Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Explains Why SpaceX Prefers Clusters of Small Engines (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The company's development of the Falcon 9 rocket, with nine engines, had given Musk confidence that SpaceX could scale up to 27 engines in flight, and he believed this was a better overall solution for the thrust needed to escape Earth's gravity. To explain why, the former computer scientist used a computer metaphor. "It's sort of like the way modern computer systems are set up," Musk said. "With Google or Amazon they have large numbers of small computers, such that if one of the computers goes down it doesn't really affect your use of Google or Amazon. That's different from the old model of the mainframe approach, when you have one big mainframe and if it goes down, the whole system goes down."
For computers, Musk said, using large numbers of small computers ends up being a more efficient, smarter, and faster approach than using a few larger, more powerful computers. So it was with rocket engines. "It's better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said. With the Falcon Heavy rocket, he added, up to half a dozen engines could fail and the rocket would still make it to orbit. The flight of the Falcon Heavy likely bodes well for SpaceX's next rocket, the much larger Big Falcon Rocket (or BFR), now being designed at the company's Hawthorne, California-based headquarters. This booster will use 31 engines, four more than the Falcon Heavy. But it will also use larger, more powerful engines. The proposed Raptor engine has 380,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, compared to 190,000 pounds of thrust for the Merlin 1-D engine.
For computers, Musk said, using large numbers of small computers ends up being a more efficient, smarter, and faster approach than using a few larger, more powerful computers. So it was with rocket engines. "It's better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said. With the Falcon Heavy rocket, he added, up to half a dozen engines could fail and the rocket would still make it to orbit. The flight of the Falcon Heavy likely bodes well for SpaceX's next rocket, the much larger Big Falcon Rocket (or BFR), now being designed at the company's Hawthorne, California-based headquarters. This booster will use 31 engines, four more than the Falcon Heavy. But it will also use larger, more powerful engines. The proposed Raptor engine has 380,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, compared to 190,000 pounds of thrust for the Merlin 1-D engine.
Seems like a good idea to me but I'm no rocket scientist.
I thought the F in BFR stood for something else than Falcon...?
Yes but Falcon doesn't get censored in interviews
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
In Soviet Russia, rocket engine redundancy fail you!
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Us Gen Xers just say it: big fucking rocket...
Wow Grandpa, that's so badass. You're using that .. word .. like it's just a word. I'm terribly impressed.
when kids are in ear shot.
Friendly reminder, millenials aren't kids anymore.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
:^))
(Let's see how much levels Slashdot can take before crashing
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time