I’m not doing anything. SpaceX is just doing what the other, most market competitive launch vehicles (primarily Russian) have been doing for years — employing only a single propellant and, ideally, a single type of engine.

Physics performance and cost performance are not the same thing. The physics of a Ferrari’s engine and chassis allows it to greatly outperform a Honda Civic. But I can buy 25 Honda Civics for the price of one Ferrari.

Same goes for launchers. You can have better performance with a more powerful upper stage that uses a different engine from your first-stage, but you’ll pay a substantial cost for it. And that extra performance means squat if no customer cares about it or needs it or if your competitors can undercut you on price as a result of the added cost.

“I guess that is why Von Braun gave an autographed picture of the Saturn V to Abe Silverstein thanking him for making the moon mission possible by insisting on hydrogen upper stages.”

Saturn V wasn’t designed to be cost-effective. Saturn V was designed to get a couple astronauts to the surface of the Moon as soon as possible.

“There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages”

Yes, there is. Non-hydrogen upper stages are used on many foreign launch vehicles. Cryogenic propellants incur added costs, and it’s a contributing factor to why no U.S. launch vehicle besides Falcon 9 is competitive in the world market today.

“the loss in performance does not equal a more efficient vehicle- it only results in less payload into orbit.”

Performance efficiency and cost efficiency are not the same thing. See above.

“You are such a liar… You should be ashamed of yourself.”

I havn’t lied about anything. You’re the one lying when you state that “There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages”, when, in fact, all kinds of reliable, competitive, and successful launch vehicles use non-hydrogen upper stages all the time.

Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance. Learn something about the topic you’re posting about before you inadvertently lie or make yourself look like an idiot.

“You put present yourself as this all knowing expert…”

I don’t present myself as anything — I don’t write about my accomplishments, credentials, industry experience, or education.

I only state facts, try to make logical arguments, and point out where other folks’ arguments are lacking logic and facts. Your posts consistently fall into this category.

“and yet you will present a blatantly and totally inaccurate excuse for going cheap at the sacrifice of performance.”

It’s not an excuse. It’s a legitimate design tradeoff. What good is a Ferrari if you don’t need the extra speed and can’t afford to buy one?

“Don’t make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.”

Don’t call simple systems engineering tradeoffs “technobabble” just because you don’t understand them.

Stupidity is not an excuse.

Lawdy…

What the heck is so bizarre about its design? It actually is a great design. It is designed so it will always reenter with the base heat shield first, unlike any Apollo design. You lose a little lift-to-drag performance but so what? What it means is that the crew is more likely to survive in case of an abort from space than in any Apollo shape vehicle. The recent reentries with a Soyuz are a testament to their great design. BTW, if you were to look at this http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm and try to understand you’d see that several designs were Soyuz like. There is a good reason for it and it is what I stated above.

It has become really annoying to see people give their expert opinion on things they do not understand.

Oh well…

Yes, it does. You have double the number of engine designs, which doubles the number of production lines, doubles the number of supporting engineers, doubles the control code variations, and doubles the number of different fueling and operational interfaces. All those doublings have to be paid for, which, at a rough order of magnitude, doubles engine costs.

Even a child could figure this out by applying a little common sense.

If you’re not going to stop making stupid statements out of ignorance, at least think before you post.

Lawdy…

“Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth.”

Check again, genius. You’re wrong, as usual.

Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance. Check your facts before you post.

“Don’t make stuff up!”

I’m not. You are, about Proton.

“The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.”

Only an idiot would still find Soyuz to be a “wonder” after decades of successful operation.

Ugh…

“Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth.”

You might want to check again. The RP-1/LOX powered Block D/DM upper stage has largely been replaced by the UDMH/N2O2 power Briz-M (or Breeze-M) upper stage. They still fly the occasional Block DM but almost all of the commercial launches have gone over to the more powerful Briz-M upper stage.

“It has a poor reliability record as well.”

Not poor enough to scare away the a very large fraction of the commercial launch market.

Its grammatically not correct to call it pork when you’re the one getting it.

For the idiots on this forum and your names are here.
http://gaetanomarano.blogspot.com/

For the you clueless ones, specially amightywind and GaryChurch, you don’t know squat. You are the liars. You don’t understand launch vehicle performance and economics.
Launch vehicles are no longer are designed for performance, they are designed for cost. For a given payload mass, it doesn’t matter if a launch vehicle uses the most efficient propellants and engines, the cheaper vehicle is the better one.

Apollo was a “cost is no object” mission, and was about beating the Soviets, not opening up space. Business people who have to make money have different priorities, and unlike Apollo (and Ares) their rockets will be financially sustainable.

The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.

And yet it does, and has for decades, with no loss of life. Perhaps you’re not as great a rocket scientist as you fancy yourself.

and that running different engines with different propellants in different stages doubles costs and that cryogenics make those stages even more expensive.

Doubles costs?

Don’t make stuff up!

Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth. It has a poor reliability record as well.

The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.

I guess that is why Von Braun gave an autographed picture of the Saturn V to Abe Silverstein thanking him for making the moon mission possible by insisting on hydrogen upper stages. There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages; the loss in performance does not equal a more efficient vehicle- it only results in less payload into orbit.

You are such a liar. You put present yourself as this all knowing expert and yet you will present a blatantly and totally inaccurate excuse for going cheap at the sacrifice of performance. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Think before you post?
Don’t make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.
Ugh.