The Delta V Heavy

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"kT" wrote in message
...
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?

Does that include *reuse* of said engine, at less cost than the usual
recovery and refurbishment method? If so, which engine and which Shuttle
launch?

Parts of it, maybe, who knows. I am not intimately familiar with the
procedures of SSME maintenance and refurbishment, yet. I just want to
fly them out, after shuttle retirement, and I'm assuming there are
15,000 or so STS employees who will be eager to help me do it.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:04:51 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:


Jeff Findley wrote:
The refueling problem is the bigger problem.

The fuel settling problem has *already* been solved by all upper stages
which are restartable. It's essentially a non-issue.

But there's no reason for the upper stage used to launch Ares 1 to be
restartable.

Except for significantly increased performance to any orbit much above
400 kilometers, that is. And that includes some pretty useful orbits,
like the ones you'd like to park your serious infrastructure in.

Virtually all modern medium to heavy launch vehicles do have restartable
upper stages, with good reasons, and even the small launchers often have
an optional restartable liquid-propellant propulsion system that can be
sandwiched between the nominal upper stage and the payload.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling wrote:
Except for significantly increased performance to any orbit much above
400 kilometers, that is. And that includes some pretty useful orbits,
like the ones you'd like to park your serious infrastructure in.


We're right up against the wall at the moment in regards to weight.
Any orbit changes will be done via the Orion itself after the upper Ares
stage was separated.
In fact, last time I heard about it, the upper stage wasn't even going
to get the Orion completely into orbit...it will give the final velocity
kick itself, leaving the upper stage on a suborbital path to reenter the
atmosphere like a Shuttle ET.

Virtually all modern medium to heavy launch vehicles do have restartable
upper stages, with good reasons, and even the small launchers often have
an optional restartable liquid-propellant propulsion system that can be
sandwiched between the nominal upper stage and the payload.


Yeah, but most of those are sending payloads up into GEO; Orion can't
get much over 400 miles up before running into the Van Allen belt.
That works fine on a lunar mission where the spacecraft can pass through
it at very high velocity; but you don't want to start orbiting in a
radiation field like that.
You send Orion up to GEO and you are going to have one hell of a retro
burn to get it back down, also

Pat

"kT" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"kT" wrote in message
...
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?

Does that include *reuse* of said engine, at less cost than the usual
recovery and refurbishment method? If so, which engine and which Shuttle
launch?

Parts of it, maybe, who knows.

You should. Haven't you done any actual homework?

surfduke wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:04 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
The refueling problem is the bigger problem.
The fuel settling problem has *already* been solved by all upper stages
which are restartable. It's essentially a non-issue.
But there's no reason for the upper stage used to launch Ares 1 to be
restartable. Putting ullage pods on it, like were used on the S-IVB of
the Saturn V, would simply add more weight to a already overweight vehicle.
Of course, given the mass fraction of a LOX/LH2 powered vehicle, the big
problem as you say would be getting enough propellants into orbit to
refuel it.
Maybe it's time to dust off the Sea Dragon plans?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29

Pat

Go-Go Sea Dragon! I still think it was a cool idea.

Just watch out for that tsunami.

My arch nemesis is a sea dragon nut too.

Sea dragon eeeeeeeevil.

Carl

"kT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 5:42 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"kT" wrote in message

...

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"kT" wrote in message
...
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?

Does that include *reuse* of said engine, at less cost than the usual
recovery and refurbishment method? If so, which engine and which
Shuttle
launch?

Parts of it, maybe, who knows.

You should. Haven't you done any actual homework?

Of course I have

Then, let's see which engine(s) were reused on which flight after being
undergoing a water recovery.

I do have SSMEs

What, you bought an SSME at a NASA surplus?

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 5:42 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"kT" wrote in message

...

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
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?
Does that include *reuse* of said engine, at less cost than the usual
recovery and refurbishment method? If so, which engine and which
Shuttle
launch?
Parts of it, maybe, who knows.
You should. Haven't you done any actual homework?
Of course I have

Then, let's see which engine(s) were reused on which flight after being
undergoing a water recovery.

I guess expecting any of you idiots to do your own research is just
asking too much from the crackpots :

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...e.960827a.html

Number 2017. I heard #2019 was a real runner, it even flew all the way
to orbit with a large hydrogen leak.

I do have SSMEs

What, you bought an SSME at a NASA surplus?

I am a US citizen. As far as I know, I own them.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:57:39 -0600, kT wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 5:42 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"kT" wrote in message

...

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
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?
Does that include *reuse* of said engine, at less cost than the usual
recovery and refurbishment method? If so, which engine and which
Shuttle
launch?
Parts of it, maybe, who knows.
You should. Haven't you done any actual homework?
Of course I have

Then, let's see which engine(s) were reused on which flight after being
undergoing a water recovery.

I guess expecting any of you idiots to do your own research is just
asking too much from the crackpots :

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...e.960827a.html

Number 2017. I heard #2019 was a real runner, it even flew all the way
to orbit with a large hydrogen leak.

I do have SSMEs

What, you bought an SSME at a NASA surplus?

I am a US citizen. As far as I know, I own them.

Well, have fun with that. Bring a camera when you go to pick them up.
Bettter yet, have one of your friends hold the camera while you yell,
"Don't tase me, bro!"

"Bob the Tomato" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:57:39 -0600, kT wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
I do have SSMEs

What, you bought an SSME at a NASA surplus?

I am a US citizen. As far as I know, I own them.

Well, have fun with that. Bring a camera when you go to pick them up.
Bettter yet, have one of your friends hold the camera while you yell,
"Don't tase me, bro!"

Isn't it obvious that kT is off his rocker? I'd like to see him try to take
*any* US government property using that reasoning. The resulting news
report would be hilarious!

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:20:55 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


"Bob the Tomato" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:57:39 -0600, kT wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
I do have SSMEs

What, you bought an SSME at a NASA surplus?

I am a US citizen. As far as I know, I own them.

Well, have fun with that. Bring a camera when you go to pick them up.
Bettter yet, have one of your friends hold the camera while you yell,
"Don't tase me, bro!"

Isn't it obvious that kT is off his rocker? I'd like to see him try to take
*any* US government property using that reasoning. The resulting news
report would be hilarious!

Jeff

Well, using that reasoning, the US isn't using the Constitution any
more, so I think I should have it.

Even if there were 300 million of them available used, it doesn't mean
that everyone can just have one. My nutjob meter just went off-scale
high.