Live data from Hacker News

Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines

arstechnica.com

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines

#101

Would it then make sense to plan for even more smaller engines? Like while BFR is meant to have 31 Raptor engines, could it have 60 Merlin engines instead or something?

An important source of loss in smaller engines is viscosity. Proportionally, more of the working fluid is in contact with the internal surfaces, more of it is inside the boundary layer, which is the only place where viscosity matters. For a large engine, your boundary layer goes up as the area (square), and the contained goes up as the volume (cube). (The growth of the boundary layer goes up as something like the squ…

That's interesting. This scaling law is a weird thing (I vaguely recall a myth about Galileo considering it as the most mystifying law of nature or something like that).

However, when you scale an engine down, the surface areas decrease less than the volumes. That means that you have more available area for your "pipes", and thus you can make them relatively larger. That allows lower fluid velocity for the same flow rate.

Thus assuming viscosity is an issue because it prevents fluids to flow as quickly as the cycle requires them too, making pipes larger should improves things, shouldn't it?

Re: Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems odd to me, since FH is an interim vehicle until BFR comes on line in 5-10 years. I thought they were targeting launches much sooner than 5-10 years out for the BFR?

They are, that doesn't mean you should expect them to hit that target. Musk doesn't seem to set timelines with the expectation that they will be attained. They are always best case, but development never is.

yep, they still need to make money.

Re: Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines

#103
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a name for (or keywords to search for) weighing the tradeoffs between attempting to reduce failure effects in a component itself vs addressing them at the system level? E.g. while you could mechanically debounce a button itself, it's usually easier to engineer the system in such a way that trigger bounce doesn't cause issues Wondering how the call is made on where the appropriate fix to increase reliability…

So the proper way to think about this is in terms of where you put abstractions. Much like you'd write a function or library, you can abstract physical machines by idealizing the component in a system. I don't think it's really a separate keyword to search for. This is all probabilities. The math isn't complex, the hard part is writing down a complete graph of all the connections between different components, environ…

These comments are incredibly helpful, thank you for taking your time to write them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think is named Reliabilty Engineering / Safety Engineering? Those might be some good things to search for people interested.

Re: Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin also has worse mass fraction on the booster stage than SpaceX does, which means they don't need to throttle down as much. If you look at New Shepard as a preview to New Glenn, there are a whole bunch of aerosurfaces which add dry mass, essentially ballast. New Glenn will add big side fins, which will help increase lift, drag, and provide more ballast. Also, the New Glenn booster will have 7 engines. Not s…

The thing about these reusable boosters that’s surprising to me when I think about is; they really don’t need very many of them. Like 10 or 50?

Bingo. That allows them to switch over to BFR much faster and for much less money than an expendable launch provider.
Post reply on HN