Why do we still expect “successful failures” on rocket launches and not just scale up or scale down the same design on successful rocket ships and launch pads to make bigger or smaller ships with more stable structural material?
In: 1598
The whole reason we have these launches is because we have already studied everything we can in computer simulations and in scaled down scenarios.
We have to look at the full sized vehicle because there are inevitably going to be complications that arise when we actually build the thing and scale the thing up. Some materials may not be quite what we thought they would be in simulation, some stresses might be a little higher in places than what we expected, that sort of thing.
[removed]
The whole reason we have these launches is because we have already studied everything we can in computer simulations and in scaled down scenarios.
We have to look at the full sized vehicle because there are inevitably going to be complications that arise when we actually build the thing and scale the thing up. Some materials may not be quite what we thought they would be in simulation, some stresses might be a little higher in places than what we expected, that sort of thing.
[removed]
>Why do we still expect “successful failures” on rocket launches and not just scale up or scale down the same design on successful rocket ships and launch pads to make bigger or smaller ships with more stable structural material?
Could you elaborate on what you exactly you mean?
You cannot just “scale up” or “scale down” a design. A smaller or bigger version of a thing [always requires a completely different design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law). It flat-out will not work or will not work the same way if you just… increase or decrease all components’ dimensions by 50%.
A space ship has 2.5 million moving parts, all of which need to be manufactured to very precise specifications in order to function properly. You can computer model everything you want, but you can’t model defects. That’s what launches like this show.
Scaling up a design doesn’t give scaled up performance. I can make a model of a skyscraper with mashed potato. That does not mean I can scale that up and have a full sized skyscraper made of mashed potato.
Also often new designs are trying new technology, be that new materials, or more complex ways of building your design, or maybe a simpler way of building things. New designs try new things which are sometimes wrong.
Scaling up a design doesn’t give scaled up performance. I can make a model of a skyscraper with mashed potato. That does not mean I can scale that up and have a full sized skyscraper made of mashed potato.
Also often new designs are trying new technology, be that new materials, or more complex ways of building your design, or maybe a simpler way of building things. New designs try new things which are sometimes wrong.
>Why do we still expect “successful failures” on rocket launches and not just scale up or scale down the same design on successful rocket ships and launch pads to make bigger or smaller ships with more stable structural material?
Could you elaborate on what you exactly you mean?
You cannot just “scale up” or “scale down” a design. A smaller or bigger version of a thing [always requires a completely different design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law). It flat-out will not work or will not work the same way if you just… increase or decrease all components’ dimensions by 50%.
A space ship has 2.5 million moving parts, all of which need to be manufactured to very precise specifications in order to function properly. You can computer model everything you want, but you can’t model defects. That’s what launches like this show.
Latest Answers