News Space X in Popular Science April 2013 ed.

[Capt_hensley]

In the April Popular Science Magazine, available at news stands now, the Falcon Heavy Rocket is featured on the cover and in an article "How It Works" by Robert Earle Howells, Illustrations by Nick Kaloterakis. Pgs 35 and 36. I'd scan the pages, but that would be a naughty thing to do. There are a few vital stats listed, and so on.

It has a very nice insert of a 3D render of a Merlin 1D Engine.

 

[RGClark]

Nice image showing the new arrangement of the engines here:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/most-powerful-space-rocket


Bob Clark

 

[MaverickSawyer]

heh. Look at the first comment... "better question....can i use this design in kerbal space program...."
:rofl:

 

[Alfastar]

Well, the most worry about the design of the Falcon-heavy in my eyes are still the amount of engines. Simple because the chance of failing one of them is higher. Even when a Falcon-heavy can still put the payload safe, then its still not nice for you 'private' spaceflight company to say that one of the engines failed. And if that going to happens too much, then its bad PR for SpaceX.

I hope there gonna have a better alternative with a lot less engines on the boosters.

 

[Pipcard]

It's nice to say that one of the engines failed... and it still got into orbit.

 

[Alfastar]

It's nice to say that one of the engines failed... and it still got into orbit.

Well, not if it failing more then one time in a year. And then companies are really begin to think two times of there will launch something on the Falcon-heavy. Don't forget that SpaceX needs still good PR for it, or else the Falcon-heavy become a dead project after a few launches.

 

[Gerdih]

Says Merlin 1D engine is "the most efficient rocket booster engine ever built". Is that true? :blink:

 

[tl8]

Says Merlin 1D engine is "the most efficient rocket booster engine ever built". Is that true? :blink:

A Kero and LO2 engine, yes, it is.

 

[RGClark]

A Kero and LO2 engine, yes, it is.

It's valid on scale of thrust to weight ratio, but not on the more commonly used scale of Isp. The Russian kerolox engines are more efficient on that scale.


Bob Clark

 

[mojoey]

Somewhat piggybacking off the KSP comment...could you imagine if that thing blew up on the pad? That would light up the sky for miles.

 

[Athena]

I wouldn't say that the Saturn V is the only thing that can lift heavier payloads in [insert orbit here], i mean, come on, there's Energia...

 

[MaverickSawyer]

It's valid on scale of thrust to weight ratio, but not on the more commonly used scale of Isp. The Russian kerolox engines are more efficient on that scale.


Bob Clark

True. But, for a U.S. designed and built engine, it's an accurate statement that could easily be misconstrued to have global connotations.:facepalm: This is what fact checkers are for, folks.

 

[Alfastar]

I wouldn't say that the Saturn V is the only thing that can lift heavier payloads in [insert orbit here], i mean, come on, there's Energia...

Well, if you known that a Energia launch cost only 20 million dollars less then a Ariane 5 launch, then it become very interesting in the context of the Energia was a cheap heavy launch rocket or not. I think it was a serious competitive for the Falcon-Heavy if it still exist today. If, because due mostly to political reasons the Energia was cancelled.

 

[Pipcard]

Well, if you known that a Energia launch cost only 20 million dollars less then a Ariane 5 launch, then it become very interesting in the context of the Energia was a cheap heavy launch rocket or not. I think it was a serious competitive for the Falcon-Heavy if it still exist today. If, because due mostly to political reasons the Energia was cancelled.

And that could lift 20 tons into geostationary orbit!