4 ms·
What's really dreading for me, is that the first launch showed, that the problem of synchronous work of many engines, which doomed N1[0], was not solved. SpaceX
by SergeAx 4y ago
What's really dreading for me, is that the first launch showed, that the problem of synchronous work of many engines, which doomed N1[0], was not solved. SpaceX knew about it from the start and placed it's bet on 50 years of technological advances. I don't want to think about the scenario where that bet is lost.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
- panick21_ 4y agoFalcon Heavy has 27 engines, Starship 33. Its not that different. And if anything Starship has a simpler engine configuration. This is not some unsolvable problem.
- SergeAx 4y agoFalcon Heavy has 3 packs of 9 engines, each pack is thoroughly tested. They can treat the whole package as 3 sources of thrust, manipulating them as a one (which they actually do). Every booster has its own fuel tanks, lines and so on. Also, I don't remember a single engine failure during Falcon Heavy launches. Today we had 8 (?) of them.
- panick21_ 4y agoFalcon Heavy as complete system is still far more complex. You still need to coordinate all these cores. There is a reason every designer goes to single core as systems grow larger. SpaceX actually had initially planned to do a very large 3 core and then rejected it. And Falcon Heavy was building on 10 years of Falcon 9 knowlage and an incredibly reliable engine. Falcon Heavy was launching from a perfectly designed launch pad that didn't throw up huge chunks of debris everywhere. Its incredibly that people are way to fast to jump to doomsday conclusion from one test.