SpaceX

From the Ministry of Propaganda at Blue Origin

E783yKnWQAEofmB


Source:
https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/national-team
 
Which, "proven systems" is BO planning on using? Which, "proven systems" did Apollo use? Also, pretty sure you're going to be just as dead if you fall out of the 32' hatch (in a space suit) as the other. And did they mention you'll have to traverse that 32' on a friggin' ladder while SpaceX uses an elevator?
 
Let Me see
Blue Origin had 15 suborbital flights (with no Astronauts according FAA)
New Glenn and there HLS are NOT BUILT !
BE-4 not ready as rocket Engine
and what about BE-3U ?

SpaceX had 93 suborbital flight
during 123 launches into Orbit with Falcon 9
launch 6 Astronauts to ISS (according FAA)
and 11 Test launches for Starship/ there HLS
and build 100 Raptors

let me check again
SpaceX Starbase
E75KRJGX0AMTXDd


Blue Origin at KSC
E78_rRaX0AQIiB-
 
sferrin said:
Which, "proven systems" is BO planning on using? Which, "proven systems" did Apollo use? Also, pretty sure you're going to be just as dead if you fall out of the 32' hatch (in a space suit) as the other. And did they mention you'll have to traverse that 32' on a friggin' ladder while SpaceX uses an elevator?
Click to expand...
By proven, maybe BO meant their overall approach/strategy, that superficially the form factor of their lander resembles Apollo much more than SpaceX's.
 
Michel Van said:
Let Me see
Blue Origin had 15 suborbital flights (with no Astronauts according FAA)
New Glenn and there HLS are NOT BUILT !
BE-4 not ready as rocket Engine
and what about BE-3U ?

SpaceX had 93 suborbital flight
during 123 launches into Orbit with Falcon 9
launch 6 Astronauts to ISS (according FAA)
and 11 Test launches for Starship/ there HLS
and build 100 Raptors

let me check again
SpaceX Starbase
E75KRJGX0AMTXDd


Blue Origin at KSC
E78_rRaX0AQIiB-
Click to expand...


I can only agree and in fact these complaints are nothing but pathetic and embarrassing!
 
sferrin said:
Does anybody know why they went with many smaller engines vs a couple big ones? Back in the day I recall seeing an engine for something like 24 27 million pounds of thrust. L6H or some such.

http://www.astronautix.com/l/l6h.html
Click to expand...
Because it’s not Space X’s philosophy plus they always design I imagine with the possibility of losing one engine which is easier to cope with in lots of engines than few.
 
sferrin said:
Does anybody know why they went with many smaller engines vs a couple big ones? Back in the day I recall seeing an engine for something like 24 27 million pounds of thrust. L6H or some such.
Click to expand...

They want to use the same basic engine for both the ship and the booster, and they want to land the ship with 2-engines-out capability. Because starting rocket engines takes time, this means that at the very last moment before touchdown they need to have 3 engines lit, so they can ramp one up rapidly if two fail. Rocket engines also really don't like being throttled down too much, so the lowest throttle they can manage is about ~30%.

Put together, this places a maximum thrust for an engine that is determined by the empty+payload weight of their ship. Raptors are designed to hit this limit.
 
Tuna said:
sferrin said:
Does anybody know why they went with many smaller engines vs a couple big ones? Back in the day I recall seeing an engine for something like 24 27 million pounds of thrust. L6H or some such.
Click to expand...

They want to use the same basic engine for both the ship and the booster, and they want to land the ship with 2-engines-out capability. Because starting rocket engines takes time, this means that at the very last moment before touchdown they need to have 3 engines lit, so they can ramp one up rapidly if two fail. Rocket engines also really don't like being throttled down too much, so the lowest throttle they can manage is about ~30%.

Put together, this places a maximum thrust for an engine that is determined by the empty+payload weight of their ship. Raptors are designed to hit this limit.
Click to expand...
While those are all nice benefits they are not the reason. Elon gave the reason in his tour, cost per pound of thrust, everything about that system of systems is about lowest cost to destination. Building thousands of modest sized engines lends itself better to continuous flow than fewer bigger engines.
 
Michel Van said:
From the Ministry of Propaganda at Blue Origin

E783yKnWQAEofmB


Source:
https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/national-team
Click to expand...

If the reverse was done - SpaceX picking holes into B.O lunar lander - then it would be many pages long and... oh wait, NASA and GAO have already done that, so forget it.

B.O symbol is a feather - "une plume" as it translates in French. Well, as we say in French "C'est plutôt Musk qui vole dans les plumes a Bezos" and also "Bezos laisse pas mal de plumes dans la bataille"

(voler dans les plumes - literally "to fly into his ennemy feathers" "to beat into submission"
Laisser des plumes - literally "to leave feathers into the battleground"
- both expressions must come from this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockfight )
 
Just again a question to the missing tiles!?

Will they be added when both are stacked or do they leave them (I don't think so)?

I have to admit, I don't really understand this procedure at the moment ... why not finish SN20 first and then stack both?
 
Looking at the picture above, It seems they ressorted to covering some new tiles the time the bonding element is curing (moisture protection).
 
Holy ****
I was thinking why did they use a smaller rocket to transport the tip ( StarShip) to the bigger one...
Oh man, this is amazing :D
 
BAROBA said:
Holy ****
I was thinking why did they use a smaller rocket to transport the tip ( StarShip) to the bigger one...
Oh man, this is amazing :D
Click to expand...
And that's just a prototype with 29 engines. The production version is to have 33 engines with more than double the liftoff thrust of the Saturn V. :eek:
 
Wow, have they already flight tested a 29 engine machine?

Just hope they know what they're doing, if memory serves it was the high number of engines and the plumbing complexity that was the undoing of the N-1.
 
In case nobody has mentioned that. The Starship will officially be the single solution for the first lunar landing mission under NASA’s Artemis program to return to the Moon. This comes after the US GAO backed the decision to use Starship as the lander, stating it didn’t break any laws with the selection. The space agency first announced its decision to land astronauts on the Moon with SpaceX in April, but legal protests from the Blue Origin-led National Team and Dynetics halted progress for the contract.
 
jeffb said:
Wow, have they already flight tested a 29 engine machine?

Just hope they know what they're doing, if memory serves it was the high number of engines and the plumbing complexity that was the undoing of the N-1.
Click to expand...

They have flight tested several of the upper stages to test the recovery method. They have never flown a booster. The first flight of the 29-engine stack should happen in the next few months. The booster will fly back, like a Falcon 9 return, but ditch just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The upper stage will fly a sub-orbital trajectory and land in the ocean north-west of Hawaii. Both would likely be planned to be soft landings in the water.

As for "knowing what they're doing" Falcon heavy has 27 engines, only two less than this. You can fail with one engine if your quality sucks.
 
sferrin said:
jeffb said:
Wow, have they already flight tested a 29 engine machine?

Just hope they know what they're doing, if memory serves it was the high number of engines and the plumbing complexity that was the undoing of the N-1.
Click to expand...

They have flight tested several of the upper stages to test the recovery method. They have never flown a booster. The first flight of the 29-engine stack should happen in the next few months. The booster will fly back, like a Falcon 9 return, but ditch just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The upper stage will fly a sub-orbital trajectory and land in the ocean north-west of Hawaii. Both would likely be planned to be soft landings in the water.

As for "knowing what they're doing" Falcon heavy has 27 engines, only two less than this. You can fail with one engine if your quality sucks.
Click to expand...

Falcon Heavy has 3 boosters side-by-side, each with 9 engines. 3 Falcon boosters, examples of which had already been flown multiple times, issues corrected, before being combined into a Falcon heavy. 27 engines and the associated plumbing in a single booster is a whole different kettle of fish.

Still, even if the whole thing explodes on the pad ala N-1, then there's no political fallout for anyone, it wouldn't be the end of the "SpaceX space program", there'd be no congressional committees, they'll just pick up the pieces and move on. It's just Elon's money after all.

Like I said though: I hope they know what they're doing...and that everyone stands well back.


N-1 vs Falcon Heavy vs SpaceX Super Heavy:

1628261295441.png

1628261407688.png

1628262254987.png
 
sferrin said:
jeffb said:
Wow, have they already flight tested a 29 engine machine?

Just hope they know what they're doing, if memory serves it was the high number of engines and the plumbing complexity that was the undoing of the N-1.
Click to expand...

They have flight tested several of the upper stages to test the recovery method. They have never flown a booster. The first flight of the 29-engine stack should happen in the next few months. The booster will fly back, like a Falcon 9 return, but ditch just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The upper stage will fly a sub-orbital trajectory and land in the ocean north-west of Hawaii. Both would likely be planned to be soft landings in the water.

As for "knowing what they're doing" Falcon heavy has 27 engines, only two less than this. You can fail with one engine if your quality sucks.
Click to expand...

Yes they have, but those 27 were in groups of nine right? not altogether under one booster ---

Edits: OOPS jeffb beat me to it ---
 
I'm not seeing the significance of 27 engines across three boosters vs if they were in a single booster. If anything I'd think that would make an engine failure MORE likely as there are more interfaces. Lastly, the booster can be static fired. It's not like it's going to get five feet off the pad and go TU. It will be well-tested before the first flight.
 
I wonder how long it will stay stacked before taking it apart. The booster I expect will undergo multiple static fires and they won’t have Starship on top of it for them I suspect. I doubt those engines are flight hardware.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom