A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OSP: reliability and survivability



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old September 11th 03, 07:10 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability

On 9 Sep 2003 08:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

What that means that you don't do what NASA does just because they did. As
you already pointed out, if the ROTON used drop tanks then you drop them when
you have to abort. If you use booster rockets make then hybrids or liquid
fuel. But why assume that ROTON will use solids just because NASA does.

As soon as you get away from the solid booster idea, the cost of design
starts going way up, you have just moved into unknown (at least for the
U.S.) territory.


But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I
doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid
boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

  #23  
Old September 11th 03, 07:35 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Rand Simberg wrote:

Expendable rockets do. We've no experience base with reusables, other
than Shuttle, which has never exploded...



No, it just falls apart on the way up or down, as opposed to exploding;
but from the viewpoint of the cargo and crew, that's not much of a
difference.

Pat

  #24  
Old September 11th 03, 07:35 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Rand Simberg wrote:

But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I
doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid
boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days.



Still, we do have a lot of experience in them, and it's hard to beat
them for downright simplicity of design.

Pat

  #25  
Old September 11th 03, 08:05 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability

On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I
doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid
boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days.



Still, we do have a lot of experience in them, and it's hard to beat
them for downright simplicity of design.


It's hard to beat a stick of dynamite for simplicity of design, but I
wouldn't ride one into space.

Simplicity of design is not the key to either low cost or safety.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

  #26  
Old September 11th 03, 08:10 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability

On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Expendable rockets do. We've no experience base with reusables, other
than Shuttle, which has never exploded...



No, it just falls apart on the way up or down, as opposed to exploding;
but from the viewpoint of the cargo and crew, that's not much of a
difference.


That's a separate issue. I was simply clarifying the point that
rockets don't necessarily intrinsically explode.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

  #27  
Old September 11th 03, 08:55 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability

Pat Flannery :


rk wrote:

Or perhaps something a bit different like Rotary Rocket?



I think that whereas single-stage-to-orbit is a nice idea, past
experience has shown that it is mighty difficult to achieve in the real
world due to weight creep on the vehicle. On the other hand, something
along the lines of VentureStar with a disposable wrap-around drop tank
ala Starclipper might have a quite good chance of succeeding with our
present state of technology.
Rotary Rocket always seemed more like a pipe dream than a reasonable
vehicle, and its unique spinning rocket engine reminded me of the giant
flat turbojet inside the Avro Silverbug saucer aircraft...an idea that
seems great and revolutionary...on paper.

Pat


I think you missed his point. I don't think he was saying that it had to be
a SSTO, but rather that NASA is stuck in a rut about designs. They only look
at the three basic models.

No DC-X - rocket landing.
No ROTON - prop landing.

No laser/microwave launch, no ballon landing, no mid air-capture, no mid air
linkup. NASA still tries to do things the same old way, while avoiding as
much as possible any alternative appoachs. I am not saying other appoaches
are better, rather that NASA avoids them like the plague.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

  #28  
Old September 11th 03, 11:05 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Rand Simberg wrote:


It's hard to beat a stick of dynamite for simplicity of design, but I
wouldn't ride one into space.

Simplicity of design is not the key to either low cost or safety.



How about hybrids then, such as the nitrous oxide/rubber or plastic one
to be used on Spaceship 1? (every time I write that, I keep hearing an
announcer saying in an echo-chamber effect "Join us next week for the
further cosmic adventures of S-P-A-C-E-S-H-I-P...O-N-E...!" followed by
an oscilloscope sound and zoom noise.)

Pat

  #29  
Old September 11th 03, 11:15 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Rand Simberg wrote:

That's a separate issue. I was simply clarifying the point that
rockets don't necessarily intrinsically explode.



Funny, mine usually did...but sometimes you have to help them along by
pushing The Big Red Button...most of the time that is the self-destruct
one; but sometimes the "launch" one will work every bit as well.
Just ask the Russians: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m2.htm
"The missile would feature a new cold-launch gas generator designed by
Zhukov at FTDT Soyuz. Flight trials of the missile with the 15F173
multiple-warhead bus began on 23 March 1986. The first launch was a
tremendous failure. The cold-launch mortar fired, but the rest of the
launch sequence failed. The missile exploded in the silo, blowing the
100 tonne silo lid far into the air and leaving only a huge crater at
LC-101 Baikonur where the silo once was. The silo was beyond repair. "

Pat

  #30  
Old September 11th 03, 11:25 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OSP: reliability and survivability



Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

I think you missed his point. I don't think he was saying that it had to be
a SSTO, but rather that NASA is stuck in a rut about designs. They only look
at the three basic models.

No DC-X - rocket landing.
No ROTON - prop landing.

No laser/microwave launch, no ballon landing, no mid air-capture, no mid air
linkup. NASA still tries to do things the same old way, while avoiding as
much as possible any alternative appoachs. I am not saying other appoaches
are better, rather that NASA avoids them like the plague.



True, we don't seem to be having much luck with what we are presently
contemplating- maybe we should go right back to the basics and start
from scratch as regards concepts...that being the case, maybe we should
look more seriously at the Rutan carrier aircraft/parasite vehicle idea
if it pans out; it's been suggested many times, but other than the
X-planes and Pegasus hasn't seen much development, (at least in the
unclassified world) an aircraft capable of reaching around Mach 4 and
around 200,00 feet during a jet/rocket driven ascent wouldn't be all
that difficult to design with present technology, and that could
effectively be the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit reusable vehicle,
especially if the orbital portion had a drop tank on it.

Pat

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.