#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Now that SpaceX has announced the completion of development of their
100,000 lb thrust regeneratively cooled kerosene based engine, has anyone gotten around to designing any recoverable boosters yet? Heh heh heh, boosters for what, you say? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you
would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Tin hats anyone? Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "kT" wrote in message ... Now that SpaceX has announced the completion of development of their 100,000 lb thrust regeneratively cooled kerosene based engine, has anyone gotten around to designing any recoverable boosters yet? Heh heh heh, boosters for what, you say? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Brian Gaff wrote:
You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two hours after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha! Impatience! Tin hats anyone? Boeing has already successfully demonstrated the water recovery of an SSME. So I guess I'm just standing on the toes of giant's, am I not? So go ahead, giant, give launch vehicle architecture your best shot. You might be a giant. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote: You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two hours after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha! Impatience! Tin hats anyone? Boeing has already successfully demonstrated the water recovery of an SSME. Did they launch a shuttle with it afterwards? Sylvia. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote: Brian Gaff wrote: You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two hours after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha! Impatience! Tin hats anyone? Boeing has already successfully demonstrated the water recovery of an SSME. Did they launch a shuttle with it afterwards? No, they test fired it to their satisfaction. The entire point of the SSME commercialization exercise is to jump start the high performance COTS sector. The engines are going to be retired. It doesn't matter if you leave them in orbit, or dump them in the ocean, you're still going to get a guaranteed 15 flights until you run out of engines, and even when you run out, you still have 15 engines to use. In 1973 we retired the J2. Now we're bringing them back. You figure it out. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:19:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Tin hats anyone? Actually, you can launch them from the coast, as long as they're in a flyback booster that turns around and lands at the launch site. TSTO anyone? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:19:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland. Tin hats anyone? Actually, you can launch them from the coast, as long as they're in a flyback booster that turns around and lands at the launch site. TSTO anyone? That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in which the core stage is delivered to orbit. The only credible option is once around near SSTO (NSSTO) of the engine propulsion unit itself. I also have a Plan B that involves stage and a half booster augmentation. What I intend to do is just use the payload aeroshield, the nose cone if you will, as a large shipping container. A five meter nose cone has the correct geometry for both reentry and SSME return (block first into the nose cone for stability, axial gee forces similar to launch, nozzle up to prevent it from getting wet, and padded with an inflatable bubble). What we want to do is *demonstrate* COTS capabilities, using innovation. You can read all about it on November 22, 2007, right now I'm busy. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Michael Gallagher wrote:
as long as they're in a flyback booster that turns around and lands at the launch site. That's all it takes? Really? Whoa, somebody should have come up with this long ago... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
Monte Davis wrote: That's all it takes? Really? Whoa, somebody should have come up with this long ago... I still want to see that Falcon 9 go up at the end of next year as Elon Musk has promised. "Okay, we've tried to launch the Falcon 1 twice; first time she almost hit 5,000 feet. Next time she almost made it to orbit... now our new booster with nine Merlin engines on stage one is almost ready to go. We're going to hop-scotch over any little problems and go straight from the Jupiter to the Saturn I." Team Musk: "Jah, mien Fuhrer! It shall verk!" I'm waiting for the biggest ka-blewie on the pad you ever laid eyes on. :-D Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Delta V Heavy
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:05:03 -0600, kT wrote:
That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in which the core stage is delivered to orbit .... ??? On the issue of recovering and using compelx engines frome a coastal launch, TSTO and SSTO both work. Which is preferable is another can of worms. But on the sole count of brining engines back for reuse, both accomplish that, which was my point. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy? | D. Scott Ferrin | History | 5 | May 6th 05 05:34 PM |
Delta IV Heavy Seven up | Ilpo Lagerstedt | Technology | 3 | January 11th 05 08:54 PM |
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars | Damon Hill | Policy | 1 | December 22nd 04 07:39 PM |
Delta-IV Heavy First Flight Status & Delta-IV Growth Options | Iain Young | Policy | 6 | August 14th 04 09:37 PM |
Delta IV Heavy - FRF? | Reed Snellenberger | Technology | 0 | December 12th 03 03:19 PM |