SpaceX *wants* to learn about new and unexpected failure cases of Raptor on every flight, since they are willing and able to embrace it with their approach and culture.įor BO and ULA, an exciting and new failure case on a test flight would be very very very bad news.ĭoes that make SpaceX approach inherently better? Not for all use-cases. They then have the problem to fix the issue without changing anything else (since multiple rocket designs use the engine) which might be a suboptimal solution if at all possible, or open an even bigger can of worms and change already "finalized" designs for the launch vehicle itself - which at that point would be partially through the certification process for manned/national security launches (old school style) - now also back to square one. It would mean the "finalized" design is faulty, and suddenly needs to be changed. If ULA or BO have a mishap on their first test flight involving Vulcan/NewGlenn and BE-4 it would throw them back years. If a spoolup problem with Raptor is best fixed by changing feed pressure from the tanks, or some pipe diameter, they can do that with the very next prototype. And they can fix any issue the optimal way. However, if SpaceX discovers an unexpected, unforseen problem during this, they embrace it, solve it, and continue at the same pace. SpaceX on the other hand has no clue what they'll do next month because it all depends on the outcome of the very next test, which might cause design changes to engine, plumbing, manufacturing, etc. It gives you a lot of certainty in your long term planning, both regarding schedule and expenses, marketing and capabilities. They catch "unknown unknowns" much quicker.īE4 has been developed using a more traditional approach, running subcomponents on the test stand, and then engines, for years, and by the time an engine finally gets on an orbital vehicle (or in fact any flight hardware) it will be a production engine and a finalized design. THIS is exactly the big advantage of SpaceX hardware rich, agile development. It is called incremental development, and SpaceX seems to *really* believe in it. They could even be swapping them out because some engineer noticed a 2% deviation of one sensor curve, and wants to open up the Raptor just to "make sure" where that deviation is coming from. Who know what the internal differences are?)īesides, SpaceX has been quite open with admitting when a Raptor is being removed due to Failure, or Damage. (almost every Raptor we see has slightly different appearance, and that's just the external spaghetti.
![raptor 4s raptor 4s](https://cdn-images.farfetch-contents.com/14/23/82/28/14238228_20165385_240.jpg)
Getting fuel from plumbing partially shared by other engines, very likely of different detail manufacture spec.
![raptor 4s raptor 4s](https://i0.wp.com/www.nicekicks.com/files/2018/04/air-jordan-4-raptor-release-info-2.jpg)
Mounted next to a couple of other multi-GigaWatt speakers engines. I *never* expected to see a forklift ambling down a mostly public road with a Rocket engine for installation!
RAPTOR 4S INSTALL
Compare the tools & environment used to install a Raptor, with the tools & environment to change one screw on the James Webb telescope. Being installed using vehicles and hardware I'd expect to see at a Walmart warehouse, not on an Aerospace assemble laboratory.