A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Roaches Conquer Space!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 30th 12, 04:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old September 30th 12, 04:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old September 30th 12, 04:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old October 1st 12, 10:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Niels Jørgen Kruse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 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  
Old October 1st 12, 11:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default 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 “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]


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  
Old October 2nd 12, 12:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Roaches Conquer Space!

In article ,
says...

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 ?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]


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?


It will almost certainly need an engine in the center, otherwise I'd
imagine exhaust gas recirculation into the gap left by an absent center
engine would be a problem.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #7  
Old October 2nd 12, 05:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 12, 06:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Greg Goss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 12, 09:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default 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  
Old October 2nd 12, 10:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Greg Goss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default 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

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

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 08:34 PM
Can I conquer a planet or moon and keep it ? ? ? Hans-Marc Olsen Policy 37 November 24th 04 01:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM.


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.