Who has the most powerfull rocket?

"ed kyle" wrote in message

The Glushko/Energomash RD-171 is more powerful than F-1
was. RD-171 produces 740 metric tons of sea-level, and
806 tons of vacuum, thrust. F-1 produced 789 tons of
vacuum thrust.

- Ed Kyle

The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together. The engine has four
separate thrust chambers and four nozzles, I believe. Not 100% certain,
though.

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
"ed kyle" wrote in message

The Glushko/Energomash RD-171 is more powerful than F-1
was. RD-171 produces 740 metric tons of sea-level, and
806 tons of vacuum, thrust. F-1 produced 789 tons of
vacuum thrust.

- Ed Kyle

The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together. The engine has four
separate thrust chambers and four nozzles, I believe. Not 100% certain,
though.


Four thrust chambers, but all are driven by a single
monster turbopump. That makes it a single engine
according to most sources.

- Ed Kyle

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"ed kyle" wrote in message

The Glushko/Energomash RD-171 is more powerful than F-1
was. RD-171 produces 740 metric tons of sea-level, and
806 tons of vacuum, thrust. F-1 produced 789 tons of
vacuum thrust.

- Ed Kyle

The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together. The engine has four
separate thrust chambers and four nozzles, I believe. Not 100% certain,
though.

Jon


Looks like the RD-171 has it, and _no mistake_.

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together...

Four thrust chambers, but all are driven by a single
monster turbopump. That makes it a single engine
according to most sources.

Not everyone agrees with that definition, however, and it gets you into
trouble when you try to apply it everywhere. (How many engines in the
classic Atlas? Hint: the pump configuration changed several times.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Henry Spencer) writes:

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together...

Four thrust chambers, but all are driven by a single
monster turbopump. That makes it a single engine
according to most sources.

Not everyone agrees with that definition, however, and it gets you into
trouble when you try to apply it everywhere. (How many engines in the
classic Atlas? Hint: the pump configuration changed several times.)

Oooh! Oooh! I know this one (I hope). Well, first, what do you mean
by classic Atlas? I'm guessing you mean the lettered rather than the
Roman numeraled Atlases and you're leaving out Atlas A since it didn't
have 3 nozzles. In that case, the answer is: it depends on who you ask.
Most people say three, but a case can be made for two (counting the
sustainer as one in all cases, and the booster as either one or two since
it flew with both one or two turbopumps.

Here's another one. If you're going to number the stages, what numbers
do you give them? Classic terminology names rather than numbers them,
calling them the booster and the sustainer, and referring to the Atlas
without an upper stage or solids as a 1-1/2 stage launcher. Then the
upper stage (Agena or Centaur) is called the second stage, implying
maybe that the sustainer is the first (or is it the one and a halfth?)
stage, which would make the booster the first, or maybe the it should be
the zeroth? OK, then what about any solids? Are THEY stage zero (as
some call the solids of the Titan III, since the core stages were
already called one and two from the Titan II it evolved for), or do they
become stage "minus one"?

And if you're so smart, what color should it be?

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
The RD-171 *looks* like four engines bolted together...

Four thrust chambers, but all are driven by a single
monster turbopump. That makes it a single engine
according to most sources.

Not everyone agrees with that definition, however, and it gets you into
trouble when you try to apply it everywhere. (How many engines in the
classic Atlas? Hint: the pump configuration changed several times.)

That is a tricky one. Rocketdyne says the last MA-5A
configuration consisted of a 429,500 lb thrust *booster
engine with two thrust chambers* and a 60,500 lb thrust
sustainer engine. However, the booster's central power
package has two turbopumps, one for each booster chamber,
making it a two-engine booster by the turbopump definition,
even though the booster thrust chambers share one of just
about everything else (gas generator, pneumatic controls,
LOX regulator, etc.). Of course, the sustainer has its
own turbopump, making a total of three main engines.

Earlier Atlas propulsion systems fed both booster thrust
chambers with a single, shared turbopump, making it a
dual-thrust chamber, single-engine booster by the
turbopump definition, and giving these Atlas vehicles two
main engines (not including two verniers) total.

- Ed Kyle