Maybe, but I get tired of people saying, "but, but, N-1!" That was then
and them, this is now and SpaceX.
On 2016-09-28 08:33, Jonathan Goff wrote:
But there are valid first-principals technical reasons to be concerned
about having that many ultra-high pressure engines going at the same
time. One doesn't have to hastily generalize from historical
precedent.
Jon
On Sep 28, 2016 9:15 AM, "Rand Simberg" <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It's as foolish to make assumptions about Elon's choice from the
single example of the N-1 as it is about reusability from the single
example of the Shuttle.
On 2016-09-28 07:34, John Dom wrote:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-unveils-mars-mission-plans/ [1]
what/who convinced Elon that to go for 42 engines in stage 1 makes
sense? Reusable en plus! Could it be developing F1 size motors is
beyond the SpaceX budget or capability?
Will SpaceX go for Korolev's N-1 rocket, the disaster design? N-1
had
"only" 30 engines in stage 1, not reusable.
Instead of going for 40 H-1 (the Saturn 1B engine) the number
required
for the 35000 kN Apollo thrust, NASA chose the hard way of
developing
F-1 of which only 5 sufficed in the first stage.
jd
Links:
------
[1] http://spacenews.com/spacex-unveils-mars-mission-plans/
