SpaceX is proposing to build a heavy-lift version of its Falcon 9 rocket, called Falcon 9 Heavy.
When I saw the illustration of the proposed rocket, the first thing I thought of was that it would have almost as many engines as the N-1, 27 engines, versus 30 for the N-1. One might point out that the Falcon 9 has flown, but the counter to that is that the Russians have flown the R-7/Soyuz rocket design since the 1960s.
As best I can determine, the Soyuz rocket first ignites the sixteen engines of its four first-stage strap-on boosters and then, once they are all running, the four engines of the main/second stage are ignited, so that it flies with 20 engines burning. Yet the Soviets were never able to get the N-1, with its 30-engine first stage, to successfully fly. Yes, SpaceX has flown the Falcon 9 twice. The Russians have flown the R-7/Soyuz series close to two thousand times.
I'm not betting against SpaceX, mind you. But anyone at SpaceX who thinks that the Falcon 9 Heavy is a simple matter of just strapping three Falcon 9 main stages together is probably one of the brain-damaged fools who tend to spend their days cranking out press releases.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
2 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Oh please, if it has 20 engines that just means the engines have to be 20 times more reliable than the designed reliability of the vehicle taken as a whole... ;)
ReplyDeleteDave
Actually that is not so true. 20 engines means failure for common defect is higher but not 20x as there will be one that does not always exhibit that defect. What it also means is if 18 engines running can get you there it allows for the possibility that a single failure or more is not catastrophic. However the problem with rocket engines is they do blow up[catastrophic failure]
ReplyDeleteas well as just don't run.
Aircraft industry has long proven that multiple engines is good to a point but the cross over point is somewhere between 2 and 16 engines and 2 or 4 being very common.
The analysis is never simple but the argument is for heavy lift rockets is do you use a few (5 for saturn 1) or more as a single engine not current technology and is also single point of complete failure and some large number engines which is the problem of just too many parts. Current tech is we know how to make small and simpler engines of good reliability and we forgot how to make really big engines[lost the process for Saturn 5)..
That and Rocket science hasn't advanced that much in the last 30 years so old ones get tried and refined.
That and the kiddies have no memory of the wide days of the early nasa/military rocket developments.
How many tries to get a suitable booster for Mercury?
Eck!