5 ms·
This is far from something I know anything about, but is it really plausible that the Starship is the same complexity as a 737?
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
This is far from something I know anything about, but is it really plausible that the Starship is the same complexity as a 737?
- jacobush 7y agoMy very backseat driver feeling is a Starship is lower complexity?
- QuesnayJr 7y agoReally? The 737 is from the 60s.
- CydeWeys 7y agoSpaceships are surprisingly simple. Starship has much fewer control surfaces, for example. It does have a lot more engines though, and these Raptor engines aren't trivial, so I'm not sure it's actually true.
- TremendousJudge 7y agoAs far as I know liquid propellant rocket engines are notoriously complex, and operate under even more extreme conditions than modern airplane engines
- CydeWeys 7y agoDon't underestimate how complicated modern high bypass turbofan jet engines are. Way more R&D money had gone into the latest designs than went into e.g. the Raptor engine. A crazy random fact is that there are entire turbine parts that are a single molecule, yet are bigger around than you are tall.
- jacobush 7y agoSingle molecule thin? Or is it something polymer like? That's intriguing.
- whamlastxmas 7y agoAirplanes have a LOT of redundancy and backups. Rockets don't.
- gameswithgo 7y agoits is probably correct to say starship is less complex, but this may not imply that things are less likely to go wrong.