Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

We are not a clone.


tech / sci.space.policy / Re: 100 Raptors

SubjectAuthor
* 100 RaptorsJF Mezei
`- Re: 100 RaptorsJeff Findley

1
100 Raptors

<yihNI.93213$VU3.3077@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3076&group=sci.space.policy#3076

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://pbdl.astraweb.com:119
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
Subject: 100 Raptors
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <yihNI.93213$VU3.3077@fx46.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:14:38 UTC
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 15:14:38 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2265
 by: JF Mezei - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 19:14 UTC

recently, SpaceX published a picture of the celebration of the
production of the 100th Raptor engine.

Would it be correct to state that humanity has never seen production
rate of rocket engines at this rate?

Or have there been programmes in the past (military missiles etc) that
equated the speed at which rocket engines are produced? (even if total
numbers are lower). Or have all such government programmes been decisgne
to keep employment for years and hence reduced production rates on
(polutical) purpose?

It is sort of ironic that a project to build re-usable spacecraft would
end up with production rates much higher than those of disposable single
use rockets.

Reality check:

Considering that Raptors haven't flown more than a couple of minutes and
haven't gone to "space" yet, and succesfully landed from 10km altitude
only once, is it really possible for SpaceX to have such confidence to
declare the design "final" and ramp up production to a rate never seen
by humanity?

It is possible that the 100th Raptor produced doesn't mean 100 usable
engines. aka: How many engines need to be produced to get 33 working
engines? (thinking of CPU chip production where there is expectation
that a number of cores that are etched into silicon will be deffective
and either the whole CPU is ditched or see core number reduced and /or
its speed reduced).

Or it is a given that each rocket engine produced will result in a
usable engine because they will spend whatever time is needed to fix any
problem with it?

Re: 100 Raptors

<MPG.3b6f85b6849ed87e989df6@news.eternal-september.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3078&group=sci.space.policy#3078

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jfind...@cinci.nospam.rr.com (Jeff Findley)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: 100 Raptors
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:07:53 -0400
Organization: Home
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <MPG.3b6f85b6849ed87e989df6@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <yihNI.93213$VU3.3077@fx46.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="71f92ed3e888f7f4de19ba0cf94c0c9c";
logging-data="17059"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FDFpWf6/9vDxN0uFiMEoKtcaF8lGtfuQ="
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3xV2mNPzshTGQ9EILmgGkvenQvk=
 by: Jeff Findley - Sat, 31 Jul 2021 21:07 UTC

In article <yihNI.93213$VU3.3077@fx46.iad>,
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>
> recently, SpaceX published a picture of the celebration of the
> production of the 100th Raptor engine.
>
> Would it be correct to state that humanity has never seen production
> rate of rocket engines at this rate?

No. At the height of its production, in the 1980s, 60 Soyuz launchers
were produced in a year. Since the core and boosters share the same
engine (four main nozzles), that would equal 300 per year.

Cite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family)

<snip>

> Reality check:
>
> Considering that Raptors haven't flown more than a couple of minutes and
> haven't gone to "space" yet, and succesfully landed from 10km altitude
> only once, is it really possible for SpaceX to have such confidence to
> declare the design "final" and ramp up production to a rate never seen
> by humanity?

At this point in time, SpaceX has no doubt accumulated far more Raptor
test firing time than flight time. Test time counts for a lot in liquid
fueled rocket engine development.
> It is possible that the 100th Raptor produced doesn't mean 100 usable
> engines. aka: How many engines need to be produced to get 33 working
> engines? (thinking of CPU chip production where there is expectation
> that a number of cores that are etched into silicon will be deffective
> and either the whole CPU is ditched or see core number reduced and /or
> its speed reduced).

There aren't likely many completed engines that can't be made to work.
If a part fails when you test fire them, you'd replace the failed part
(s) and try again.
> Or it is a given that each rocket engine produced will result in a
> usable engine because they will spend whatever time is needed to fix any
> problem with it?

This.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor