yeesh. That's a technicalities. No metal bending, but "studies" - which means study something specific, not just wish for a result.It's an argument over nothing. I'm out.
Quote from: modemeagle on 10/17/2012 02:45 amHere is a design I came up with.*Based on very little data!!!That's why it's called "Speculation" I note that the lite version went above the 5 g acceleration limit you have imposed on your other simulations. If that is a SpaceX limit it will probably apply to this vehicle, too.
Here is a design I came up with.*Based on very little data!!!
Quote from: meekGee on 10/17/2012 06:19 amyeesh. That's a technicalities. No metal bending, but "studies" - which means study something specific, not just wish for a result.It's an argument over nothing. I'm out."Studies" was my word. SpaceX didn't even say they were studying it yet.That's how much of a non-story this is.
F9 Heavy has 27 engines, is that really a good idea? (Cough, N1, Cough).
Hi guys, I wrote the article. I'll be happy to speak to any problems you have with it, or anything else I write. You can vent directly in the future. My email address is [email protected]
To clarify a little further,-The article is culled from two on-the-record interviews. Gwynne Shotwell briefly mentioned the possibility of a huge new rocket during an NSS presentation (and some scattered public references in other places) but the info, numbers and quotes came from the interviews. This is not speculation, small talk or rumor.-I believe MCT describes the engine, not the whole LV.-SpaceX is studying it, not cutting metal (as far as I know), and no timeframes were given (nor was money much discussed). In April Gwynne said they have not finalised the architecture, and Musk did not say otherwise.-I am not sure how dedicated SpaceX is to this particular LV, but Musk said they were doing this engine instead of the Merlin 2...Piece is pretty thin, I know, but the company declined to answer followup questions and I didn't want to wait 1-3yrs for better info. I'm a little surprised Musk mentioned it to me at all.As above, my email address is [email protected] I don't mind if you don't think the articles are interesting or useful, you can criticize them as harshly as you like (please CC me as well), I've heard worse (and not all unjustified). The possibility of spreading inaccuracies keeps me up at night, so anyone reading, if I've written something wrong then for god's sake please tell me.
To clarify a little further,snipped
Musk said during the 2011 FH press conference he had a small NASA contract, to study a 150mT class rocket.
Alright. Without linking to prior discussions on this forum: I suspect that it is methane, will be reusable, and having that much excess upmass will enable recovery of pretty much any upperstage. The crossfeeding heavy version of it won't be for a good long while but will be planned for, it will be constructed very close to the pad or perhaps to water, 15 meter diameter more likely than "7", heavy version will double as a hypersonic transport booster for the rich someday, heavy version will send tens of thousands of people to Mars, it will have at least 5 engines per core, it will be cheaper than EELV's of today per launch (not including payload), and 99% of you will doubt all of these points I suggest.