"Damon Hill" <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7C74D4FE2B3damon161attbicom@127.0.0.1...
"Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote in
news:HtqLj.303$ko5.27@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.phpIncludes a "Data Sheet", but still
no Payload Users Guide.
Payload has gone up to 11, 290kg from 9,900kg.
Note the Merlin 1e engine thrust is up to 125 Klbs/sea level.
This has resulted in the stretched Falcon 1e, which has about
double the payload and certainly hasn't hurt the Falcon 9
performance.
The Falcon 9 Neavy will be over 3.3 million
lbs/thrust on 27(!) of those engines. That'll be a serious
show at liftoff.
Wonder how much the Merlin can be uprated before SpaceX has
to go to a clean sheet? SpaceX is planning a very much larger
engine in the F-1 class at some time in the future. A 200
Klbs engine could greatly simplify the Falcon 9 to a Falcon 5
with no loss of performance.
USAF and Aerojet are discussing accelerated development of an
all-new reusable staged-combustion hydrocarbon engine to replace
the RD-180 (but they've always been talking about such an engine--
little significant hardware development has resulted).
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busa...
=news/REUSE04108.xml&show=us
--Damon
It's going to get interesting for companies like Boeing and LocMart too -
their launch vehicles are going to be too expensive for anyone to use. If
Falcon 9 and F9H can show their reliability and demonstrate low costs, then
the Big Two will have to get their fingers out and design new launch
vehicles in a similar manner to F9/F9H.
