llamacoffee@lemmy.world to SpaceXEnglish · 5 months agoWhy Does SpaceX Use 33 Engines While NASA Used Just 5?youtu.beexternal-linkmessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up115arrow-down16
arrow-up19arrow-down1external-linkWhy Does SpaceX Use 33 Engines While NASA Used Just 5?youtu.bellamacoffee@lemmy.world to SpaceXEnglish · 5 months agomessage-square7fedilink
minus-squareoriginalucifer@moist.catsweat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up13arrow-down2·5 months agoanswer; big engines have acoustic/vibration side effects making them unstable. smaller engines more reliable, reduce risk of overall failure.
minus-squaretoast@retrolemmy.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down1·5 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)
minus-squareBearOfaTime@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·5 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-up6·5 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.
answer; big engines have acoustic/vibration side effects making them unstable. smaller engines more reliable, reduce risk of overall failure.
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)
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.