#21
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
In article ,
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote: Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've managed SSTO. No actual SSTOs, yet. There have been several SSTO-capable expendable rocket stages built, but nobody has ever thought it worthwhile to actually fly one of them as an SSTO. The S-IC and the Titan II first stage were both in the right ballpark, although both would need less engine thrust, and at least the Titan stage would need throttleable engines. Mitch Burnside Clapp's analysis said that straightforward Atlas and Delta variants could do it too. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: It's almost going to have to be something using balloon tankage to get the mass fraction to where it's good enough to do the job. Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message nk.net... So.. what could you do with say: 200lbs 500lbs 1000lbs I think the first 2 are basically "small sat" type things. 1000lbs, a bare minimum once around capsule? This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space about 16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either 1 oz or 1 kg into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser gyros. The discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines would be needed. I kept the printouts for several years. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Scott Hedrick wrote: This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space about 16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either 1 oz or 1 kg into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser gyros. The discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines would be needed. I kept the printouts for several years. I can't find it now, but a few weeks back I stumbled on someone trying to do that with a diminutive multistage rocket out on the web. I think it uses pressure-fed hypergolic fuels, and is around 15 feet long IIRC. Pat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Pat Flannery wrote: It's almost going to have to be something using balloon tankage to get the mass fraction to where it's good enough to do the job. Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale. Certainly a space shuttle main engine could do it with any decent tankage. I want to do it. I'm going to do it. It shall be done. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Pat Flannery wrote:
Scott Hedrick wrote: This reminds me of some of the discussion that went on in sci.space about 16-17 years ago about the smallest rocket that could put either 1 oz or 1 kg into orbit. It was the first time I'd heard of ring laser gyros. The discussion veered off into how many model rocket engines would be needed. I kept the printouts for several years. I can't find it now, but a few weeks back I stumbled on someone trying to do that with a diminutive multistage rocket out on the web. I think it uses pressure-fed hypergolic fuels, and is around 15 feet long IIRC. Pat I remember the thread Scott refers to. IIRC, there is an amateur group out in CA that is using that as its baseline since the supersonic milestone by amateurs has been met. Spaceflight is the next amateur milestone. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
I wrote:
No actual SSTOs, yet. There have been several SSTO-capable expendable rocket stages built... The S-IC and the Titan II first stage were both in the right ballpark... straightforward Atlas and Delta variants could do it too. Addendum: And there have been several rediscoveries of the fact that if you put six or seven SSMEs underneath an ET, even with generous allowances for things like thrust structure, it makes orbit with about the same payload as the shuttle. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Mar 6, 3:26 am, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
Interestingly enough, both the Titan II first stage and the S-IC had lower tank mass, in proportion to contents, than the Atlas E did. (Some of the other Atlas variants may have done better, but I don't have numbers for them handy. Atlas tank-wall thickness got dialed up and down to suit the application.) Mind you, the Titan stage benefitted from higher propellant densities, and the S-IC from sheer scale. There was a proposed S-IC stage and a half derivative, the S-ID. It would drop the 4 outer engines (to be recovered) and was capable of orbiting 22 tons. I wonder if it would have had a lower cost than 2 stage EELVs. The up side was retaining heavy lift capacity. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvb.htm |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Charles Buckley wrote: I remember the thread Scott refers to. IIRC, there is an amateur group out in CA that is using that as its baseline since the supersonic milestone by amateurs has been met. Spaceflight is the next amateur milestone. The article actually had a picture of the rocket; it was pretty hilarious-looking. Pat |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Henry Spencer wrote: Addendum: And there have been several rediscoveries of the fact that if you put six or seven SSMEs underneath an ET, even with generous allowances for things like thrust structure, it makes orbit with about the same payload as the shuttle. What about RS-68s? Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The 100/10/1 Rule. | kT | Space Shuttle | 156 | March 28th 07 03:25 AM |
Going Forth to Rule the World | Warhol | Misc | 0 | May 22nd 06 05:19 PM |
Is this like some kind of rule? | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | January 16th 06 12:59 PM |
Republicans Rule | Mark | Misc | 5 | May 28th 04 12:56 PM |
Does Religion Rule ? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 2 | March 4th 04 11:34 AM |