News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by craig1f on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:07AM (#16333066)
TL;DR; - You get more fault-tolerance with a large number of smaller engines
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by nine_k on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:23AM (#16333251)
Interestingly, the Soviet Н1 Moon-bound rocket [1] used a similar setup, and it was plagued be reliability problems: making many smaller parts work reliably at the same time is harder for obvious reasons.

Either reliability of engines went seriously up, or software control (impossible in early 1960s) made it possible to operate a bunch of less-than-ideal engines successfully.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by orbital-decay on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:49AM (#16333459)
Actually, N1 failures had little to do with the complexity itself, and engines were reliable enough for the time.

Due to the lack of funding (the soviet lunar program was given the priority well into the moon "race") they were using the old methodology of testing it in the actual flight, not doing any static fires and only doing a bare minimum of ground testing. Saturn V, on the other hand, heavily relied on the ground testing before the launch. That's why Saturn V mostly worked and N1 failed. Energia worked perfectly much later, because it was developed with the proper amount of ground testing.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by Florin_Andrei on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:05PM (#16335144)
The Soviets won the first round of the space race (until the mid-60s) because of multiple factors, but mainly because of the laser-focus at the highest levels to push the technology as far as it could go. It helped a lot that they had an engineering genius heading the program (Sergey Korolev), and the top politician during that time (Nikita Khrushchev) was a forward-thinking progressive (relatively speaking - please keep it in context) who was a big fan of space.

Korolev (pronounce: Karalyov) died in the mid-60s, just before the Moon program had started to gear up for the big time. Khrushchev was ousted also during the mid-60s by retrograde bureaucrats.

With both the political and the technical leadership in turmoil, the program fell on very hard times. The didn't get enough funds, could not get proper testing done, and pushed a lot of QA to the live launches. Predictably, the results were "spectacular" - but in a bad way.

A little before that time America finally got its resolve together ("We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...") and started pouring massive amounts of financial and engineering efforts into its space program. Again predictably, the results were spectacular - but in a good way.

If your leadership is indifferent and you don't have the stuff you need, you lose. If you work hard and put all your energies into it, you win. And that applied to both sides, each in its turn. Who knew?

Good book on this topic (and related):

https://www.amazon.com/Korolev-Masterminded-Soviet-Drive-Ame...

---

I wish Korolev was around these days so he could see Elon Musk's multi-engine design. I think he would like it. In a (somewhat vague) sense, I see the Falcon Heavy as late vindication for the tremendous efforts, against all odds, of the engineers who busted their asses trying to shoot the N1 into the Moon. The idea was sound, it was just not yet the right time for it.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by cuspycode on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:46PM (#16335445)
Korolev's contribution is even more impressive when you consider that he was imprisoned in the Soviet Gulag for many years (for political reasons), suffering under living conditions which probably shortened his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by Florin_Andrei on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:15PM (#16335655)
Seriously, I can't comprehend the guy.

He starts studying liquid fuel rockets in the '30s, and does some amazing work probably trailing only the top German engineers in this field.

He's denounced by some envious low-lifer who wanted his job and is arrested (along with Valentin Glushko, another great rocket scientist) during the stalinist Great Purge at the end of the '30s, when a simple anonymous note was enough to get someone disappeared. They torture him, sentence him to death - but then he's commuted to hard labor in the gold mine, where the poisonous environment and poor conditions meant the average life expectancy was barely over one year. Loses all his teeth to scurvy.

Meanwhile his friends back in Moscow are lobbying with Lavrenti Beria (the KGB boss) to release him - they succeed and he's placed in the "easy prison" where a bunch of intellectuals were doing essentially white collar slave labor (with pencil on paper, sure, but no choice in the nature of the work) for the Soviet government. He's released towards the end of WW2.

Then Stalin figures he needs to catch up to the Germans in rocketry, so Korolev is rehabilitated, made colonel of the Red Army, and finally starts working again on his rocket engines. They copy a bunch of German designs first, use some German engineers (who were prisoners) to get them started. Then continue on their own.

He develops the first Soviet ICBMs, but that was just what paid the bills. He keeps pushing for a real space program. Launches Sputnik 1 into space. Leads the Soviet space program until the mid-60s.

When he died, he was working on plans for manned missions to Mars and beyond.

I mean, what motivates a person to keep forging ahead against such adversity? Death sentence, hard labor in the poison mine, years of imprisonment and disgrace - and then he builds and launches the world's first ever satellite. To say nothing of the fact that, like Elon Musk, he was a man of many talents: great engineer, very effective leader, and a good politician and lobbyist. It's amazing.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by lorenzhs on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:14PM (#16335650)
Korolev also spent almost six years in a gulag in the 30s/40s after being denounced in what likely was likely some dude's play to replace him. He had a bitter rivalry and lots of differences in opinion with his engine designer/supplier, Valentin Glushko (who was arrested for the same made-up offense, but got to continue working on aircraft projects), whom he also held responsible for him nearly dying in the gulag. He ended up actually dying in the middle of N1 development as a late consequence of the catastrophic conditions during his imprisonment.

It really sounds absurd when put like that. And it makes me wonder what the Soviet space programme could have looked like if Korolev hadn't been imprisoned in Stalin's Great Purge.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by shmerl on Thursday February 08, 2018 @12:53PM (#16334032)
> engines were reliable enough for the time.

Engines alone could be, but the their combination wasn't reliable because of interactions between them and need for synchronization. As Musk points out, it was an avionics problem.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by Florin_Andrei on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:11PM (#16335184)
The main reason why they failed is - they pushed testing into production, just like MySpace, because their funding and leadership disintegrated at the beginning of the program. See my other reply in this thread.
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by shmerl on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:06PM (#16335596)
Sure, their management was erratic. But the bottom line, their combination wasn't technically reliable (why, is already what you are saying).
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by Florin_Andrei on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:27PM (#16335731)
This meme of the "inferior Soviet technology" needs to die in a fire. It's soothing for the fragile Western conservative ego, but it's just not true - not, at least, with regards to space.

The failure of the N1 program was a leadership issue, period. Just like America trailing the Russians at first was a leadership and lack of focus issue. One team kept winning, then they lost their captains and their funding. Meanwhile, the other team got great leaders and awesome sponsors and started busting their collective ass really hard around the same time - and the wheel of fortune suddenly turned. Funny how that works, isn't it?

What's strange is that the true events sound a heck of a lot more "american" (work hard and reap the laurels, or slack off and be a loser) and yet you keep hearing the same bullshit all the time as to how "the Russian stuff was just inferior". It's not true. And it's not a good story to tell your kids.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by shmerl on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:43PM (#16335839)
> This meme of the "inferior Soviet technology" needs to die in a fire.

Technology turns out to be inferior, when quality control is superseded by political agenda. It should be quite obvious.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

> The failure of the N1 program was a leadership issue, period.

Surely leadership failure is a key factor, but there was also an economical one. Space race was very expensive.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by russdill on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:47AM (#16333451)
A more accurate description would be that it's really hard if you never test things and rush them into a launch because of political pressure
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by IshKebab on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:50AM (#16333468)
It's almost like you read the article.
Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by Maybestring on Thursday February 08, 2018 @11:52AM (#16333496)
The N1 had insufficient component level testing. They decided to go straight to full up tests due to the cost of the test stand needed.

The big complication with the N1 was that they tried to steer it with variable thrust, rather than the usual approach of thrust vectoring.

Re:Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines by 0xfeba on Thursday February 08, 2018 @04:28PM (#16335737)
RAIE - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Engines