3 ms·
I think the US has learned from others without saying a word about it. e.g. the N1 had a lot of smaller engines rather than a few huge ones - so they could be
by t43562 2y ago
I think the US has learned from others without saying a word about it. e.g. the N1 had a lot of smaller engines rather than a few huge ones - so they could be mass-produced. They were also pretty efficient. They lacked the control systems we have now so the N1 was problematic but it was a clever idea.
Those Russian engines were so good that the US has bought a lot of them and used them many years after they were made.
Certain American manufacturers have ..... been making smaller engines that they can mass produce and have gone taken the efficiency approach a step further.
- avmich 2y ago> e.g. the N1 had a lot of smaller engines rather than a few huge ones - so they could be mass-produced. American Saturn-1 had 8 H-1 engines on the first stage - Wernher von Braun wasn't against putting a bunch of existing engines when he hadn't have a bigger one. > They were also pretty efficient. It's pretty impressive SpaceX made full-flow combustion engine to work. Does it improve things enough to justify the complex development? I'm not sure - the Isp isn't that great comparing with even some kerosene engines, and oxygen-rich turbopumps would deliver similar results with less complex development program. On the other hand Raptors are perhaps a good deal in a long term.
- t43562 2y agoWell, exactly. I don't know if the complexity was worth it or not because I'm not an expert. For comparison there were apparently 30 NK-15 engines on the first stage of the N1. (from Wikipedia of course) What I did read somewhere was that they had a production line and they filmed it all so they could see what happened to any engine during production and go back to the recordings if something went wrong with it. I'm not a Russophile at all, but I suspect that there were clever people who solved problems and others quietly took note of it.