[AR] Re: 3 no 4 no 5 legs.
- From: "John Dom" <johndom@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:52:30 +0100
Matt Maier wrote on 210116:
Multiple smaller engines are more redundant and modular. They're easier to
design, manufacture, test, qualify, transport, etc than a single giant engine
would be. They can be roughly the same on every stage, you just put more of
them on earlier stages, and if one of many craps out the remainder can still
handle the mission.
Saying that clustering many smaller engines for large payloads is the result
of haste makes as much sense as saying that staging itself is the result of
haste. If we REALLY put in the time and money we could just build a single
stage vehicle, right?
The USSR had only small engines handy for their N1 in the sixties I read. The
haste was to beat the US to land on the Moon, thus they chose NOT to lose time
to develop an F1 sized motor for their N-1. Later, too late that is, they
produced and tested an even larger engine than F1. After accomplishing that,
IIRC, they shelved it.
NASA chose to develop F1 for S-V to limit the number of engines. The smaller
Saturn IB had 8 smaller H1 engines. Instead of making that 20 H1s, they went
for 5 F1s.
SpaceX also decided to go for a larger Merlin 2 as a follow-up for its super 1D.
A single stage SSTO is ideal but can it be done soon is the question?
jd
Other related posts:
