Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

drawkbox t1_j7u5ffp wrote

Reply to comment by MakingItElsewhere in SpaceX prepares for a massive test this week: Firing all 33 Starship engines at once by upyoars

Got that Soviet N1 many engine vibe. Super complex and risky. So many more things that can go wrong with that many engines from production to runtime. The N1 never successfully launched.

2

TheAssholeofThanos t1_j7u8oyk wrote

Alot of what made the N1 dangerous were things that SpaceX has been specifically trying to avoid. The N1s were never actually static fired before launch tests (individual components were tested separately, and it was assumed they would work in accordance). The Superheavy and Starship program has been slowly stepping up their series of static fires. This is also the 2020s, where we dont have to rely on technology like pyrotechnic valves (used because they were lighter) and have massive advances in guidance and metallurgy.

6

drawkbox t1_j7uehzp wrote

Indeed there has been lots of progress since. It just seems needlessly complex, so many potential failures from all the valves/seals/connections/feeds/controllers/bonds etc. All the complexity of one engine, times thirty three.

1

Bensemus t1_j7we29w wrote

They need multiple engines for landing. An empty Falcon 9 is already too light to hover or descend on a single Merlin engine at minimum throttle.

Both Starship and SuperHeavy can hover and descend with multiple Raptor engines firing. This gives them engine out capability while landing and a much safer landing profile. There's no need to perform a suicide burn where you only have a brief moment to get it right or you are crashing.

2

MakingItElsewhere t1_j7u7drk wrote

I'd like to think advancements in technology are going to allow for faster response times in the event something doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

But I guess we'll all see how today's test goes, and what is learned from it.

Fingers crossed it goes well!

1