From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   Just this Saturday, JF Mezei explained that ...   
   > This week, Musk tweeted that:   
   >   
   > Booster will have 33 Raptor V2.0 engines   
   > and   
   >   
   > Starship will have 3 sea level gimballing engines, and 6 fixed vaccum   
   > engines. (so moving from 6 to 9 engines) with increased propellant load.   
   >   
   >   
   > For starship, would "increased propellant load" mean that that structure   
   > itself will grow taller? or are they growing tanks by reducing payload   
   > volume?  If the ship itself grows taller, is that a major change in   
   > strcture? or did they realize that their current design/steel has the   
   > strength to grow taller?   
   >   
   >   
   > If Raptor V2.0 is much better, I can understand seeing Booster with more   
   > umph and thus able to lift heavier Sharship, hece ability to lift more   
   > fuel. But why the exra vaccuum engines in Sharship?   
   >   
   > I was always under the impression that once dropped by a stage 1, a   
   > stage 2 has luxury of time to accelerate to orbit. Does the addition of   
   > 3 engines to Starship mean that in the end, they don't have that luxury   
   > and with the mass it has, it needs to finish acceleration to orbital   
   > speed at faster rate?   
   >   
   > Since Raptor 2.0 is supposed to be the "new and improved" version, once   
   > would have expected the need for fewer engines to achieve same thrust   
   > instead of need to add more.   
   >   
   >   
   > Since only sea level engines will gimbal, is it fair to state that they   
   > will be fired up after stage 1 separation to help push Starship to   
   > orbital speed? or will they sue differential thrust on the 6 fixed   
   > vaccum to achieve directional control?   
      
   In the 3+3 configuration, it was certainly expected that all the   
   engines would fire on the way to orbit.  If the purpose of the engine   
   count revision is to allow bigger payloads, then I would expect the sea   
   level engines to be asked to contribute some kick.  But it is probably   
   too early for anyone not working on Starship to answer.   
      
   > In the case of the Moon shuttle, since Starship woll operate excusively   
   > in vaccuum, can we expect it to have a different mix of engines with a   
   > sportion of vaccum engines having gimbals?   
      
   Lunar Lander Starship was introduced with engines that would not be   
   seen on LEO Starships.  There's been discussion as to whether those   
   landing engines would actually be needed, of if the lunar regolith   
   could stand the main engine jet blasts without becoming weaponized.   
      
   But that's another question we don't yet have the answer for.   
      
   /dps   
      
      
   --   
   "First thing in the morning, before I have coffee, I read the obits, If   
   I'm not in it, I'll have breakfast." -- Carl Reiner, to CBS News in   
   2015.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)