It is clear from the spaceflight101.com that there is difference in Launch sequences of Falcon 9 FT and Falcon 9 V1.1.

Clearly, Spacex has found a way to load the tank in 30 minutes (falcon 9 FT) as against 4 hrs (falcon 9 V1.1)

What are the differences in the method of LOX loading in Falcon 9 V 1.1 and Falcon full thrust? Did the use of Supercooled LOX made the difference ?

Did the use of Supercooled LOX made the difference?

It was the other way round. When they switched to subcooled LOX, keeping the LOX subcooled became a problem: the longer the LOX spends in the rocket, the more time it has to absorb heat from the surrounding air. The LOX then has to be cooled down by bubbling cold helium through it, which makes the fueling process more complicated.

Filling the tank rapidly is something you normally want to avoid, because it increases the stress on the tank (because it has to cool down rapidly from ambient temperature to the temperature of the LOX). When SpaceX switched to subcooling, they may have had no other choice than to increase filling speed due to the above.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.