Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hoagy62
I'm with you. I know it is expensive to build large engines but too many small engines working at 100 percent, increases the odds of failure.

Another thing, the one area where you could have extra capacity without too much of a weight penalty would be engine size.

No doubt they'll get it figured out in a timely manner. That's the great thing about private enterprize!

73 posted on 05/19/2012 2:27:08 AM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Errant
I'm with you. I know it is expensive to build large engines but too many small engines working at 100 percent, increases the odds of failure.

A friend who was working in the design and engine testing phase said that it was a very deliberate choice to go with more engines/smaller engines exactly for the reason of what happened today. The ability to abort the launch AFTER engine start. This is the largest engine they can make that can reliably be shut down after ignition and initial rev up of the engines.

An uncontrolled engine is a constant fear among the designers; the launch vehicle depends upon exact control of all engines throughout the initial launch. If I recall correctly, it's less than a few thousand feet after clearing the tower that the launch vehicle can compensate for engine failures of up to seven of the nine engines and remain in controlled flight.

74 posted on 05/19/2012 7:41:32 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson