|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why not use jets as 1st stage? (was Multiple Engines???)
wlhaught wrote:
Alright, back to powered flybacks for first stages. Are jet engines worth the trouble of extra systems? As I recall, I read somewhere that the shuttle uses half its fuel to reach 1,000 mph. You sure? I have a copy of a speed/height/time diagram of the shuttles ascend. 1000 mph would be 1600 km/h. The diagram says that this speed is reached within the first minute of launch at a height of about 8-10 km. Launch takes 8.5 minutes, boosters burn 2 minutes. If you would say half of the boosters fuel is used up at 1000 mph that would fit. But total fuel including the fuel of the big external tank? Ok, solid booster rocket fuel is quite heavy, and the booster burns faster in the beginning than at the end. So maybe overall this could be true. But what does it mean? Solid rocket boosters are not economic? A somewhat related fact: the shuttle has to throttle its main engines during ascent within atmoshpere, because the fragile orbiter wings can't stand the wind pressure. Does anone know how much of a performance penalty this means? (And at what height/speed this happens) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle engines chemistry | Rod Stevenson | Space Shuttle | 10 | February 7th 04 01:55 PM |
NERVA engines | David Findlay | Space Shuttle | 4 | January 6th 04 12:18 AM |
Reusable engines by Boing? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 36 | December 24th 03 06:16 AM |
Do NASA's engines destroy the Ozone Layer | Jim Norton | Space Shuttle | 1 | September 27th 03 12:00 AM |
Engines with good thrust to (fuel +oxidizer) ratios? | Ian Stirling | Technology | 0 | August 16th 03 08:27 PM |