Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

numpad0

Is Starship really not following the exact step of N-1 && VentureStar?

View on HN

Computers and materials came a long way since the N1, as Starship’s successful tests can attest to.

But they're still losing roughly as many engines as Russians did in N1, so that sounds like a dubious claim.

What about the latter? Are they really not tracing the footsteps of the X-33 program?

What? Flight five didn’t lose any engines. N1 kept blowing up.

X-33 never got to a test flight, let alone a successful one.

N-1 only flew 4 times. Flight 5 of N-1 was supposed to use upgraded NK-33 engines.

X-33 never got to test flight because the engineer minded NASA director kept pushing an unrealistic technical goal.

Besides, SS still hasn't gotten its payload system working.

Are those that dissimilar to how SS program is going?

Yes, they are. Starship has proven multiple novel engineering approaches and technologies. Examples: 1. catching the booster in the air to save on landing gear weight and complexity 2. firing 33 engines simultaneously in a tight cluster 3. the only large scale production and use of CH4-fuelled engines (all other CH4 engines have only been fired a handful of times at most)

N-1 failed because of a lack of time/funding, not because the design was inherently flawed.

But that wasn't certain until Starship proved it technologically possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com