I'm pretty sure SpaceX put ULA out of business (To some degree)

[sojourner]

It really depends on your definition of "refurbishment".  If you mean inspection for wear and tear and replacement of some parts without a total disassemble, Then yes, the word works. If you mean total disassemble of the engine after each reuse, then SpaceX has utterly failed at one of the chief design criteria of the Merlin.

 

Merlin was designed with minimal maintenance in mind. Refurbishment after each flight would make it pretty expensive to reuse.  They may look at total refurbishment after a certain number of flights if they deem it worth it, or they may just retire the engine.

[saabstory88]

15 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Why try to fix what isn't broken? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, betting the safety of a person, on that stage? Simply put: it might be broken. Vigorous inspection means to heavily scrutinize the state of the stage.

If you want a source, you only need to look at the shuttle. Engines were heavily refurbished. Now, Merlins aren't SSMEs, so it might very well be easier. 

I agree somewhat with this. I personally don't think we will ever see a person launched on a used F9-v1.1-FT. However, I firmly believe we will see a person launched on a reused Falcon 9 first stage. We may only see v1.1-FT boosters be used again a handful of times, and after a lot of inspection. This is not because re-use is not feasible, but because re-use will likely come to fruition in an F9 v1.2. It's going to be an incremental thing, which will probably look something like this:

1. F9-21 (orbcomm): Minimal checkout, static fire at LC-39A. Ship back to factory, tear apart.
2. F9-19 (Jason-3): Ship back to factory, tear apart. Compare load stresses between F9-v1.1 and F9-v1.1-FT. This is the kind of data which will allow them to really make improvements.
3. F9-22 (SES): Ship to McGregor, repeated test firings. If you take a look at Goggle Earth, you'll see the nice shiny new flame trench they are building next to their old stand. While there is no official word about its purpose, it's safe to assume that they are going to want a separate stand, far away from their normal stand, especially if they plan on destructive tests.
4. F9-23: Ship back to McGregor, integrate with second stage, test fire. Refly at a later date with customer who is willing to take the risk (like SES, as they have stated). After second landing, ship back to factory, tear down.
5. F9-24... etc... incrementally increase the number of  re-uses, tearing down the vehicle after each new re-use milestone.
6. F9-30? 35? Implement F9-v1.2. This vehicle will be able to be rated for a set number of flights, based on hard data, and will have countless improvements in reliability. They will likely attempt to both Man-Rate this version, as well as get DOD/Airforce ratings. They should have reliable data points at this stage.

I agree, they might find some sort of horrible flaw in the design of the current Falcon which means it can not be re-used. But SpaceX is not the kind of company to throw their hands up and say, "This one didn't work! It can't be done!". I mean, the current recovery system is so far removed from how they originally thought about how to get a booster back, it's crazy. In the first flights of Falcon-9 (1.0), the used parachutes! Version 1.1 only came about because they had to nail RTLS/RTDS, because the parachute method was not viable. You may remember, that they released their plans for a flyback booster after the F9 v1.0 had flown twice. Even their ascent profiles have changed significantly over the course of the operation of the vehicle, presumably, because they dissect the in flight data from their load cells, and adapt to assure the minimum possible air-frame stress. 

Look at the CRS-7 failure for two points. 1. Disintegration of the second stage did not mean first stage failure. It continued to fire for 10-12 seconds after the second stage disintegrated, and as the airforce confirmed, issued a destruct command. This caused first stage destruction, not the massive, unexpected flight stresses. 2. They had numerous enough instrumentation to be able to triangulate the source of the second stage RUD. The whole vehicle is littered with sensors, looking at as many aspects of loading and stress as they are able. The data set they have is already huge. 

To sum up, I think there is some truth to both sides of the argument. The Falcon 9-v1.1-FT may not prove to be very reusable. But they will continue to develop, and build a vehicle which meets their criteria.

"I have not failed, I have just found 700 ways not to build a lightbulb reusable launch vehicle".

Edited December 29, 2015 by saabstory88
Grammer

[saabstory88]

And now, as a response to the original question at hand, SpaceX will not put ULA out of business. This is not to say that ULA will not go bust, but it will not be because SpaceX out-competed them. As long as the DOD/NRO requires multiple launch providers, and the ULA is the only other company which can provide that assurance and flexibility, they will stay in business. In the event that when Bezos/BO enters the LV market, as they plan to eventually, they go after these EELV (or future equivalent) contracts, then yes, the ULA will be out of business. At that point, it's really not SpaceX's doing...

[KerBlammo]

There's nothing for ULA to worry about yet.  SpaceX recovered one first stage.  Until they can do this on a routine basis and also reuse each one at least once they won't have significantly brought the cost down.  

[magnemoe]

On 28.12.2015 at 7:41 PM, Nibb31 said:

All liquid engines are test fired at least once before launch. Solid motors aren't (obviously).

However, most engines are designed to be disposable. They have a very high performance, but are not designed for servicing (meaning that some parts aren't accessible without taking apart the whole thing) and they are designed for a total lifetime of less than 30 mins.

Airliner turbofans, on the other hand, are designed with servicing and long duration in mind. The result is that they are actually much more expensive than rocket engines. Access for maintenance actually adds cost.

Rocket engines are a bit like Formula 1 engines: very high performance, but only designed to last one race. After the race, the engine is scrapped.

As i assumed, and yes solid fuel engines are tested the same way as ammunition you test some to see if they work. 

If you design an single use engine you can do stuff like putting turbo pumps places where you need to cut open the assembly to do service on them as you will only do it if it get problems on test firing or startup. On Falcon9 they have to be pretty easy to pull out. 
And you will often use ablativenes as its no reason to have parts survive much longer than one burn. 
 

[AngelLestat]

14 hours ago, saabstory88 said:

To sum up, I think there is some truth to both sides of the argument. The Falcon 9-v1.1-FT may not prove to be very reusable. But they will continue to develop, and build a vehicle which meets their criteria.

"I have not failed, I have just found 700 ways not to build a lightbulb reusable launch vehicle".

Of course, nobody is saying that falcon 9 (as it is) will be the final version and would achieve 10x or 20x reusability.
They are in development stage, but there is no doubt (at least for me) they will get it, in 2 years or 4 years...  Doesn´t matter, what really matters is that "it can be done", I don't see any future problem (with materials, physics or economics) that can not be solve in the very short term. Why nobody did it before?  Because nobody had the economic need, neither the vision or talent or the encouragement to do it.  

 

12 hours ago, KerBlammo said:

There's nothing for ULA to worry about yet.  SpaceX recovered one first stage.  Until they can do this on a routine basis and also reuse each one at least once they won't have significantly brought the cost down.  

They have nothing to worry about?  Let's imagine two men head to head in a cowboy scene trying to fix their own gun and to shoot each other.
At the beginning you see that his gun does not work at all, then you see that it works, but its accuracy is super bad, then in the next attempt you see that the bullet was very close to you... and your gun still does not work or even exist.  You are not worry?

Yeah they will be able to launch some nasa contracts, but forget compete for commercial launches. The only way they can compete, it is if they go back to the design table, and make a new design that improves or at least match the goals of the falcon9.

Edited December 30, 2015 by AngelLestat

[saabstory88]

1 minute ago, AngelLestat said:

Of course, nobody is saying that falcon 9 (as it is) will be the final version and would achieve 10x or 20x reusability.
They are in development stage, but there is no doubt (at least for me) they will get it, in 2 years or 4 years...  Doesn´t matter, what really matters is that "it can be done", I don't see any future problem (with materials, physics or economics) that can not be solve in the very short term. Why nobody did it before?  Because nobody had the economic need, neither the vision or talent or the encouragement to do it.  

 

They have nothing to worry about?  Let's imagine two men head to head in a cowboy scenery trying to fix their own gun and to shoot each other.
At the beginning you see that his gun does not work at all, then you see that it works, but its accuracy is super bad, then in the next attempt you see that the bullet was very close to you... and your gun still does not work or even exist.  You are not worry?

Yeah they will be able to launch some nasa contracts, but forget compete for commercial launches. The only way they can compete, it is if they go back to the design table, and make a new design that improves or at least match the goals of the falcon9.

The ULA was not formed to compete for commercial business. It was formed to be able to be able to meet the requirements of the air-force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program.  As long as the United States has an Airforce which want to control space, and be able to launch whatever they want, whenever they want, they are going to ALWAYS require two contractors. ULA isn't technically sole source, because the two entities which comprise it build two very different products, so it satisfies the current requirements. Soon, SpaceX will be flying missions instead of the Delta IV M+, so you will have both the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9, so the requirements that the airforce puts forth are met. About 85-90% of all ULA launches are government contracts which fall under EELV. People in this thread are right, ULA can't compete with SpaceX in the commercial launch market, but the funny thing is, it's not because they are scared, it's that this sector has never been their bread and butter, military launches are. And SpaceX is only going to be able to scoop up EELV missions which don't require a high energy upper stage.

 

So, my  point it, that SpaceX's launch prices could be $7 million a flight, and the ULA would still exist. The only thing that can bring down the house of cards is for another launch provider, one that has a high energy upper stage, to come along and steal the second contractor seat in EELV. So like I said, when someday, Blue Origin has a viable LV (which will have a high energy upper stage), they should be able to outbid ULA, and take their place beside SpaceX. There is just no reality, where the US military is going to trust their entire space infrastructure to a single type of LV (F9 and FH count as one type of rocket). 

[AngelLestat]

I know that, but at least that is not what they are advertising in this video. They are shown themselves as the best future global provider.
Maybe that is the reason why they have so many dislikes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emmeil-0u5k

Edited December 30, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kerbal01]

With the recent restart of RD-180 deliveries, I don't think Vulcan will ever be built. I don't think ULA was organized to effectively work in a competitive environment. 

[wumpus]

Reaction Engines Limited (the SABRE people) are probably less likely to produce their engine (or at least likely to build it much later).  The two advantages SABRE could possibly have over Falcon are lower fuel consumption and longer operational life, and that is only on paper.  Falcon 9 does all the important things and does it in space, not on paper.

Any guesses as to the actual effect on costs here (for Falcon9 1.1 or 1.2)?  I'd expect SpaceX's cost to go down by no more than 50%, and expect that to be pretty optimistic.  The claim is that 70% of the cost is the booster production, so that leaves a fairly hard limit to the cost reduction of a factor of 30%, but that assumes no launch costs at all (the hardest limit is that there are no plans to recover the second stage, so costs can't drop by more than 90%).

I'm pretty sure that ULA was created in such a way that could exist without ever needing to launch a private satellite (similar to how the 747 project could be profitable without ever carrying a passenger).  Looking over the wiki-page, if Delta-IV is already scheduled to be phased out by 2017, it simply doesn't have any competition from Space-X.  Space-X doesn't have enough time to establish any record of reliability with Falcon Heavy before that time (even if it gets extended for a couple of years, because government and pork).  It certainly doesn't help to watch a competitors cost get slashed in half, but if you biggest customer is the government, it looks like something they've already planned for.

What really looks good for Space-X is the Falcon Heavy program.  Do they have two ground landing areas for the outer stages?  It really looks like they can do a falcon heavy launch for nearly the price they used to pay for a falcon9 (I don't really expect them to land on a barge with the center booster.  It is harder than any landing attempt made so far).  No ideas how many customers there are for such a launch.

[Rune]

6 hours ago, saabstory88 said:

And SpaceX is only going to be able to scoop up EELV missions which don't require a high energy upper stage.

 

Blue Origin has a viable LV (which will have a high energy upper stage)

Err... those "high energy stage" comments are, basically, wrong. If by "high energy stage" you mean one capable of dropping payloads on geostationary orbit, the F9 is perfectly capable. It would have to be a relatively small one, specially in the recoverable configuration, but still, sats are nowadays small, and IIRC it already has lofted some commercial ones into that orbit. But if by "high energy stage" you mean capable of lofting one of the big defense satellites to geostationary... well, that's what Falcon Heavy is for. With more payload capability than Delta IV heavy, by quite a significant margin.

 

Rune. There is nothing magical about H2/LOX propulsion, contrary to popular belief.

[Sanic]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

Rune. There is nothing magical about H2/LOX propulsion, contrary to popular belief.

  You must be unaware, but LH2 is actually liquid magic. I've read SpaceX is experimenting with liquid methane as fuel.

[fredinno]

On 12/30/2015 at 5:36 AM, AngelLestat said:

Of course, nobody is saying that falcon 9 (as it is) will be the final version and would achieve 10x or 20x reusability.
They are in development stage, but there is no doubt (at least for me) they will get it, in 2 years or 4 years...  Doesn´t matter, what really matters is that "it can be done", I don't see any future problem (with materials, physics or economics) that can not be solve in the very short term. Why nobody did it before?  Because nobody had the economic need, neither the vision or talent or the encouragement to do it.  

 

They have nothing to worry about?  Let's imagine two men head to head in a cowboy scene trying to fix their own gun and to shoot each other.
At the beginning you see that his gun does not work at all, then you see that it works, but its accuracy is super bad, then in the next attempt you see that the bullet was very close to you... and your gun still does not work or even exist.  You are not worry?

Yeah they will be able to launch some nasa contracts, but forget compete for commercial launches. The only way they can compete, it is if they go back to the design table, and make a new design that improves or at least match the goals of the falcon9.

Constant redesgins lower SpaceX's profit margins. I have a feeling RLVs will not really save SpaceX money, more be a R&D Elon pet project- though this is still hugely valuable for future RLVs, I don't think F9 will be saving much money, the way things are going.

[fredinno]

23 hours ago, Rune said:

Err... those "high energy stage" comments are, basically, wrong. If by "high energy stage" you mean one capable of dropping payloads on geostationary orbit, the F9 is perfectly capable. It would have to be a relatively small one, specially in the recoverable configuration, but still, sats are nowadays small, and IIRC it already has lofted some commercial ones into that orbit. But if by "high energy stage" you mean capable of lofting one of the big defense satellites to geostationary... well, that's what Falcon Heavy is for. With more payload capability than Delta IV heavy, by quite a significant margin.

 

Rune. There is nothing magical about H2/LOX propulsion, contrary to popular belief.

No, but it means no post-boost final stage (Briz-M) or larger rockets (Falcon Heavy), the latter of which can often end up being more expensive than H2 Lox upper stages.

On 12/30/2015 at 6:49 AM, DarthVader said:

With the recent restart of RD-180 deliveries, I don't think Vulcan will ever be built. I don't think ULA was organized to effectively work in a competitive environment. 

No, but ULA's managers are not stupid. I doubt it's going to get cancelled, just a bit of extra breathing room- ULA's Atlas negotiations contract to launch RD-180s ends in 2023 anyways.

 

At least now, AR-1 and the Orbital ATK's solid Vulcan first stage (which is actually 2 stages acting as a first stage, but I digress) can actually have a chance, and ULA can choose the best one, rather than the one made the fastest (BE-4).

[AngelLestat]

52 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Constant redesgins lower SpaceX's profit margins. I have a feeling RLVs will not really save SpaceX money, more be a R&D Elon pet project- though this is still hugely valuable for future RLVs, I don't think F9 will be saving much money, the way things are going.

Why?  they made almost all with 3d printing. In fact they follow this strategy of get a prototype, test it, then correct errors, redesign, test and continue the cycle again and again since they started with spacex, and they have the cheapest prices.
Try to design something in a perfect way since the beginning is a lot more costly.

[ColKlonk]

59 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Try to design something in a perfect way since the beginning is a lot more costly.

Of course.. but it works better, saving on costly mistakes :-)

The old sayings:-

'Cheaper is invariably more expensive'

'A stitch in time saves nine'

'You get what you pay for' (except for the F22 and F35 of course)

 

I've worked many moons in the technical and design fields and without a doubt, 

Taking 25% longer to ensure a proper product, saves you 50-100% repair time !

Accountants and CEO's have no clue about this concept.. they're taught funny economic maths at MBA classes.

:-)

Edt: (Come to think of it.. maybe squad can learn something)

 

Back to Topic:-

SpaceX, I think, will be a 'flash in the pan'. Elon will run out of money, or qualified staff.

Either way Spacex will die, mainly due to Elon himself.

SpaceX is of course the new breed in a quest to go where no being has gone before.. which is good for our future.

But there will be a field, littered with the debris of 'start up' attempts, of this new adventure.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by ColKlonk

[AngelLestat]

10 minutes ago, ColKlonk said:

Of course.. but it works better, saving on costly mistakes :-)

The old sayings:-

'Cheaper is invariably more expensive'

'A stitch in time saves nine'

'You get what you pay for' (except for the F22 and F35 of course)

No, that case is true for the "quality", this mean trying to save cost using cheap materials and low experience employees.
But that is not the spacex case.  

Quote

 

I've worked many moons in the technical and design fields and without a doubt, 

Taking 25% longer to ensure a proper product, saves you 50-100% repair time !

Accountants and CEO's have no clue about this concept.. they're taught funny economic maths at MBA classes.

 

This example is also true but for simple designs.. not for complex designs  

[sojourner]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

No, that case is true for the "quality", this mean trying to save cost using cheap materials and low experience employees.
But that is not the spacex case.  

This example is also true but for simple designs.. not for complex designs  

You've obviously never heard of the cars where you have to drop the engine to change the spark plugs.  Complex designs with high repair costs is MORE likely.

[ColKlonk]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Quote

 

I've worked many moons in the technical and design fields and without a doubt, 

Taking 25% longer to ensure a proper product, saves you 50-100% repair time !

Accountants and CEO's have no clue about this concept.. they're taught funny economic maths at MBA classes.

 

This example is also true but for simple designs.. not for complex designs  

Well.. this is why I said..

 

2 hours ago, ColKlonk said:

Either way Spacex will die, mainly due to Elon himself.

...

.But now I see the disease is more entrenched..

Edited January 1, 2016 by ColKlonk

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, ColKlonk said:

Of course.. but it works better, saving on costly mistakes :-)

The old sayings:-

'Cheaper is invariably more expensive'

'A stitch in time saves nine'

'You get what you pay for' (except for the F22 and F35 of course)

 

I've worked many moons in the technical and design fields and without a doubt, 

Taking 25% longer to ensure a proper product, saves you 50-100% repair time !

Accountants and CEO's have no clue about this concept.. they're taught funny economic maths at MBA classes.

:-)

Edt: (Come to think of it.. maybe squad can learn something)

 

Back to Topic:-

SpaceX, I think, will be a 'flash in the pan'. Elon will run out of money, or qualified staff.

Either way Spacex will die, mainly due to Elon himself.

SpaceX is of course the new breed in a quest to go where no being has gone before.. which is good for our future.

But there will be a field, littered with the debris of 'start up' attempts, of this new adventure.

 

 

SpaceX wasn't the first to try what it's doing. Anyone remember Rotary Aerospace and Beal Aerospace?

[saabstory88]

On 12/30/2015 at 3:35 PM, Rune said:

Err... those "high energy stage" comments are, basically, wrong. If by "high energy stage" you mean one capable of dropping payloads on geostationary orbit, the F9 is perfectly capable. It would have to be a relatively small one, specially in the recoverable configuration, but still, sats are nowadays small, and IIRC it already has lofted some commercial ones into that orbit. But if by "high energy stage" you mean capable of lofting one of the big defense satellites to geostationary... well, that's what Falcon Heavy is for. With more payload capability than Delta IV heavy, by quite a significant margin.

 

Rune. There is nothing magical about H2/LOX propulsion, contrary to popular belief.

I am speaking about stages which can do full insertion to Geostationary / Geosynchronous orbits. The Centaur is capable of this. The Falcon second stage is not capable of this. The Falcon second stage is capable of Geosync/stat Transfer Orbits with a 1800 or 1500 m/s deficit. 

It's also not purely a matter of ∆V, it's a matter of rated coast time. SpaceX has not pursued the same lengthy coast time ratings as the Centaur. They are banking on the fact that most commercial customers will provide their own GSO insertion. They may not even wish to bid on some of the DOD/NRO complex insertions, and leave that to the ULA. They have a much better platform for GTO missions than Centaur, because of the immense savings in gravity losses from their high thrust stage, but they are not in the same league for GSO, because of their short coast time, and high ∆V fraction spent on initial ascent.

Edited January 1, 2016 by saabstory88
More info

[fredinno]

18 minutes ago, saabstory88 said:

I am speaking about stages which can do full insertion to Geostationary / Geosynchronous orbits. The Centaur is capable of this. The Falcon second stage is not capable of this. The Falcon second stage is capable of Geosync/stat Transfer Orbits with a 1800 or 1500 m/s deficit. 

It's also not purely a matter of ∆V, it's a matter of rated coast time. SpaceX has not pursued the same lengthy coast time ratings as the Centaur. They are banking on the fact that most commercial customers will provide their own GSO insertion. They may not even wish to bid on some of the DOD/NRO complex insertions, and leave that to the ULA. They have a much better platform for GTO missions than Centaur, because of the immense savings in gravity losses from their high thrust stage, but they are not in the same league for GSO, because of their short coast time, and high ∆V fraction spent on initial ascent.

Can't SpaceX use a STAR motor, or make their own Kestrel-derived Post-boost stage for GEO Missions?

[Rune]

1 hour ago, saabstory88 said:

I am speaking about stages which can do full insertion to Geostationary / Geosynchronous orbits. The Centaur is capable of this. The Falcon second stage is not capable of this. The Falcon second stage is capable of Geosync/stat Transfer Orbits with a 1800 or 1500 m/s deficit. 

It's also not purely a matter of ∆V, it's a matter of rated coast time. SpaceX has not pursued the same lengthy coast time ratings as the Centaur. They are banking on the fact that most commercial customers will provide their own GSO insertion. They may not even wish to bid on some of the DOD/NRO complex insertions, and leave that to the ULA. They have a much better platform for GTO missions than Centaur, because of the immense savings in gravity losses from their high thrust stage, but they are not in the same league for GSO, because of their short coast time, and high ∆V fraction spent on initial ascent.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean now. You are completely factually wrong then, BTW. The F9's second stage can take the coast and relight to make the full GSO insertion, as the one on v1.2 was tested to do so in the very last flight. It made the news, even, right at the end of some of the more in-depth articles. And Centaur is not a "high thrust" stage, it is a high Isp stage, which means it has less thrust if anything. It also has heavy insulation, and leaks fuel as it makes the climb to GSO, like any deep cryogenic tank, and of course has a relatively awful mass ratio compared with soft cryogens like LOX, or storables that can get crazy tankage mass ratios.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Can't SpaceX use a STAR motor, or make their own Kestrel-derived Post-boost stage for GEO Missions?

No need to, the Merlin has a great capability to restart multiple times, and they should get little to no boiloff. If the battery and comms hold, the stage can keep on firing.

It would be really interesting to compare the two stages, BTW, after a really long coast, like a lunar insertion. If the battery was enough and they don't lose too much pressurant, Falcon's upper stage (which really needs a name, IMO) could be relit to insert around the moon... BTW, anybody knows the Merlin's restart method? It's amazing how many times they relight the booster's central engine on a nominal mission (3), and right now I can't remember how they get the turbopump spinning... AFAIK they have no hydrazine on the booster, right?

 

Rune. The russkies have been inserting on GSO from an inclined transfer orbit for decades, and never once used cryogenic fuels to do so.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Rune

[AngelLestat]

13 hours ago, sojourner said:

You've obviously never heard of the cars where you have to drop the engine to change the spark plugs.  Complex designs with high repair costs is MORE likely.

Ok, wrong choice of word there, complex was not the one I was looking for. What I mean, is in those design where the theory physics is hard so you will waste a lot more money trying to control all variables from the beginning than make your best assumption, then try, and continue from there. 

 

3 hours ago, Rune said:

BTW, anybody knows the Merlin's restart method? It's amazing how many times they relight the booster's central engine on a nominal mission (3), and right now I can't remember how they get the turbopump spinning... AFAIK they have no hydrazine on the booster, right?

Not sure, but I never knew why restart engines was so complicate before..  In fact, they already found ways to use LOX-LCH4 for RSC using laser ignition. This will be great because you would not need extra tanks with poison fuels with low ISP for RSC. This also helps to use the amount of fuel as you most need in main thrust or RSC.

[Nothalogh]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok, wrong choice of word there, complex was not the one I was looking for. What I mean, is in those design where the theory physics is hard so you will waste a lot more money trying to control all variables from the beginning than make your best assumption, then try, and continue from there. 

 

Not sure, but I never knew why restart engines was so complicate before..  In fact, they already found ways to use LOX-LCH4 for RSC using laser ignition. This will be great because you would not need extra tanks with poison fuels with low ISP for RSC. This also helps to use the amount of fuel as you most need in main thrust or RSC.

Vernors have become real. What a time to be alive