Timeline for Why does the Falcon 9 use RP-1/LOx and not LH2/LOx?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2018 at 6:15 | vote | accept | CKA | ||
| Jun 13, 2018 at 14:57 | history | edited | geoffc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 427 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 14:51 | history | edited | geoffc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 427 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 14:45 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | An RL10-based upper stage for Falcon would be much higher performance, but RL10 is a notoriously expensive engine to build -- according to some sources, over US\$25 million per (and list-priced at more like \$38M?), compared to under a million for a Merlin producing 9 times as much thrust. Merlin is a little overpowered for the stage, so you could get by with fewer than 9 RL10s in a hydrolox upper stage for Falcon, but it would still dramatically increase costs. Cost estimates from some internet rando here: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43053.0 | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 14:11 | history | answered | geoffc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |