[ExI] musk's ride
interzone at gmail.com
Wed Jan 3 18:35:11 UTC 2018
I'm curious, does anyone here know why they took the approach of many
smaller engines versus much fewer larger ones?
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:21 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope it works but one thing that makes me nervous is the first stage has
> 27 small engines, that's 27 ways things can go wrong. The Apollo moon
> rocket had 5 large engines, the USSR tried to make something comparable
> with their N1-L3 rocket but the first stage had 30 small engines instead of
> 5 large ones and it blew up every time they
> to launch it.
> To be sure, they’ve been doing the nine engine thing for a while and even
> dealing with problems like engine failures during otherwise successful
> flights... They can survive engine failures and continue to orbit. Then
> again, didn’t they blow an engine a couple of months ago during testing? I
> mean unexpectedly.
> And I don’t disagree with your abstract point: more complex systems tend
> to have more things that can go wrong.
> Sample my latest Kindle book "Sand Trap":
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat