New BFR Engine arrangement

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
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?










share|improve this question

















  • 7




    Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
    – DarkDust
    Sep 20 at 7:34














up vote
5
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?










share|improve this question

















  • 7




    Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
    – DarkDust
    Sep 20 at 7:34












up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
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?










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Sep 19 at 17:26









Johnny Robinson

1,681617




1,681617







  • 7




    Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
    – DarkDust
    Sep 20 at 7:34












  • 7




    Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
    – DarkDust
    Sep 20 at 7:34







7




7




Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
– DarkDust
Sep 20 at 7:34




Hi Johnny, you have a lot of questions with good answers that are not accepted yet. It would be nice if you would reward these people by accepting answers to your questions. Thanks.
– DarkDust
Sep 20 at 7:34










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
14
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.






share|improve this answer






















  • kudos for a well-sourced answer!
    – uhoh
    Sep 23 at 8:09

















up vote
9
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.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    6
    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.






    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "508"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      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






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      14
      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.






      share|improve this answer






















      • kudos for a well-sourced answer!
        – uhoh
        Sep 23 at 8:09














      up vote
      14
      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.






      share|improve this answer






















      • kudos for a well-sourced answer!
        – uhoh
        Sep 23 at 8:09












      up vote
      14
      down vote










      up vote
      14
      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.






      share|improve this answer














      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Sep 19 at 20:57

























      answered Sep 19 at 20:39









      Jörg W Mittag

      868611




      868611











      • kudos for a well-sourced answer!
        – uhoh
        Sep 23 at 8:09
















      • kudos for a well-sourced answer!
        – uhoh
        Sep 23 at 8:09















      kudos for a well-sourced answer!
      – uhoh
      Sep 23 at 8:09




      kudos for a well-sourced answer!
      – uhoh
      Sep 23 at 8:09










      up vote
      9
      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.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        9
        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.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          9
          down vote










          up vote
          9
          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.






          share|improve this answer












          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Sep 19 at 17:32









          PearsonArtPhoto♦

          77.2k16216421




          77.2k16216421




















              up vote
              6
              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.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                6
                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.






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  6
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  6
                  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.






                  share|improve this answer












                  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.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 19 at 17:58









                  Dragongeek

                  2,499826




                  2,499826



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?