3 ms·
The N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were inadequate. I
by valuearb 9y ago
The N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were inadequate. It's funding was inadequate.
SpaceX has already shown that with modern control systems, you can bundle a bunch of chickens together to plow a field. Having 9 engines has already helped them complete missions where one failed. The Falcon Heavy problem isn't scaling from 9 to 27 per se, it's building a new structure to handle all the new stresses that will occur, from the launch sequence to aerodynamic.
- MPSimmons 9y agoThe engines were also ablative and couldn't be tested together.
- geerlingguy 9y agoAnd even the seemingly small things; like how to detach the side boosters, how to handle the vastly different aerodynamics when you don't have an interstage (nosecone instead), etc. It uses the same engines and very similar hardware, but there are so many new/not-flight-proven things on this rocket that it will be exciting, one way or another!
- Pokepokalypse 9y agoAlthough, Boeing has proven the concept with Delta IV heavy, (and, I think there are a few other precursors, as well, including STS). So this isn't completely new territory.