#81
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
richard schumacher wrote: He will start by dropping the pointless qualifier "unmanned". I had a thought here... if NASA built something along these lines it would be spread all over the US: Engines built here, tankage built over there, electronics somewhere else, then assembled at yet another place, and taken from there to a launch site. But if done commercially...since it doesn't stage, you could build it at one place, stick the payload on it, and roll it a mile or so away and launch it. Without staging, one of the main arguments for a seacoast launch site vanishes, and you now have all sorts of options open to you as to where you want your launchpad at. For GEO you still want it as far south as possible, but for polar orbits you can put it just about wherever you want, so why not right next to the rocket factory? You could make it a manned launcher, but NASA would try to get their hands on it, and it would end up being dragged down to KSC. If you do it for commercial and military launches, then it might have a chance of sneaking under the NASA radar. Pat |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: ...keeping the ET's changing center of mass within the limited gimbal range of the SSMEs absolutely dictated putting the LOX tank as far away from the SSMEs as humanly possible. I thought the gimbaling would probably be the main problem... the thing is already fairly unstable without getting it completely unstable by sticking the LH2 on top and having it constantly trying to go out of control. As I understand it, aerodynamic stability did not end up being an overwhelming concern, because the SRBs are such a large part of the stack's mass for most of the atmospheric flight. (Their nozzle gimbals also handle most of the control then.) By the time they depart, the air is thinning out fast and the importance of the aerodynamics is dwindling. The main issue was reducing movement of the center of mass and keeping it within SSME gimbaling range, so that the off-center SSMEs can always have their thrust vector pointed toward it. The SRBs and the ET LOX tank totally dominate the stack's center of mass for most of the flight, so their centers *had* to be in roughly the same direction, as seen from the SSMEs. Was there any particular reason the LOX ended up on top in the Atlas? Gimbaling limits again? Gimbal range wasn't an issue with the engines directly under the tanks. Reducing aerodynamic instability, to go easier on the control system, might have been. I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of exactly why Atlas has the LOX on top. I note that both Jupiter and Thor had it on the bottom. Designers with different priorities, probably. The Atlas's balloon tanks minimize the structural-mass penalty of putting the heavy LOX high up, so the more conventional structures might be expected to encourage putting it on the bottom. Max Hunter, who was chief engineer for Thor, in later years was big on saving structural mass by putting the LOX right above the engines, so that may have been the issue for Thor. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:52:12 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: richard schumacher wrote: He will start by dropping the pointless qualifier "unmanned". I had a thought here... if NASA built something along these lines it would be spread all over the US: Before or after the launch? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:47:25 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote in : Herb Schaltegger wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:39 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote (in article ): Also note that the mass-ratio disparity is not as large as you'd think, because a dense-propellant SSTO needs less delta-V to reach orbit. Um, what? He explained that. What part of the explanation didn't you understand? He kinda sorta explained that. The actual delta-V required to reach orbit is purely a function of orbital mechanics and is independent of propellant density. But the rocket equation does not account for things like gravity and drag losses, and those things do depend on propellant density. Rather than expand the rocket equation to explicitly include those terms, the convention is to apply a fudge factor to the delta-V term. Dense-propellant SSTOs have lower gravity losses so they need a smaller fudge factor. (They also typically have lower drag losses since the dense propellants allow smaller tanks, but that's not as significant as the lower gravity losses.) So a dense-propellant SSTO doesn't really need less delta-V to reach orbit, but you use a smaller delta-V term when modelling one using the rocket equation. It depends on how you use the terms. *Ideal* delta V is the same for all vehicles from a given location, but "actual" is not. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:47:25 -0600, Jorge R. Frank wrote
(in article ): "Paul F. Dietz" wrote in : Herb Schaltegger wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:39 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote (in article ): Also note that the mass-ratio disparity is not as large as you'd think, because a dense-propellant SSTO needs less delta-V to reach orbit. Um, what? He explained that. What part of the explanation didn't you understand? He didn't really. See Jorge's explanation below. He kinda sorta explained that. The actual delta-V required to reach orbit is purely a function of orbital mechanics and is independent of propellant density. Yep. Hence my comment/question. But the rocket equation does not account for things like gravity and drag losses, and those things do depend on propellant density. Rather than expand the rocket equation to explicitly include those terms, the convention is to apply a fudge factor to the delta-V term. Dense-propellant SSTOs have lower gravity losses so they need a smaller fudge factor. (They also typically have lower drag losses since the dense propellants allow smaller tanks, but that's not as significant as the lower gravity losses.) So a dense-propellant SSTO doesn't really need less delta-V to reach orbit, but you use a smaller delta-V term when modelling one using the rocket equation. Thank you, Jorge. -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Pat Flannery wrote:
:Without staging, one of the main arguments for a seacoast :launch site vanishes, and you now have all sorts of options open to you :as to where you want your launchpad at. Actually, no. You still have all the usual downrange range safety issues. This is why launches over water are preferred. If something goes wrong, you're less likely to hit something you don't own. The real answer to this is to get reliability provably up to the point where people think no more of the 'range safety' issues for a launch than they do for those connected with an airplane taking off. -- "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Rand Simberg wrote: Before or after the launch? You probably want to launch it in some fairly desolate area to be on the safe side. But you do get the advantage of getting all your engines firing on the pad prior to liftoff, so you can be sure they are operating correctly. Of course as soon as an engineer sees that they are going to suggest the Atlas engine drop, then suggest dropping the associated tankage as well as the engines, then since that will come to Earth somewhere, it should be on a seacoast... :-D Pat |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Fred J. McCall wrote: Actually, no. You still have all the usual downrange range safety issues. This is why launches over water are preferred. If something goes wrong, you're less likely to hit something you don't own. I say Polar launches take off from North Dakota and fly over Canada, then if something goes wrong it won't fall on something _we_ own. :-( Pat |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:29:15 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Fred J. McCall wrote: Actually, no. You still have all the usual downrange range safety issues. This is why launches over water are preferred. If something goes wrong, you're less likely to hit something you don't own. I say Polar launches take off from North Dakota and fly over Canada, then if something goes wrong it won't fall on something _we_ own. :-( And at worst, it kills a moose, or a polar bear (whose numbers are apparently increasing). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wpolar09.xml Per the headline, I blame global warming. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Rand Simborg : Classic Neocon Fascist
Rand Simberg wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wpolar09.xml Classic neocon fascist science : anecdotal evidence from the telegraph. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
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 |