[AR] Re: thinking big once more
- From: David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:54:33 -0700
On 09/30/2016 08:44 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Can you explain with more details, please? I don't understand very well
you point...
I believe that what Rand is saying is that, with a certain
degree of attention to the right details, an engine can be
designed so that it is very likely indeed that the probable
outcome of a malfunction will be that the engine will "turn
off rather than explode the whole vehicle".
Even a rather drastic failure of an engine doesn't necessarily
"explode the whole vehicle", especially if it's possible to
effectively seal off the damage while allowing the remainder
of the system to continue in action. (Posters have mentioned
examples of a Saturn I that stripped a turbopump gear drive,
and a SpaceX Falcon 9 that burst a chamber during ascent -
yet these events didn't "explode the whole vehicle", and
those flights each continued to orbit despite the broken
engines.)
-dave w
2016-09-30 21:18 GMT-03:00 Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Very, with mature non-stupid design.
Other related posts:
