Quote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 05:16 pmAFAIK, N-1 never test fired engines until all started at launch. FH will have fired each core (two of the three have even flown) individually, and the collective will be static fired before launch.So, how is this like N-1 again?How are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties.
AFAIK, N-1 never test fired engines until all started at launch. FH will have fired each core (two of the three have even flown) individually, and the collective will be static fired before launch.So, how is this like N-1 again?
Quote from: Semmel on 11/24/2017 07:41 pmThe N1 argument comes forward whenever there is no sensible argument left to be made. Just like the shuttle argument for economics of reuses. So you think it is a trivial matter to launch using 27 engines? Elon Musk doesn't seem to agree. He said "Falcon Heavy requires the simultaneous ignition of 27 orbit-class engines. There's a lot that can go wrong there."He also said, "I hope it makes it far enough beyond the pad so that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest." - Ed Kyle
The N1 argument comes forward whenever there is no sensible argument left to be made. Just like the shuttle argument for economics of reuses.
So you think it is a trivial matter to launch using 27 engines?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/24/2017 09:19 pmSo you think it is a trivial matter to launch using 27 engines?No one said it was trivial. Just that the N-1 is not related enough to modern rocketry to use as a point of comparison.Like comparing the Tupolev Tu-104 to the Boeing 787 - both twin-jets, and both airliners, but otherwise they are more different than they are alike.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:31 pmQuoteHow are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties. Bad comparison. Please don't be so silly....Sorry Ed, your hopes of failure here aren't comparable in the slightest. Closer comparisons are with DIVH and Angara 5."Hopes of failure"? Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth that were never voiced ...
QuoteHow are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties. Bad comparison. Please don't be so silly....Sorry Ed, your hopes of failure here aren't comparable in the slightest. Closer comparisons are with DIVH and Angara 5.
How are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties.
Quote from: Semmel on 11/24/2017 09:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/24/2017 09:19 pmQuote from: Semmel on 11/24/2017 07:41 pmThe N1 argument comes forward whenever there is no sensible argument left to be made. Just like the shuttle argument for economics of reuses. So you think it is a trivial matter to launch using 27 engines? Elon Musk doesn't seem to agree. He said "Falcon Heavy requires the simultaneous ignition of 27 orbit-class engines. There's a lot that can go wrong there."He also said, "I hope it makes it far enough beyond the pad so that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest." - Ed KylePlease don't put words in my mouth that I didn't voice. I never said it's simple. I just said that the number of engines is not an indicator for the launch vehicle reliability when comparing to the N1. The N1 had many other problems.You said "there is no sensible argument left to be made", yet Elon himself made one, which is what I was pointing out. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/24/2017 09:19 pmQuote from: Semmel on 11/24/2017 07:41 pmThe N1 argument comes forward whenever there is no sensible argument left to be made. Just like the shuttle argument for economics of reuses. So you think it is a trivial matter to launch using 27 engines? Elon Musk doesn't seem to agree. He said "Falcon Heavy requires the simultaneous ignition of 27 orbit-class engines. There's a lot that can go wrong there."He also said, "I hope it makes it far enough beyond the pad so that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest." - Ed KylePlease don't put words in my mouth that I didn't voice. I never said it's simple. I just said that the number of engines is not an indicator for the launch vehicle reliability when comparing to the N1. The N1 had many other problems.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 05:16 pmAFAIK, N-1 never test fired engines until all started at launch. FH will have fired each core (two of the three have even flown) individually, and the collective will be static fired before launch.So, how is this like N-1 again?How are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties. >- Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/24/2017 09:20 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 05:16 pmAFAIK, N-1 never test fired engines until all started at launch. FH will have fired each core (two of the three have even flown) individually, and the collective will be static fired before launch.So, how is this like N-1 again?How are they alike? N-1 had 30 engines burning at liftoff. Falcon Heavy will have 27. Neither was or will be test fired in launch configuration on a ground test stand before launch, leaving uncertainties. >- Ed KyleThe inevitable FH/BFR pad static fires and BFR/BFS test hops don't count?
Quote from: meekGee on 11/21/2017 03:35 amWhat you're really asking is "why isn't Musk agreeing with me that Mars settlement is absurd".It isn't just me. - Ed Kyle
What you're really asking is "why isn't Musk agreeing with me that Mars settlement is absurd".
I really like what SpaceX is doing. But I am convinced that SpaceX's objective is to have NASA as a main customer down the road (as an anchor tenant) for their BFR and for their city on Mars.
Yes their objective is to have customers other than NASA but they know that it won't be their main source of revenue for the foreseeable future.
“I do anticipate that there is residual capability of that system that the government will be interested in,” she said. “I do see that we would likely get some funding from the government for BFR and BFS.” She added, though, that work on the vehicles was not contingent on receiving government funding.
This is the same model as other companies (SNC and Bigelow, for example) have had: be ahead of the competition when NASA finally decides to out source some of these services to commercial companies.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/21/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: meekGee on 11/21/2017 03:35 amWhat you're really asking is "why isn't Musk agreeing with me that Mars settlement is absurd".It isn't just me. - Ed KyleI really like what SpaceX is doing. But I am convinced that SpaceX's objective is to have NASA as a main customer down the road (as an anchor tenant) for their BFR and for their city on Mars. Yes their objective is to have customers other than NASA but they know that it won't be their main source of revenue for the foreseeable future. This is the same model as other companies (SNC and Bigelow, for example) have had: be ahead of the competition when NASA finally decides to out source some of these services to commercial companies.
I agree that this is a good thing. But I hate it when people assume that SpaceX doesn't need NASA's money. BFR and the city on Mars needs NASA as a customer. SpaceX is spending about $80 million per year on BFR, not $1B per year.
Falcon Heavy will be an interesting test of a rocket that won't be test fired in a fully assembled condition until it reaches the launch pad. That is a big step, though not unprecedented. Shuttle and the big Titans and Energia did the same. But so did the Soviet's N-1.
The inevitable FH/BFR pad static fires and BFR/BFS test hops don't count?
If that was the case, why the giant (and risky) effort to develop other sources of revenue, such as BFC and P2P travel? Neither of these are "on the way to Mars", except if you consider revenue generation.If either of them works, SpaceX will have more income than they can ever hope to get from NASA.