|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 26, 6:19*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Robert Clark wrote: Interestingly SpaceX says the side boosters on the Falcon Heavy will have a 30 to 1 mass ratio. This improvement is probably coming from the fact it is using the lighter Merlin 1D engines, and because scaling up a rocket actually improves your mass ratio, and also not having to support the weight of an upper stage and heavy payload it can be made lighter. If they are to be cranking these things out, presumably they don't want the side boosters to be too different and say require a different production line no? rick jones -- That seems reasonable to save on costs. But if that were the case why wouldn't they just say the lower stages, and so also the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage, will have a 30 to 1 mass ratio? Note that the mass the core stage will have to support for the Falcon Heavy is non-trivial. You have the 53 metric ton payload, but also the upper stage. Based on Falcon 9 upper stage gross mass of ca. 50 mT and the F9 v1.1 50% larger size, the upper stage in this case might be 75 mT. With the large fairing weight and interstage weight this would be over 130 mT. Bob Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 28, 9:08*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Jul 26, 6:19*pm, Rick Jones wrote: In sci.space.history Robert Clark wrote: Interestingly SpaceX says the side boosters on the Falcon Heavy will have a 30 to 1 mass ratio. This improvement is probably coming from the fact it is using the lighter Merlin 1D engines, and because scaling up a rocket actually improves your mass ratio, and also not having to support the weight of an upper stage and heavy payload it can be made lighter. If they are to be cranking these things out, presumably they don't want the side boosters to be too different and say require a different production line no? rick jones -- *That seems reasonable to save on costs. But if that were the case why wouldn't they just say the lower stages, and so also the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage, will have a 30 to 1 mass ratio? *Note that the mass the core stage will have to support for the Falcon Heavy is non-trivial. You have the 53 metric ton payload, but also the upper stage. Based on Falcon 9 upper stage gross mass of ca. 50 mT and the F9 v1.1 50% larger size, *the upper stage in this case might be 75 mT. With the large fairing weight and interstage weight this would be over 130 mT. * *Bob Clark Another one of clark's assine threads on the useless SSTO |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 30, 8:24*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
His posts are far more useful than what you just posted. Jeff -- And still waiting for one of your posts to have any relevancy or original thought. Same old, let's bash NASA and established players. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | bob haller | Policy | 1 | July 18th 12 10:37 AM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | bob haller | Policy | 3 | July 17th 12 12:49 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Johnny1a | Policy | 37 | July 16th 12 04:12 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Tim Little[_2_] | History | 7 | July 11th 12 01:44 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Nun Giver | Policy | 0 | July 7th 12 08:24 PM |