Report of scrub due to wind direction per NVS chat. Standing by to here if they will switch to the second window of the day at 1300JST. The NVS live stream will run until the camera battery shuts the camera down.
I notice LE-9 is 33% heavier than LE-7 for 33% more thrust, despite using a vastly simpler engine cycle. Shouldn't the weight gain be less than that, all other things being equal?
H3-32 configuration was deleted. H3-32 was consolidated to the H3-22 configuration.
MHI Standard launch price, which is calculated by the gluteal 【note 1 ] : about 50 Billion yen ( H3-30S )
from the pdf:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=21491.0;attach=1530988;sess=55234QuoteMHI Standard launch price, which is calculated by the gluteal 【note 1 ] : about 50 Billion yen ( H3-30S )about 50 Billion yen can not be right, probably 5 Billion yen
Quote from: GWR64 on 12/09/2018 01:59 pmfrom the pdf:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=21491.0;attach=1530988;sess=55234QuoteMHI Standard launch price, which is calculated by the gluteal 【note 1 ] : about 50 Billion yen ( H3-30S )about 50 Billion yen can not be right, probably 5 Billion yenSomehow 5 Billion Yen don't seems right either. Since that is about 44.5M USD.
If theres now only one 3-engine configuration (and its the smallest variant), I gotta wonder how much they're really saving with that vs simply ditching the zero-booster variant and using 2 SRBs on all flights. Liquid engines are usually pretty expensive compared to solids, not unreasonable to expect its close to the cost of an SRB pair.
Plus the extra development and tooling cost of the unique parts for that version (I assume the engine section is largely unique), which will no longer be shared with H3-32L.
Might allow more performance too, if it was re-optimized for that (pretty sure H3-22L's liftoff TWR is higher than H3-30S, so it might be possible to enlarge the tanks a bit)
If theres now only one 3-engine configuration (and its the smallest variant), I gotta wonder how much they're really saving with that vs simply ditching the zero-booster variant and using 2 SRBs on all flights. Liquid engines are usually pretty expensive compared to solids, not unreasonable to expect its close to the cost of an SRB pair. Plus the extra development and tooling cost of the unique parts for that version (I assume the engine section is largely unique), which will no longer be shared with H3-32L. Might allow more performance too, if it was re-optimized for that (pretty sure H3-22L's liftoff TWR is higher than H3-30S, so it might be possible to enlarge the tanks a bit)
Quote from: brickmack on 12/10/2018 08:39 pmIf theres now only one 3-engine configuration (and its the smallest variant), I gotta wonder how much they're really saving with that vs simply ditching the zero-booster variant and using 2 SRBs on all flights. Liquid engines are usually pretty expensive compared to solids, not unreasonable to expect its close to the cost of an SRB pair. Plus the extra development and tooling cost of the unique parts for that version (I assume the engine section is largely unique), which will no longer be shared with H3-32L. Might allow more performance too, if it was re-optimized for that (pretty sure H3-22L's liftoff TWR is higher than H3-30S, so it might be possible to enlarge the tanks a bit)Wonder if a H3-34L configuration with possibly upgraded/enlarged upper stage have any takers.