Timeline for Why doesn't SpaceX use solid rocket fuel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6 at 4:10 | comment | added | manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact | @JörgWMittag I have no idea as far as Starship. But Falcon Heavy is 3 Falcon 9 cores joined together. So as long as you can fill them all at the same time I would expect basically the same fill time as for a a single-core Falcon 9. With solid it isn't just "longer time", it doesn't get done on the launchpad. | |
| Dec 4 at 13:22 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | There also seems to be a scaling effect: Falcon 9 is filled in 33 minutes. Falcon Heavy is almost 3x the propellant, but it only takes about 5 minutes longer. The Starship stack is again almost 3x Falcon Heavy and only about 3 minutes longer. So, it seems that fill rate can scale very well with vehicle size. I suspect the same is not true for solids. | |
| Dec 4 at 10:51 | history | answered | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |