From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   After serious thinking Jeff Findley wrote :   
   > In article , jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca   
   > says...   
   >>   
   >> I ask this conceptually, not whether it makes sense or not for SpaceX.   
   >>   
   >> How difficult would it be to convert Falcon9 from kerosene/Merlin to   
   >> Methane/Raptor engines?   
   >   
   > Difficult.  Changing the fuel changes pretty much everything.   
   >   
   >> is this a question of rebuilding first stage from scratch and only keep   
   >> the grid fins, landing gear and software?   
   >   
   > Rebuild from scratch.  The lower density of liquid methane (430 kg/cubic   
   > meters) compared to kerosene (775-840 kg/cubic meters) would mean you'd   
   > need to increase the diameter since Falcon is already pushing the   
   > fineness ratio close to the limits.  So, you wouldn't be able to reuse   
   > any of the tooling and couldn't transport the stages with semi-trucks.   
   >   
      
   Hence Starship and SuperHeavy.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,   
   "He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."   
      Bill in Vancouver   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)