** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **

Quartz said:
Isn't having lots of engines the mistake the Soviets made in the 1960s?
Click to expand...
Starting them isnt an issue, they have proven that is possible. I mean just look at that faultless initial burn, its was beautiful!!! :eek: Restarting is a different matter... One that has and will no doubt continue to cause issue for some time. Restarting is not a variable that 1960's Soviet Union had to factor in...
 
Last edited:
I honestly never thought we’d see a launch with all 33 engines firing. Next step is to see if they can do it reliably/sort out any of the staging/burn back issues.
 
Quartz said:
Isn't having lots of engines the mistake the Soviets made in the 1960s?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a mistake, strictly speaking. They knew that they couldn't build an engine the size of the F-1 due to a lack of funds to do what the Americans did - static test the thing over and over to find an injector plate design that overcame the issues with combustion instability. Nikolai Kuznetsov built a beautiful rocket engine in the NK-15 but you needed a lot of them to lift something that big. And the plumbing requirements made that an insurmountable problem.

They were too late to the party with the N1 anyway to beat the Americans to the Moon, but Kuznetsov's engines were absolutely sound. The later NK-33 (which was earmarked for the upgraded N1F) in particular is a great engine.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You think they are going to build a detachable crew section that can be powered away in an instant if an emergency occurs? They never did it with the Shuttle.
Click to expand...
I think that the nature of Starship means there is no hurry for man rating. Any transplanetary ships are going to require numerous refueling flights first or a refuel at an orbital fuel depot. That means there may be a long period of remote operation before you even wanted a crew on board anyway. Using Crew Dragon to ferry astronauts to a fuels Starship is not a big deal for the safety it brings and initially is much more cost effective than making the changes necessary for crew rated launch.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I think that the nature of Starship means there is no hurry for man rating. Any transplanetary ships are going to require numerous refueling flights first or a refuel at an orbital fuel depot. That means there may be a long period of remote operation before you even wanted a crew on board anyway. Using Crew Dragon to ferry astronauts to a fuels Starship is not a big deal for the safety it brings and initially is much more cost effective than making the changes necessary for crew rated launch.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't imagine they will get a crew rating until a lot of perfect launch/landings due to the lack of an in flight abort system. Using Dragon will work, the plan for the Moon is/was SLS, though I wouldn't be surprised if that gets canned, way too expensive and way behind schedule. With Blue Origin buying ULA that could add a reliable crew to orbit option soon.
 
Quartz said:
Isn't having lots of engines the mistake the Soviets made in the 1960s?



Patience; that will come.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a mistake, it just has its own set of challenges that need to be overcome.

They use lots of engines for the benefits, making lots of small engines much cheaper than a handful of massive engines. Having massive engines means if just one fails your rocket is dead, if one little one fails the whole rocket can probably continue unless the issue that caused that engine to fail is plumbing, fire etc - issues that will cause other engines to die as well. But lots of engines means extremely complicated plumbing and that creates its own issues


For some perspective on cost, the little engines used on starship cost 1 million each and space x plans to reduce it down to 0.25 million each. The massive F-1 engines on the Saturn V cost $20 million each and with five on the rocket, if you lose a Saturn V that's $100 million in engines lost, for Starship if you lose both stages that's currently $39 million lost and it will eventually come down to $10 million


Also due to its size and complexity NASA could only build 10 engines per year at the height of the moon programme, enough for two rockets per year. Space X is currently building one engine per day, enough for 9 rockets per year
 
Last edited:
I switched on the news this morning and the piece they had was that an astronaut dropped a toolbox last month while working on a solar panel and if the sky is clear tonight around 8pm you may be able to see it if you've got a decent set of binoculars / telescope. You might have to see which direction you have to look to see it though as I didn't hear that bit
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I get that for lifting the hardware into LEO it would be amazing. My problem with getting on board a Starship would be the complete lack of a in flight abort system. At least with Falcon 9 or any other human launch system if something goes wrong with the rocket you can be powered away in the capsule in an instant. If something goes wrong with the booster or Starship there is no escape, you are toast.
Click to expand...

The shuttle was the same.
 
the golden child; go fast make mistakes
WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - Three U.S. lawmakers are calling for greater scrutiny of worker safety at Elon Musk's SpaceX following a Reuters investigation that documented hundreds of injuries at the rocket company's U.S. manufacturing and launch sites.

The Nov. 10 Reuters report detailed at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries since 2014 at SpaceX including crushed limbs, amputations, head injuries and one death. The Reuters report found that injury rates at three major SpaceX industrial facilities in Texas and California far exceeded the average for the space industry.


Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee, said the report's findings were "deeply concerning and must be taken very seriously."
Click to expand...
www.reuters.com

At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars

Reuters documented more than 600 workplace injuries at SpaceX. Employees say they’re paying the price for Elon Musk’s push to reach Mars at breakneck speed.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were “crushed,” and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries. Others were relatively minor, including more than 170 reports of strains or sprains.
 
Richard - London said:
How is that different to when something goes wrong on a plane?
Click to expand...

When space stuff goes wrong, it basically explodes because the entire thing is just a fuel tank. The tiniest deviation in any axis or thrust output will send it off course and the forces involve will break it up.

Planes generally don't explode out of nowhere or suffer catastrophic breakup - they have incredible redundancy to cope with system failures. In passenger aircraft, the majority of the body of the plane is taken up with passengers as it's a primary task, and the thing will quite happily glide if it happens to run out of fuel, thus it IS the escape capsule.

In summary - they are entirely different beasts that you can't compare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom