![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() ...this is beginning to look rediculous. I mean the second stage is FAR larger than the first and the total ISP for the second stage (H2/O2) is only about .85 that of the first... One consideration you may have missed, if you're really starting from the basics, is that LOX/LH2 stages generally do not run their engines at an "optimum" mixture ratio. The LOX/LH2 mixture ratio for maximum Isp is about 4.0, but even early LOX/LH2 stages ran at about 5.0, and modern ones generally run at 6.0. You get optimum *stage* performance by accepting some loss of Isp to reduce tank mass. I was going off of SSME mix ratios. ...is it better to go with the higher ISP and accept the larger structure or go with a lower ISP but a much more compact structure assuming you have the same total lb/seconds? The answer is, it depends. :-) Dang. :-) I figured as much. If you do not care about the total mass of the stage, typically you are better off with LOX/kerosene. The mass ratio needs to be higher, but high mass ratios are easier to achieve. If you do care about the total mass, the first question to ask is why you care. There is a long tradition in the field that gross liftoff mass is the preferred figure of merit for a launcher. This is utter nonsense; most of that mass is fuel, which is dirt cheap. There is a better case for dry mass as the figure of merit, but even that is open to question, because hardware cost is only vaguely related to hardware mass. I don't really care about the mass that much. The one case where total mass pretty clearly does matter is for an upper stage being put on an existing launcher. There, the lower total mass of a LOX/LH2 stage can be a win, because it permits a rather bigger upper stage with rather higher payload. Basically what I'm looking at is a two stage to orbit with ALL of the second stage minus the propulsion module going into orbit and using the things to make a REAL space station out of. It's just an exercise for kicks. I was thinking of using the LOX/LH2 upper stage because it seems like it would be useful for other things too. You could burn it to get drinking water for example. (After you cooled it down a bit LOL) Didn't want extra kerosene sitting around doing nothing and the coking issue was a consideration also although the 1st stage would be reusable and uses LOX/kerosene. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reuseable technology | Peter Fairbrother | Policy | 64 | July 30th 04 10:12 PM |
Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit | Peter Altschuler | Space Station | 3 | January 16th 04 01:02 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |