Yellow Bullet Forums banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
If you followed the development at all you'd know it's common with prototype testing. They've been over pressure testing each one. These aren't launch capable rockets, the SN is basically just a methane and Lox tank with experimental engines bolted to it.

The Falcon 9 at Kennedy is a completely different program with a ridiculously high success rate, higher than the shuttle.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
49,071 Posts
By now those astronauts are thinking about that scene in Spaceballs………..

GIF spaceballs restaurant check - animated GIF on GIFER
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I am glad the free market is making this grand attempt at getting humans back into space. I am not thrilled that the company that is making the attempt is a giant marketing firm disguised as an aerospace firm.
Honestly they have been incredibly successful for the most part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
Don't be so dam hard on SpaceX. Realize rocket engines are much like our cherished otto cycle motors. There is huge power and reduced reliability in leaning out air:fuel ratios. Rocket motors make more thrust/pressure when run lean and also get hotter then hell. Air:fuel run lean means less fuel needs be carried, critical when every pound on a rocket costs thousands. Not to mention SpaceX powers their boosters back down to earth, reusing saves hundreds of millions. SpaceX is working hard on getting max power and fuel efficiency. When you are burning thousands of pounds of fuel and oxidizer a second it's a real bitch to thread that needle.
I find it funny the old tried true and reliable Russian rocket engines are the equivalent of 1950s belching smoke gas guzzlers.
Actually russian rocket engines from the space race are STILL wildly more efficient than anything we/ nasa, or X has yet to produce. NASA just became aware of that fact a few years ago when a surplus of Russian engines became available to them. No one has created higher chamber pressure so reliably yet. They perfected the recycling process that we abandoned in the 60s because we couldn't make it work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,193 Posts
Actually russian rocket engines from the space race are STILL wildly more efficient than anything we/ nasa, or X has yet to produce. NASA just became aware of that fact a few years ago when a surplus of Russian engines became available to them. No one has created higher chamber pressure so reliably yet. They perfected the recycling process that we abandoned in the 60s because we couldn't make it work
Russian most efficient? If you don't believe this article to be full of malarkey, might put this in your pipe and light it:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,359 Posts
Russian most efficient? If you don't believe this article to be full of malarkey, might put this in your pipe and light it:


How's Bluto ???
🤣🤣🤣
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
49,071 Posts

·
Smart Ass Conservative
Joined
·
105,619 Posts
:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
Russian most efficient? If you don't believe this article to be full of malarkey, might put this in your pipe and light it:


Yes soviets perfected closed circuit engines. We're still catching up to the metal urgy required to deal with it. That's why we bought all the remaining ones a few years ago, left over from the Soviet attempt on the moon. NASA couldn't believe the efficiency numbers the Russians were claiming, and thought it was a translation error. Russians donated one for testing, and the rest is history. They still have yet to reach the same chamber pressure, or nozzle velocity,

I watch the nasa channel and listened to another admission about it less than 2 weeks ago, about not being there yet. I think the rockets were bought around 2009. There are a couple docs on it too.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top