|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-02 05:58, Jeff Findley wrote: Only for the center lower stage. It has to be different than the boosters, which are essentially Falcon 9 first stages with nose cones instead of their own upper stage. Musk said that it _all_ had to be re-engineered. Consider that the boosters don't push a payload up, they push a payload attached it to its side. Carbon fiber tanks will be something new for SpaceX, so it's a risk. The question is, how big of a risk? My concern with the 1 big tank design is that for a long duration flight, a failure of the one tank is sayonara for everyone. It's always 'one big tank'. Using a ****load of little tanks is a great way to build a vehicle that is too heavy to fly. But today, "efficiency" isn't the design metric, it's the eventual cost per pound to orbit that's the design metric. Aren't smaller engines more reliable (or easier to make more reliable)? If so, it makes sense to use multiple smaller engines. It's not the size of the engine that determines reliability. Rather it is how hard a particular engine pushes the envelope to get better power/weight. ****loads of little engines require more plumbing, so you would have to push them harder to get similar performance to fewer larger engines. Howewer, in commercial aviation, the reverse is now true. The 777 has won over the 747 mainly because owning a plane with 2 engines costs a lot less than one with 4 (as engines are costly to buy and maintain). I wonder if rockets will also eventually adopt the "fewer but bigger engines" mentality to cut maintenance costs. They did. Now we're headed in the other direction. Saturn V used five large engines on the first stage. Falcon Heavy uses 27. The primary advantage of having more engines is that you get some degree of 'engine out' capability. The primary disadvantage is that there are more engines to keep synchronized and more for something to go wrong with. more existing engines on the next design than to have to design and build new engines, then both Musk and Bezos will do so, even if it complicates the plumbing, structure, control systems, and etc. But again, once you have more then 3 engines, does using 3 5 or 9 make things that far more complex? Isn't there a lot of "copy/paste" done on the engine mount designs once you are beyond 3 engines ? Think plumbing and directional control. Also think about history. The first stage of the Saturn V had 5 engines. The first stage of the corresponding Russian rocket used 30 engines. N-1 went 4 attempted launches with 0 successes. More engines means more chance that something will go wrong with one or more of them. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Secondary payload that would, advance NASA's exploration of themoon | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 11th 06 02:15 PM |
Russia Rocket Heads for Space Station | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 2nd 05 06:15 PM |
With NASA of Today How long Would it Take To Go To TheMoon? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 130 | August 26th 04 07:42 PM |
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? | JimO | Space Station | 24 | November 29th 03 12:37 AM |
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? | JimO | History | 26 | November 29th 03 12:37 AM |