SpaceBanter.com

SpaceBanter.com (http://www.spacebanter.com/index.php)
-   Space Station (http://www.spacebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   The 100/10/1 Rule. (http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=96795)

Henry Spencer March 6th 07 02:18 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
In article ,
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.


No actual SSTOs, yet. There have been several SSTO-capable expendable
rocket stages built, but nobody has ever thought it worthwhile to actually
fly one of them as an SSTO. The S-IC and the Titan II first stage were
both in the right ballpark, although both would need less engine thrust,
and at least the Titan stage would need throttleable engines. Mitch
Burnside Clapp's analysis said that straightforward Atlas and Delta
variants could do it too.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer March 6th 07 02:26 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
It's almost going to have to be something using balloon tankage to get
the mass fraction to where it's good enough to do the job.


Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower
tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the
other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for
them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the
application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant
densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Scott Hedrick[_2_] March 6th 07 02:33 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...
So.. what could you do with say:

200lbs
500lbs
1000lbs

I think the first 2 are basically "small sat" type things.

1000lbs, a bare minimum once around capsule?


This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space about
16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either 1 oz or 1 kg
into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser gyros. The
discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines would be needed. I
kept the printouts for several years.



Pat Flannery March 6th 07 03:13 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Scott Hedrick wrote:
This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space about
16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either 1 oz or 1 kg
into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser gyros. The
discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines would be needed. I
kept the printouts for several years.



I can't find it now, but a few weeks back I stumbled on someone trying
to do that with a diminutive multistage rocket out on the web.
I think it uses pressure-fed hypergolic fuels, and is around 15 feet
long IIRC.

Pat

kT March 6th 07 03:52 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
It's almost going to have to be something using balloon tankage to get
the mass fraction to where it's good enough to do the job.


Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower
tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the
other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for
them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the
application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant
densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale.


Certainly a space shuttle main engine could do it with any decent
tankage. I want to do it. I'm going to do it. It shall be done.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Charles Buckley March 6th 07 05:51 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
Pat Flannery wrote:


Scott Hedrick wrote:
This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space
about 16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either
1 oz or 1 kg into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser
gyros. The discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines
would be needed. I kept the printouts for several years.



I can't find it now, but a few weeks back I stumbled on someone trying
to do that with a diminutive multistage rocket out on the web.
I think it uses pressure-fed hypergolic fuels, and is around 15 feet
long IIRC.

Pat



I remember the thread Scott refers to. IIRC, there is an amateur
group out in CA that is using that as its baseline since the
supersonic milestone by amateurs has been met. Spaceflight is
the next amateur milestone.

Henry Spencer March 6th 07 06:00 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
I wrote:
No actual SSTOs, yet. There have been several SSTO-capable expendable
rocket stages built... The S-IC and the Titan II first stage were
both in the right ballpark... straightforward Atlas and Delta
variants could do it too.


Addendum: And there have been several rediscoveries of the fact that if
you put six or seven SSMEs underneath an ET, even with generous allowances
for things like thrust structure, it makes orbit with about the same
payload as the shuttle.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Hyper March 6th 07 01:47 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
On Mar 6, 3:26 am, (Henry Spencer) wrote:

Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower
tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the
other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for
them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the
application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant
densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale.


There was a proposed S-IC stage and a half derivative, the S-ID. It
would drop the 4 outer engines (to be recovered) and was capable of
orbiting 22 tons.
I wonder if it would have had a lower cost than 2 stage EELVs.
The up side was retaining heavy lift capacity.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvb.htm


Pat Flannery March 6th 07 02:54 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Charles Buckley wrote:

I remember the thread Scott refers to. IIRC, there is an amateur
group out in CA that is using that as its baseline since the
supersonic milestone by amateurs has been met. Spaceflight is
the next amateur milestone.



The article actually had a picture of the rocket; it was pretty
hilarious-looking.

Pat

Pat Flannery March 6th 07 02:56 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Henry Spencer wrote:
Addendum: And there have been several rediscoveries of the fact that if
you put six or seven SSMEs underneath an ET, even with generous allowances
for things like thrust structure, it makes orbit with about the same
payload as the shuttle.


What about RS-68s?

Pat


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 SpaceBanter.com. Space photos on this page are credited to NASA and ESA