Quote from: mfck on 08/27/2016 10:02 amQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/27/2016 09:52 amQuote from: mfck on 08/27/2016 09:43 amIt's a contract for a prototype engine, not a USThe engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaninglessI am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage. But SpaceX and the Air Force are going to spend at least $67 Million and $33.7 million respectively on an engine that will be shelved? All of the things you listed SpaceX did when they upgraded Falcon 9 for FT, yes it is extra but well less than a new engine.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/27/2016 09:52 amQuote from: mfck on 08/27/2016 09:43 amIt's a contract for a prototype engine, not a USThe engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaninglessI am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
Quote from: mfck on 08/27/2016 09:43 amIt's a contract for a prototype engine, not a USThe engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
Are you saying the USAF will use the BFR? I'm not so sure. For years, we heard how the Air Force was chomping at the bit to fly on Ares V/SLS, but nothing has emerged.
They only required that the engine would be available for sale to other USA launch providers. I see this as their way of throwing a bone to SpX while also buying themselves another engine option for the upper stage for $35m. Why would they NOT buy that capability for that price irrespective of a stage it is or isn't connected to?
AF might just want to make sure it has several domestic engines to choose from.
Quote from: mfck on 08/28/2016 12:31 pmAF might just want to make sure it has several domestic engines to choose from.That may be true, but the current state of the art virtually requires one engine type, and only one engine type, for any given booster or upper stage. How many times have we heard from certain people that the entire rocket design depends on and starts with the choice of engine? No two rocket engine designs use the same plumbing or mounting points, and that's only the start of the interfaces between the rocket body and the engines.One of these days it may be as simple as substituting a different Estes solid rocket cartridge, but we are far from that right now.
Quote from: rpapo on 08/28/2016 11:26 pmQuote from: mfck on 08/28/2016 12:31 pmAF might just want to make sure it has several domestic engines to choose from.That may be true, but the current state of the art virtually requires one engine type, and only one engine type, for any given booster or upper stage. How many times have we heard from certain people that the entire rocket design depends on and starts with the choice of engine? No two rocket engine designs use the same plumbing or mounting points, and that's only the start of the interfaces between the rocket body and the engines.One of these days it may be as simple as substituting a different Estes solid rocket cartridge, but we are far from that right now.Yeah. Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne would never consider replacing the engines on an existing booster design...Nevermind.
It won't be shelved. It's the same engine that will power SpaceX's next generation US and booster... on which the USAF will most certainly be buying rides. Also, they are funding it to learn about methane engines while risking almost nothing. It's Research and Development, and the output is information and technology, not vehicle-specific hardware.
Quote from: Proponent on 08/28/2016 11:52 amAre you saying the USAF will use the BFR? I'm not so sure. For years, we heard how the Air Force was chomping at the bit to fly on Ares V/SLS, but nothing has emerged.I imagine the price per launch on SLS had a lot to do with that...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/755167487017291776
Quote from: envy887 on 08/28/2016 11:23 pmQuote from: Proponent on 08/28/2016 11:52 amAre you saying the USAF will use the BFR? I'm not so sure. For years, we heard how the Air Force was chomping at the bit to fly on Ares V/SLS, but nothing has emerged.I imagine the price per launch on SLS had a lot to do with that...Also, the 'nothing has emerged' includes the Ares V and (to date) SLS. Can't fly on a paper launcher.
Might add here that SX could be skeptical of building a Raptor US for FH given that the market for it might be limited to NSS/govt launches, likely split among another (or two!). Works both ways.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 08/27/2016 11:38 amhttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/755167487017291776it appears he is talking about postponing development of a reusable upper stage, not postponing development of a methane-fueled upper stage.