Which is in the same range that your rules say lift off even if one of
the engines didn't come all the way up to thrust, as long as it doesn't
look like it's going to go boom. Otherwise your schedule reliability
goes to hell.
On 2016-09-28 13:24, Eric Robbins wrote:
Interesting design choice, it would seem that for a certain number of
engines N that the chance of at least 1 engine failing approaches
100%.
I wonder what N is? I can't imagine it being 3 digits, I would not be
surprised if it were around 40-50.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well, if so, that's one more milestone they haven't achieved...
On 2016-09-28 11:20, Ben Brockert wrote:
I haven't heard any indication that they have a Heavy stand in
McGregor. They already give special notice when they're doing 9 engine
firings. I wouldn't be surprised if the first 27 engine firing is the
static test of the first Heavy on the pad.
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Rand Simberg
<simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2016-09-28 10:51, David Gregory wrote:
On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Charlie Garcia
<dragonrider.hhcc@xxxxxxxxx
SpaceX is already firing 27 engines simultaneously,
They are?
Probably. In McGregor. They have to be doing static fires of the
propulsion system as part of development.
