|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
On 9 Sep 2003 08:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What that means that you don't do what NASA does just because they did. As you already pointed out, if the ROTON used drop tanks then you drop them when you have to abort. If you use booster rockets make then hybrids or liquid fuel. But why assume that ROTON will use solids just because NASA does. As soon as you get away from the solid booster idea, the cost of design starts going way up, you have just moved into unknown (at least for the U.S.) territory. But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Rand Simberg wrote: Expendable rockets do. We've no experience base with reusables, other than Shuttle, which has never exploded... No, it just falls apart on the way up or down, as opposed to exploding; but from the viewpoint of the cargo and crew, that's not much of a difference. Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Rand Simberg wrote: But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days. Still, we do have a lot of experience in them, and it's hard to beat them for downright simplicity of design. Pat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: But the cost (and safety) of operations starts going way down. I doubt if any economically-viable manned system will ever use solid boosters. They're an archaic throwback to ICBM days. Still, we do have a lot of experience in them, and it's hard to beat them for downright simplicity of design. It's hard to beat a stick of dynamite for simplicity of design, but I wouldn't ride one into space. Simplicity of design is not the key to either low cost or safety. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: Expendable rockets do. We've no experience base with reusables, other than Shuttle, which has never exploded... No, it just falls apart on the way up or down, as opposed to exploding; but from the viewpoint of the cargo and crew, that's not much of a difference. That's a separate issue. I was simply clarifying the point that rockets don't necessarily intrinsically explode. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Pat Flannery :
rk wrote: Or perhaps something a bit different like Rotary Rocket? I think that whereas single-stage-to-orbit is a nice idea, past experience has shown that it is mighty difficult to achieve in the real world due to weight creep on the vehicle. On the other hand, something along the lines of VentureStar with a disposable wrap-around drop tank ala Starclipper might have a quite good chance of succeeding with our present state of technology. Rotary Rocket always seemed more like a pipe dream than a reasonable vehicle, and its unique spinning rocket engine reminded me of the giant flat turbojet inside the Avro Silverbug saucer aircraft...an idea that seems great and revolutionary...on paper. Pat I think you missed his point. I don't think he was saying that it had to be a SSTO, but rather that NASA is stuck in a rut about designs. They only look at the three basic models. No DC-X - rocket landing. No ROTON - prop landing. No laser/microwave launch, no ballon landing, no mid air-capture, no mid air linkup. NASA still tries to do things the same old way, while avoiding as much as possible any alternative appoachs. I am not saying other appoaches are better, rather that NASA avoids them like the plague. Earl Colby Pottinger -- I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos, SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Rand Simberg wrote: It's hard to beat a stick of dynamite for simplicity of design, but I wouldn't ride one into space. Simplicity of design is not the key to either low cost or safety. How about hybrids then, such as the nitrous oxide/rubber or plastic one to be used on Spaceship 1? (every time I write that, I keep hearing an announcer saying in an echo-chamber effect "Join us next week for the further cosmic adventures of S-P-A-C-E-S-H-I-P...O-N-E...!" followed by an oscilloscope sound and zoom noise.) Pat |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Rand Simberg wrote: That's a separate issue. I was simply clarifying the point that rockets don't necessarily intrinsically explode. Funny, mine usually did...but sometimes you have to help them along by pushing The Big Red Button...most of the time that is the self-destruct one; but sometimes the "launch" one will work every bit as well. Just ask the Russians: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m2.htm "The missile would feature a new cold-launch gas generator designed by Zhukov at FTDT Soyuz. Flight trials of the missile with the 15F173 multiple-warhead bus began on 23 March 1986. The first launch was a tremendous failure. The cold-launch mortar fired, but the rest of the launch sequence failed. The missile exploded in the silo, blowing the 100 tonne silo lid far into the air and leaving only a huge crater at LC-101 Baikonur where the silo once was. The silo was beyond repair. " Pat |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OSP: reliability and survivability
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: I think you missed his point. I don't think he was saying that it had to be a SSTO, but rather that NASA is stuck in a rut about designs. They only look at the three basic models. No DC-X - rocket landing. No ROTON - prop landing. No laser/microwave launch, no ballon landing, no mid air-capture, no mid air linkup. NASA still tries to do things the same old way, while avoiding as much as possible any alternative appoachs. I am not saying other appoaches are better, rather that NASA avoids them like the plague. True, we don't seem to be having much luck with what we are presently contemplating- maybe we should go right back to the basics and start from scratch as regards concepts...that being the case, maybe we should look more seriously at the Rutan carrier aircraft/parasite vehicle idea if it pans out; it's been suggested many times, but other than the X-planes and Pegasus hasn't seen much development, (at least in the unclassified world) an aircraft capable of reaching around Mach 4 and around 200,00 feet during a jet/rocket driven ascent wouldn't be all that difficult to design with present technology, and that could effectively be the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit reusable vehicle, especially if the orbital portion had a drop tank on it. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|