NASA Encounters Possible Problems With Crew Launch Vehicle Design

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Even with seven RL-10s, you end up with too little thrust to get the
payload they want.
Yeah, but Henry Spencer would love it.
It combines clustering with his favorite engine.

It's not even a candidate for being loved unless it does the job.

Now Henry, how did you get through my filter.

Ok, until I have to deal with it, both the Delta IV
and the Atlas V need and RL-50/RL-60, but your
beloved NASA has not put one dime into it.

We need to incrementally increase the thrust
and thrust to weight ratio of these kinds of
open cycle engines to their maximum theoretical
levels, 50,000 lbs, then 100,000 lbs, and finally
up to about 200,000 lbs if that is possible.

We need to accelerate the IPD, and then incrementally
increase the thrust and thrust to weight ratios of these
full flow closed cycle engines to their maximum theoretical
levels, first 250,000 lbs, then 500,000 lbs, and finally
1,000,000 lbs, it that is indeed possible.

During the interim, clearly we could cluster RL-60s and
use SSMEs in reusable and retrofitable systems to
'get the job done'. Certainly we should be working
on channel wall nozzle technology with the Russians.

We need to get those RD-0120s out of mothballs.
The Russians are out international partners.

Oh ... plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
[...]
Now Henry, how did you get through my filter.

Ah, the hubris of filtering Henry!

but your beloved NASA has not put one dime into it.

I haven't noticed Henry being fond of NASA, much less loving it.

/dps

snidely wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Now Henry, how did you get through my filter.

Ah, the hubris of filtering Henry!

He doesn't have anything to say except perhaps on sci.space.history.

Even the Spencer Launcher was just another Mook ripoff.

We want to colonize space for citizens.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:28:54 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

Now Henry, how did you get through my filter.

Oh ... plonk

Irrefutable proof that you are nuts.

plonk

Dale

Dale wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:28:54 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

Now Henry, how did you get through my filter.

Oh ... plonk

Irrefutable proof that you are nuts.

Maybe, but not necessarily.

Just focused on future results,
not past glory or repeating past mistakes.

I'm old enough to know exactly what those mistakes were,
so I don't need Henry Spencer to tell me what they were.

plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:59:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Not a big surprise. The SSME was never designed to be air started, so and
air startable SSME is really an engine development program in and of itself,
partly due to the complex startup procedure...

Interestingly enough, when Rocketdyne looked at this some years ago, they
concluded that an air start for the SSME wasn't a big deal, requiring only
minor changes.

I wonder whether they were just over-optimistic back then, or whether the
RS-25 effort was quietly trying to bundle in other changes -- perhaps cost
reduction, the SSME not being exactly a cheap engine to throw away -- and
got snagged by that.

My recollection is that, while the changes were minor, the
requalification testing would be many hundreds of millions of dollars.