Mixing
New BFR Engine arrangement
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Watching the announcement at Space X I was confused about the new engine arrangement. All the nozzles look the same size. Is there still a mixture of vacuum engines and sea level engines? Or did they choose one or the other, or maybe optimized for a compromised mid altitude?
spacex bfr raptor
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Watching the announcement at Space X I was confused about the new engine arrangement. All the nozzles look the same size. Is there still a mixture of vacuum engines and sea level engines? Or did they choose one or the other, or maybe optimized for a compromised mid altitude?
spacex bfr raptor
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Watching the announcement at Space X I was confused about the new engine arrangement. All the nozzles look the same size. Is there still a mixture of vacuum engines and sea level engines? Or did they choose one or the other, or maybe optimized for a compromised mid altitude?
spacex bfr raptor
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
Watching the announcement at Space X I was confused about the new engine arrangement. All the nozzles look the same size. Is there still a mixture of vacuum engines and sea level engines? Or did they choose one or the other, or maybe optimized for a compromised mid altitude?
spacex bfr raptor
spacex bfr raptor
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
asked 3 hours ago
Johnny Robinson
1,621616
1,621616
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The engines are all now sea level engines, they removed the vacuum ones from version 1.0 to reduce complexity. They did arrange things such that they can add in more engines if required for the future. The bottom area near the engine nozzles now is for storage.
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The bonus cargo capacity that two different engine types would allow wasn't worth the extra development time, money, and complexity for the initial version. It's designed that in later versions vacuum-optimized engines can be added.
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This question was actually asked and answered in the announcement itself.
Elon Musk:
In order to minimize the development risk and cost we decided to commonize the engine between the booster and the ship. A future upgrade path for BFS would be to have a vacuum-optimized nozzle.
[…]
Where you see that cargo around the perimeter, you can actually switch out those cargo sections for a vacuum-nozzle version of Raptor.
[…]
We can do the 100 tons to the surface of Mars with those engines. But version 2 would have the vacuum engines most likely in place of those cargo racks.
There is no compromise. Those are simply the booster engines. Even with those engines, they will be able to fulfill their goal of 100 tons to the surface of Mars. Removing some of those cargo racks later on and replacing them with vacuum Raptors will then improve on that even further, with better fuel economy meaning smaller tanks (or just less fuel) which "buy back" the loss of those cargo racks.
The reason for this is to minimize the number of variables and standardize as many parts as possible, which will minimize risk, costs, and development efforts.
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The engines are all now sea level engines, they removed the vacuum ones from version 1.0 to reduce complexity. They did arrange things such that they can add in more engines if required for the future. The bottom area near the engine nozzles now is for storage.
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The engines are all now sea level engines, they removed the vacuum ones from version 1.0 to reduce complexity. They did arrange things such that they can add in more engines if required for the future. The bottom area near the engine nozzles now is for storage.
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The engines are all now sea level engines, they removed the vacuum ones from version 1.0 to reduce complexity. They did arrange things such that they can add in more engines if required for the future. The bottom area near the engine nozzles now is for storage.
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
The engines are all now sea level engines, they removed the vacuum ones from version 1.0 to reduce complexity. They did arrange things such that they can add in more engines if required for the future. The bottom area near the engine nozzles now is for storage.
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
answered 3 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦
76.8k16214420
76.8k16214420
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The bonus cargo capacity that two different engine types would allow wasn't worth the extra development time, money, and complexity for the initial version. It's designed that in later versions vacuum-optimized engines can be added.
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The bonus cargo capacity that two different engine types would allow wasn't worth the extra development time, money, and complexity for the initial version. It's designed that in later versions vacuum-optimized engines can be added.
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The bonus cargo capacity that two different engine types would allow wasn't worth the extra development time, money, and complexity for the initial version. It's designed that in later versions vacuum-optimized engines can be added.
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
The bonus cargo capacity that two different engine types would allow wasn't worth the extra development time, money, and complexity for the initial version. It's designed that in later versions vacuum-optimized engines can be added.
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
answered 3 hours ago
Dragongeek
2,429826
2,429826
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This question was actually asked and answered in the announcement itself.
Elon Musk:
In order to minimize the development risk and cost we decided to commonize the engine between the booster and the ship. A future upgrade path for BFS would be to have a vacuum-optimized nozzle.
[…]
Where you see that cargo around the perimeter, you can actually switch out those cargo sections for a vacuum-nozzle version of Raptor.
[…]
We can do the 100 tons to the surface of Mars with those engines. But version 2 would have the vacuum engines most likely in place of those cargo racks.
There is no compromise. Those are simply the booster engines. Even with those engines, they will be able to fulfill their goal of 100 tons to the surface of Mars. Removing some of those cargo racks later on and replacing them with vacuum Raptors will then improve on that even further, with better fuel economy meaning smaller tanks (or just less fuel) which "buy back" the loss of those cargo racks.
The reason for this is to minimize the number of variables and standardize as many parts as possible, which will minimize risk, costs, and development efforts.
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This question was actually asked and answered in the announcement itself.
Elon Musk:
In order to minimize the development risk and cost we decided to commonize the engine between the booster and the ship. A future upgrade path for BFS would be to have a vacuum-optimized nozzle.
[…]
Where you see that cargo around the perimeter, you can actually switch out those cargo sections for a vacuum-nozzle version of Raptor.
[…]
We can do the 100 tons to the surface of Mars with those engines. But version 2 would have the vacuum engines most likely in place of those cargo racks.
There is no compromise. Those are simply the booster engines. Even with those engines, they will be able to fulfill their goal of 100 tons to the surface of Mars. Removing some of those cargo racks later on and replacing them with vacuum Raptors will then improve on that even further, with better fuel economy meaning smaller tanks (or just less fuel) which "buy back" the loss of those cargo racks.
The reason for this is to minimize the number of variables and standardize as many parts as possible, which will minimize risk, costs, and development efforts.
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This question was actually asked and answered in the announcement itself.
Elon Musk:
In order to minimize the development risk and cost we decided to commonize the engine between the booster and the ship. A future upgrade path for BFS would be to have a vacuum-optimized nozzle.
[…]
Where you see that cargo around the perimeter, you can actually switch out those cargo sections for a vacuum-nozzle version of Raptor.
[…]
We can do the 100 tons to the surface of Mars with those engines. But version 2 would have the vacuum engines most likely in place of those cargo racks.
There is no compromise. Those are simply the booster engines. Even with those engines, they will be able to fulfill their goal of 100 tons to the surface of Mars. Removing some of those cargo racks later on and replacing them with vacuum Raptors will then improve on that even further, with better fuel economy meaning smaller tanks (or just less fuel) which "buy back" the loss of those cargo racks.
The reason for this is to minimize the number of variables and standardize as many parts as possible, which will minimize risk, costs, and development efforts.
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
This question was actually asked and answered in the announcement itself.
Elon Musk:
In order to minimize the development risk and cost we decided to commonize the engine between the booster and the ship. A future upgrade path for BFS would be to have a vacuum-optimized nozzle.
[…]
Where you see that cargo around the perimeter, you can actually switch out those cargo sections for a vacuum-nozzle version of Raptor.
[…]
We can do the 100 tons to the surface of Mars with those engines. But version 2 would have the vacuum engines most likely in place of those cargo racks.
There is no compromise. Those are simply the booster engines. Even with those engines, they will be able to fulfill their goal of 100 tons to the surface of Mars. Removing some of those cargo racks later on and replacing them with vacuum Raptors will then improve on that even further, with better fuel economy meaning smaller tanks (or just less fuel) which "buy back" the loss of those cargo racks.
The reason for this is to minimize the number of variables and standardize as many parts as possible, which will minimize risk, costs, and development efforts.
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
edited 9 mins ago
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
answered 27 mins ago
Jörg W Mittag
738510
738510
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30791%2fnew-bfr-engine-arrangement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password