I'm no expert at this but I would guess that while it may be easier/cheaper
to build lots of small engines the maintenance hassle must be humongous.
It's tough enough to keep the shuttle space worthy with only 3 main engines.
If it has 10 or more it must be even tougher. More turbo pumps more fuel
lines to get cracks. More engines to gimbal.
I understand John's comment on how economy of scale already becomes relevant
when designing Armadillo's craft. On the other hand as I remember the goal
is to create a quickly re-usable vehicle. In that case the ability to
quickly inspect and repair a vehicle may proove to be cheaper in the long
term when the initial investment in fewer, larger engines is made.
I'll admit that I have no figures to back this up but it seems reasonable to
me. Thoughts?
Sander
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Zarzycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] Multiple chamber engine
> Didn't both Nasa and the Soviets try many motor designs? Does anyone know
> why they stopped using those designs?
>
> --
> Ben Zarzycki
>
> _______________________________________________
> ERPS-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
>
>
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
