The thrust vector control (TVC) subsystem is usually considered a part of the engine. The major change the Soviet NK-33 underwent for a USA model was the addition of TVC, and the engine was named differently, so there are two engines, named differently, which mostly differ by the presence of TVC.
Raptors can be used without TVC. Be that by using differential thrust, or just not needing that - because rocket is controlled using other means, or other engines - it's possible. Tory Bruno specifically explained that he meant - among other things - that absence.
A picture of the engine working on the test stand can be that for the engine - or for the chamber, a significant component of the engine, with or without turbopumps involved.
Tony Bruno, when referring to the partially assembled engine, was complaining about the lack of engine controllers, fluid management, and TVCs [1].
In addition, SpaceX isn’t cheating by not including TVCs. They purposely designed their rocket to need a minimum of them and fully take advantage of the space savings the lack of TVCs affords them.
[1] “So, there is no need to exaggerate this by showing a partially assembled engine without controllers, fluid management, or TVC systems, then comparing it to fully assembled engines that do.”
Tory was just wrong. Yes TVC wasn't there but that's because that's not inherent to the design, some Raptors are attached with TVC some without. But everything else was there.
And if you see Raptor integrated on Starship you can see this clearly.
TLDW but TVC for rocket engines is usually achieved by like one hydraulic suspension rod each for X and Y axes(Y and Z in rocketry? idk) serving as parts of the engine mounting frame. It shouldn't add a lot to the system.
Yes, that's the usual way. With SpaceX, however, Raptor engines are gimbled with electric actuators.
And yes, the TVC adds very little to the complexity of Raptor 3's appearance: it still looks like science fiction, even when operating in Starship. Had TVC been present in the original SP1 image that had Tory accusing SpaceX of misleading everyone, it would have made no difference.
> TLDW
That video has beautiful shots of Raptor 3 firing and gimbling. It's worth watching.
Oh yeah, Tory Bruno made that gaffe of a comment publicly, and completely unprompted, before he abruptly quit. I had forgotten, but you’re right of course.
The desire to fly to space can be compared with such for going to Everest, the place less hospitable than Cape York, yet having quite an interest from all sides. However, exploration of space could be way more practical than conquering the highest point on Earth - it serves scientific goals, and after science often come applications. There are many useful technologies which grew from space exploration and particularly from manned space programs, and we can expect those benefits to follow those who keeps studying space and learning to live close to the object of study.
We're just starting an energetic space exploration with appearance of better tools in the recent years. Getting to the Moon is relatively easy, and could be barely done with much more modest technology; now we plan a bigger scale program. Getting people to Mars is undoubtedly more complex, but still within reach of the existing - or almost existing - technology. Getting furter from Earth, while not immediately in the plans, may get just as possible and useful with time, and we shouldn't claim to know what could be our reasons tomorrow to visit, say, Ceres or Venus. There is no scientific impossibility for flying almist anywhere in Solar system - the matter is only in needs and economic costs. Our predecessors could be confused with our habits of flying between continents and islands the way we can and do today - similarly some of us may not see the immediate reason to leave Earth - that can pass, as past habits got changed to our current ones.
No one has aspirations or desire to live on Everest. They just want to go there plant a flag and say they did it before rushing back to.Civilization. Hmmm kinda like the moon.
You would wear an oxygen mask for your entire visit to stay alive? along with the climb, that even with modern technology and accessibility, only a few thousand people have ever done?
because flying helicopter up there is incredibly dangerous and nobody would be willing to do regularly for a job. In fact, only one person has ever done it just to prove that it could be done.
I mean, I don't know you, but I feel like most people are not truly considering the level of discomfort, such a visit would entail. Much less being on the Moon or mars for any extended period of time.
You would essentially be paying tens of thousands of dollars to be an agony for several days. I've done such things just to say i did in my 20's but not for that cost.
I looked into going to Everest - it is possible for a normal person to go - you need to save up a lot of money ($10-20k) which is within reach of most people if you really want to go. However even if you are filthy rich you still shouldn't: there is a lot of litter on the mountain because it is almost impossible to make the whole trip without leaving things behind. Combine with the danger and you really should not make the trip. Instead a have few photographers and scientists (who have real science to do up there - I'm not sure what there is) make the trip, or better yet a robot - and then look at pictures/videos and read their reports.
The moon is unlikely to be self sustaining - gravity is too low. In turn that means that earth will forever be polluting the earths atmosphere (CO2!) to supply it.
Well, when they are a child their material gains are treated as yours, no? (Parents of child actors control the money etc.) And once they aren't anymore you aren't responsible for their misbehavior either (because they've become an adult).
As I understand, this is the best way to do which we have so far. We are welcome to find a better way while we're using this approach.
reply