|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
aka Skin Strength Of Liquid Fueled Rockets...
Sorry I couldn't help myself, I thought the given subject title more catchy! :-D From the thread entitled: Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000. On 9/30/2012 3:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement: Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion. By Amy Svitak Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology September 17, 2012 [quote] ...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the tic-tac-toe placement on the current Falcon 9. You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin, she says. You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle." [/ quote] Isn't this generally the case for most (if not all) liquid fueled rockets? Doesn't a lot of the structural strength derived from the vertically stacked skin and whatever structural elements that are arrayed around the tanks? After all, the majority of mass in the center is literally quite fluid! Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? Can't think of any. Can't think of a reason why that would be advantageous either! Hence the exo-skeletal model will always win over the skeletal model?! Opinions? Hence: Roaches Conquer Space! Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
Of course no sooner do I post than I can think of a possible exception and that would have been the Apollo Service Module. Not
exactly a heavy lifter tho. Depends on the application? Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
"David Spain" wrote in message
... Isn't this generally the case for most (if not all) liquid fueled rockets? Doesn't a lot of the structural strength derived from the vertically stacked skin and whatever structural elements that are arrayed around the tanks? After all, the majority of mass in the center is literally quite fluid! Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? Can't think of any. Can't think of a reason why that would be advantageous either! Hence the exo-skeletal model will always win over the skeletal model?! Opinions? Not exactly what you had in mind since it was still the skin of the tanks, but the Saturn IB in a sense. Hence: Roaches Conquer Space! Dave -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
David Spain wrote:
Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? The Soviet N1. -- Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
In sci.space.history David Spain wrote:
On 9/30/2012 3:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement: Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion. By Amy Svitak Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology September 17, 2012 [quote] ...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the âtic-tac-toeâ placement on the current Falcon 9. âYou actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin,â she says. âYou've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle." [/ quote] But the existing F9 structure, presumably, is already dealing with that, so why the change? I guess the reasons are betweent he lines of: | AWST: Why wasn't that done initially? | GS: Well, we learned a lot of stuff [with Falcon 9]. That change percolates through a lot doesn't it? And this "octagonal" configuration will still have an engine in the middle no? Or will it just be a ring around the perimeter? rick jones -- web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
On Sep 30, 11:27*am, David Spain wrote:
aka Skin Strength Of Liquid Fueled Rockets... Sorry I couldn't help myself, I thought the given subject title more catchy! :-D *From the thread entitled: Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000. On 9/30/2012 3:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: * The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement: Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion. By Amy Svitak Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology September 17, 2012 [quote] ...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the tic-tac-toe placement on the current Falcon 9. You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin, she says. You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle." [/ quote] Isn't this generally the case for most (if not all) liquid fueled rockets? Doesn't a lot of the structural strength derived from the vertically stacked skin and whatever structural elements that are arrayed around the tanks? After all, the majority of mass in the center is literally quite fluid! Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? Can't think of any. Can't think of a reason why that would be advantageous either! Hence the exo-skeletal model will always win over the skeletal model?! Opinions? Hence: Roaches Conquer Space! Dave It is generally the case that the propellant tank skin supports the thrust loads for orbital rockets, often with vertical stringers, or longerons, arrayed internally in the tanks to help support the axial loads. However, I found an image of a proposed design of the Altair lunar lander that shows such a skeletal support strutu http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/03/...r-design-nasa/ Bob Clark |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
Robert Clark wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:27*am, David Spain wrote: aka Skin Strength Of Liquid Fueled Rockets... Sorry I couldn't help myself, I thought the given subject title more catchy! :-D *From the thread entitled: Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000. On 9/30/2012 3:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: * The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement: Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion. By Amy Svitak Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology September 17, 2012 [quote] ...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the tic-tac-toe placement on the current Falcon 9. You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin, she says. You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle." [/ quote] Isn't this generally the case for most (if not all) liquid fueled rockets? Doesn't a lot of the structural strength derived from the vertically stacked skin and whatever structural elements that are arrayed around the tanks? After all, the majority of mass in the center is literally quite fluid! Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? Can't think of any. Can't think of a reason why that would be advantageous either! Hence the exo-skeletal model will always win over the skeletal model?! Opinions? Hence: Roaches Conquer Space! Dave It is generally the case that the propellant tank skin supports the thrust loads for orbital rockets, often with vertical stringers, or longerons, arrayed internally in the tanks to help support the axial loads. However, I found an image of a proposed design of the Altair lunar lander that shows such a skeletal support strutu http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/03/...r-design-nasa/ Even static tanks need structure. I used to commute past a wooden water tower. Eventually they did something else and no longer needed to put water in that tower. However, by that time, they'd hung a bunch of telephone cells onto the tower, so they couldn't take it down. So they removed the wooden bits and left a very odd-looking cell tower behind. http://goo.gl/maps/1kaWB While looking up the above, I noticed that the streetview image included a second streetview car. In all the "interesting streetviews" I don't think I've ever seen recursion before. http://goo.gl/maps/1JLds -- I used to own a mind like a steel trap. Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it wouldn't have rusted like this. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
On Oct 2, 10:48*am, Greg Goss wrote:
Robert Clark wrote: On Sep 30, 11:27 am, David Spain wrote: aka Skin Strength Of Liquid Fueled Rockets... Sorry I couldn't help myself, I thought the given subject title more catchy! :-D From the thread entitled: Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000. On 9/30/2012 3:00 AM, Robert Clark wrote: The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement: Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion. By Amy Svitak Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology September 17, 2012 [quote] ...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the tic-tac-toe placement on the current Falcon 9. You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin, she says. You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle." [/ quote] Isn't this generally the case for most (if not all) liquid fueled rockets? Doesn't a lot of the structural strength derived from the vertically stacked skin and whatever structural elements that are arrayed around the tanks? After all, the majority of mass in the center is literally quite fluid! Were there ever any rockets build that used multiple tanks arrayed around a skeletal core? Can't think of any. Can't think of a reason why that would be advantageous either! Hence the exo-skeletal model will always win over the skeletal model?! Opinions? Hence: Roaches Conquer Space! Dave It is generally the case that the propellant tank skin supports the thrust loads for orbital rockets, often with vertical stringers, or longerons, arrayed internally in the tanks to help support the axial loads. However, I found an image of a proposed design of the Altair lunar lander that shows such a skeletal support strutu http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/03/...roposal-altair... Even static tanks need structure. *I used to commute past a wooden water tower. *Eventually they did something else and no longer needed to put water in that tower. *However, by that time, they'd hung a bunch of telephone cells onto the tower, so they couldn't take it down. *So they removed the wooden bits and left a very odd-looking cell tower behind. *http://goo.gl/maps/1kaWB While looking up the above, I noticed that the streetview image included a second streetview car. *In all the "interesting streetviews" I don't think I've ever seen recursion before.http://goo.gl/maps/1JLds That's not recursion, that's a paradox; the car photographed itself, so obviously it was traveling FTL! Marj L. "I wonder what the speeding fine is?" Fergerson |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Roaches Conquer Space!
" wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:48*am, Greg Goss wrote: While looking up the above, I noticed that the streetview image included a second streetview car. *In all the "interesting streetviews" I don't think I've ever seen recursion before. http://goo.gl/maps/1JLds That's not recursion, that's a paradox; the car photographed itself, so obviously it was traveling FTL! Marj L. "I wonder what the speeding fine is?" Fergerson Look, I've commuted across the Knight Street Bridge. You're lucky to get into second gear. Nobody goes FTL on that road. -- I used to own a mind like a steel trap. Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it wouldn't have rusted like this. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Collier's "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" articles being reprinted | [email protected] | History | 3 | September 4th 12 08:40 PM |
will our space shuttle discovery and our international space station be safe from the space trash that the US and other counries earlier left up there? | Jonathan | History | 1 | September 6th 09 12:51 AM |
If you were alien invader, how would you conquer the Earth? | charon85 | Policy | 257 | August 15th 09 09:13 AM |
The EUs plan to conquer space | Old Boy | Policy | 2 | February 15th 08 07:34 PM |
Can I conquer a planet or moon and keep it ? ? ? | Hans-Marc Olsen | Policy | 37 | November 24th 04 12:45 PM |