| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Falcon 9 Heavy vs. Soviet N-1... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dave U. Random... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
27 engines vs. 30 engines (First stage)
What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Damon Hill... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dave U. Random <anonymous at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in
news:c2efcef8b3069e3f65f76567a386dced at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net:
[quote]27 engines vs. 30 engines (First stage)
What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too?
I'd say chances are far better of a successful F9 Heavy launch since[/quote]
its components are going to be much better tested in the medium version
first.
But the first Heavy will likely have a substantial pucker factor.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Damon Hill wrote:
[quote]Dave U. Random <anonymous at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in
news:c2efcef8b3069e3f65f76567a386dced at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net:
27 engines vs. 30 engines (First stage)
What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too?
I'd say chances are far better of a successful F9 Heavy launch since
its components are going to be much better tested in the medium version
first.
But the first Heavy will likely have a substantial pucker factor.
[/quote]
Any triple banger is iffy, especially on the first launch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]Luckily for SpaceX, they're not in a race with the Russians and can
take their time with testing. 
[/quote]
Actually, I think they are in an even more difficult race - a race
with their funding.
rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... 
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dave U. Random" <anonymous at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in message
news:c2efcef8b3069e3f65f76567a386dced at (no spam) anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
[quote]27 engines vs. 30 engines (First stage)
[/quote]
Apples and orangutans. The Russians were really pushing the schedule for
the N-1 due to the moon race. The Americans were doing the same with Saturn
V and were lucky that the incidents they had didn't destroy the vehicle.
The Saturn V POGO problems got really close to disaster on at least one
flight.
[quote]What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too?
[/quote]
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission. Luckily for SpaceX, they're
not in a race with the Russians and can take their time with testing. ;-)
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jochem Huhmann... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
[quote]What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too?
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission. Luckily for SpaceX, they're
not in a race with the Russians and can take their time with testing.
[/quote]
Additionally the Russians did never test the N-1 first stage prior to
launch, while SpaceX already did a full test for the F-9 first stage.
This is not to say that the Falcon 9 (Heavy) can't fail, but it has a
much higher chance not to fail than the N-1.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Anthony Frost... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <m2hbtaw2bu.fsf at (no spam) revier.com>
Jochem Huhmann <joh at (no spam) gmx.net> wrote:
[quote]"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
What are the chances of the Falcon 9 blowing up too?
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission. Luckily for SpaceX, they're
not in a race with the Russians and can take their time with testing. ;-)
Additionally the Russians did never test the N-1 first stage prior to
launch, while SpaceX already did a full test for the F-9 first stage.
[/quote]
There's also a considerable difference between feeding 30 engines from
a single set of tanks and feeding each group of nine engines from its
own set of tanks. The more complex the plumbing, the more potential
problems there are.
Anthony |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anthony Frost <Vulch at (no spam) vulch.org> wrote:
[quote]There's also a considerable difference between feeding 30 engines from
a single set of tanks and feeding each group of nine engines from its
own set of tanks. The more complex the plumbing, the more potential
problems there are.
[/quote]
Not that 3 sets of plumbing each serving 'x' engines is actually less
complex than 1 set serving 3'x' engines.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission.
[/quote]
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and all
those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and the bad
one going kablooey.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
:Anthony Frost <Vulch at (no spam) vulch.org> wrote:
:
:>There's also a considerable difference between feeding 30 engines from
:>a single set of tanks and feeding each group of nine engines from its
:>own set of tanks. The more complex the plumbing, the more potential
:>problems there are.
:
:Not that 3 sets of plumbing each serving 'x' engines is actually less
:complex than 1 set serving 3'x' engines.
:
Depends on how you define 'complex'. The more stuff you've got the
more likely it is that something will fail. Having complete power
trains lowers the odds that you lose ALL thrust. If you're going to
make them all independent, you should design so as to have sufficient
thrust margin to do an 'abort to orbit' if N engines fail (where N is
1 or larger).
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jochem Huhmann... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> writes:
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission.
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and all
those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and the bad
one going kablooey.
[/quote]
I'd say there are better strategies available to avoid that than "hope"...
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
[quote]Brian Thorn <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> writes:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission.
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and all
those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and the bad
one going kablooey.
I'd say there are better strategies available to avoid that than "hope"...
[/quote]
America is on the fast track 'faith' and 'hope' path to failure.
Why are you so intolerant of America's belief system? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:rhb4f5he1cge0sogl8e7t4pag7r752bd1m at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use statistics to
figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so, liquid engine failures
are usually benign. With nine engines on each core, you simply shut the
malfunctioning engine and continue the mission.
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and all
those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and the bad
one going kablooey.
[/quote]
That particular Russian failure ought to have been caught during pre-launch
testing, but they were in a race to beat the Americans and corners were cut
in the name of time. Hopefully SpaceX is more detail oriented than the
Russians were during the space race.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Damon Hill... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in
news:26918$4af31b41$927a2cda$10992 at (no spam) FUSE.NET:
[quote]
"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:rhb4f5he1cge0sogl8e7t4pag7r752bd1m at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use
statistics to figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so,
liquid engine failures are usually benign. With nine engines on each
core, you simply shut the malfunctioning engine and continue the
mission.
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and
all those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and
the bad one going kablooey.
That particular Russian failure ought to have been caught during
pre-launch testing, but they were in a race to beat the Americans and
corners were cut in the name of time. Hopefully SpaceX is more detail
oriented than the Russians were during the space race.
[/quote]
Hasn't that scenario already been tested on the ground with Falcon 9?
Engines will normally be shut down near the end of the first stage
burn to limit acceleration and shutdown transients.
I'd like to think communications between the flight controller and
individual engine controllers will more sophisticated than the N-1
apparently was.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Damon Hill" <damon1SIX1 at (no spam) comcast.netnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBA719AC458Fdamon161attbicom at (no spam) 127.0.0.1...
[quote]"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in
news:26918$4af31b41$927a2cda$10992 at (no spam) FUSE.NET:
"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64 at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:rhb4f5he1cge0sogl8e7t4pag7r752bd1m at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:16:19 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Depens on how reliable a single engine is, then you can use
statistics to figure out the chance of engine failure. Even so,
liquid engine failures are usually benign. With nine engines on each
core, you simply shut the malfunctioning engine and continue the
mission.
And hope the wiring didn't get botched between the controllers and
all those engines, resulting in a good engine being turned off and
the bad one going kablooey.
That particular Russian failure ought to have been caught during
pre-launch testing, but they were in a race to beat the Americans and
corners were cut in the name of time. Hopefully SpaceX is more detail
oriented than the Russians were during the space race.
Hasn't that scenario already been tested on the ground with Falcon 9?
Engines will normally be shut down near the end of the first stage
burn to limit acceleration and shutdown transients.
I'd like to think communications between the flight controller and
individual engine controllers will more sophisticated than the N-1
apparently was.
[/quote]
I don't think the "sophistication" of an engine controller matters if the
guys assembling the rocket stage don't plug the right connectors into the
right sockets. Getting your "wires crossed" in this manner can have
disastrous consequences, so you would want to run tests on the ground before
you launch the thing.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
