llamacoffee@lemmy.world to SpaceX@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 4 months agoWhy Does SpaceX Use 33 Engines While NASA Used Just 5?youtu.bevideomessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1videoWhy Does SpaceX Use 33 Engines While NASA Used Just 5?youtu.bellamacoffee@lemmy.world to SpaceX@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square7fedilink
minus-squareoriginalucifer@moist.catsweat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·4 months agoanswer; big engines have acoustic/vibration side effects making them unstable. smaller engines more reliable, reduce risk of overall failure.
minus-squareBearOfaTime@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 months agoI’m going to assume in the 50’s/60’s the manufacturing time table played a role, as did the limited control systems?
minus-squarecmnybo@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 months agoControlling that many engines back then was very difficult. A lot of the N1 issues were from the limited processing power in its computer.
minus-squaretoast@retrolemmy.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 months agoThat, and a single Rocketdyne F-1 would have waaaaay too much thrust for the job of getting an almost empty booster to hover (Didn’t watch the video, don’t know if this was covered)
answer; big engines have acoustic/vibration side effects making them unstable. smaller engines more reliable, reduce risk of overall failure.
I’m going to assume in the 50’s/60’s the manufacturing time table played a role, as did the limited control systems?
Controlling that many engines back then was very difficult. A lot of the N1 issues were from the limited processing power in its computer.
That, and a single Rocketdyne F-1 would have waaaaay too much thrust for the job of getting an almost empty booster to hover
(Didn’t watch the video, don’t know if this was covered)