From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei was thinking very hard :   
   > Apparently, it has now been decided to have 33 engines on Super Heavy.   
   >   
   > Wasn't it originally 37 or 39 ?   
      
   Don't know what it was in the BFR renderings, but it was *29* earlier   
   this year.   
      
   > Assuming payload goals are maintained, the ability to drop from 37 down   
   > to 33 would be excellent news in terms of performance of engines as well   
   > as weight of the steel ship.   
   >   
   > On the other hand, if 33 is the maximum number they can physically fit   
   > inside the fuselage, this could mean reduced payload at launch.  (Once   
   > launched fewer engines can run for longer time, but at launch, you need   
   > that extra "oumph!" to lift all the fuel, the steel rocket and the payload.   
      
   The Raptor they are putting in has more oomph than the Raptor on SN5   
   and SN6.   
      
   > Also, it is mention only the engines in the middle will gimbal. (Makes   
   > sense for landing since only those will fire up). But just trying to   
   > understand the torque aspect.  Wouldn't engines on periphery have more   
   > influence on direction of thrust?   
   >   
   > (asking only on theoretical, I realise that costs would be higher to get   
   > all those engines to gimbal instead of a few in the core ect)   
   >   
   >   
   > Or is the distance betwween periphery and core engines relative to total   
   > length of Super Heavy + Starship make any difference in torque too small   
   > to be of consideration?   
      
   I don't think there's *room* to gimbal when you have 29-33 engines on   
   the periphery.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   "What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?   
   Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the   
   springs."   
   (Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)