanger at Pad-40.
Quote from: corrodedNut on 05/14/2012 07:32 pm#1- We need to move/merge this to the other thread.#2-It's just bigger, plain and simple. It's taller, wider, and so is the fairing. The only thing that's stayed the same size are the Merlins, even if they are D's now.Wider?
Trying to keep up with these developments...So will this V1.1 (love the software vernacular) be the new baseline for F9H? New thrust structure, extended core, etc?
the most logical reason to me to rearrange the thrust structure and remove the engine fairings would be to support a common core for falcon heavy.
Has a very high probability of being artistic license/error from where I'm sitting. I can't see how you could arrange 9 Merlins under the Falcon 9's first stage in any configuration without needing fairings, let alone an octagonal plan with a wide middle space for a gimballing center nozzle. The current 3x3 is a pretty tight pack and the corner engine bells still stick out a fair bit from the tank sidewalls, hence fairings.
I can't see how you could arrange 9 Merlins under the Falcon 9's first stage in any configuration without needing fairings, let alone an octagonal plan with a wide middle space for a gimballing center nozzle. The current 3x3 is a pretty tight pack and the corner engine bells still stick out a fair bit from the tank sidewalls, hence fairings.
Does that mean that if CRS2+ goes off OK, the current Falcon 9 will have fulfilled all the (non-paperwork) requirements for launching SMD missions?
the problem is not with your seeing, but the fact that this is not a photo of a model, but some artists approximation of what it "might" look like, and it is bound to be slightly off; if you take into account empty spaces behind the row of engines in the front, and that one on the left at the back is offset incorrectly, you will see that there is ample space in the back for the missing 2 engines;
The entire engine bay looks much shorter than Block 1. Hard to imagine they optimized everything so much down there. Then again, maybe this was all part of the original "weight reduction plan" for the Block 2.
The more I look at this configuration, the more I don't see 9, but 7 engines.