- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,368
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The fact is that turbopumps and such components include a lot of moving parts and are the most prone to failure. Combustion chambers problems are often related to combustion unstability, and this is something more "predictible". In fact the original R-series engines had one big combustion chamber, but the result was unstable and deceptive in terms of thrust. The quad-chambers design solved that and actually increased thrust. .
The fact is, combustion chamber failures can occur (through design flaws, procedural/manufacturing errors, structural defects, etc). Turbopumps do contribute a lot to failure risk in an engine, but not all engine failures involve the turbopumps. The recent Falcon 9 engine failure is an example of this.
In general, the more moving parts, the more potential problems, and then increased costs to make sure those problems don't happen. So a lot of "cheap" engines might actually have been a false-good-idea. Which doesn't mean it is a fatal flaw ; but that operational costs are going to be higher than expected.
That isn't how things work. To ensure high reliability, you want a decent development and manufacturing process, with strong safety procedures.
Obviously a turbopump is a complex and costly component (both to develop and manufacture). And obviously developing and building reliable components costs money. But technique affects these things far more than simply throwing money at things.
Developing a smaller, less demanding (i.e. lower chamber pressure, kerolox) engine is an easier and cheaper task. Purely from that perspective, Merlin has been a good path for SpaceX. To get the required thrust for their vehicle, they simply need to cluster those engines- which is a good deal less complex and less costly than building an all-new, larger engine.
Larger production runs improve cost through mass-production techniques and capitalisation on existing infrastructure.
I cannot find any instance anywhere in this thread where someone has claimed such a thing.
The entire premise of this thread is the suggestion that SpaceX should perform a considerable redesign of their launch vehicle and undertake an all-new engine development program due to safety issues.
Those would be some pretty serious actions to take, and if one were taking them, they'd have to have messed up pretty badly.
Last edited: