A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Delta V Heavy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 15th 07, 03:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The Delta V Heavy

Now that SpaceX has announced the completion of development of their
100,000 lb thrust regeneratively cooled kerosene based engine, has
anyone gotten around to designing any recoverable boosters yet?

Heh heh heh, boosters for what, you say?
  #2  
Old November 16th 07, 10:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default The Delta V Heavy

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you
would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland.
Tin hats anyone?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"kT" wrote in message
...
Now that SpaceX has announced the completion of development of their
100,000 lb thrust regeneratively cooled kerosene based engine, has anyone
gotten around to designing any recoverable boosters yet?

Heh heh heh, boosters for what, you say?



  #3  
Old November 16th 07, 03:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The Delta V Heavy

Brian Gaff wrote:

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you
would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland.


Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two hours
after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha! Impatience!

Tin hats anyone?


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?

So go ahead, giant, give launch vehicle architecture your best shot.

You might be a giant.
  #4  
Old November 17th 07, 12:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default The Delta V Heavy

kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though,
so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery
could be inland.


Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two hours
after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha! Impatience!

Tin hats anyone?


Boeing has already successfully demonstrated the water recovery of an
SSME.


Did they launch a shuttle with it afterwards?

Sylvia.
  #5  
Old November 17th 07, 02:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The Delta V Heavy

Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though,
so you would need to launch them from a place where the recovery
could be inland.


Eventually they would be recovered at the dry land launch site two
hours after launch, but you want everything right away, dontcha!
Impatience!

Tin hats anyone?


Boeing has already successfully demonstrated the water recovery of an
SSME.


Did they launch a shuttle with it afterwards?


No, they test fired it to their satisfaction.

The entire point of the SSME commercialization exercise is to jump start
the high performance COTS sector. The engines are going to be retired.
It doesn't matter if you leave them in orbit, or dump them in the ocean,
you're still going to get a guaranteed 15 flights until you run out of
engines, and even when you run out, you still have 15 engines to use.

In 1973 we retired the J2. Now we're bringing them back.

You figure it out.
  #6  
Old November 18th 07, 07:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default The Delta V Heavy

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:19:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you
would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland.
Tin hats anyone?


Actually, you can launch them from the coast, as long as they're in a
flyback booster that turns around and lands at the launch site. TSTO
anyone?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #7  
Old November 18th 07, 09:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The Delta V Heavy

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:19:35 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You don't want to be recovering complex engines from the sea though, so you
would need to launch them from a place where the recovery could be inland.
Tin hats anyone?


Actually, you can launch them from the coast, as long as they're in a
flyback booster that turns around and lands at the launch site. TSTO
anyone?


That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in
which the core stage is delivered to orbit. The only credible option is
once around near SSTO (NSSTO) of the engine propulsion unit itself. I
also have a Plan B that involves stage and a half booster augmentation.

What I intend to do is just use the payload aeroshield, the nose cone if
you will, as a large shipping container. A five meter nose cone has the
correct geometry for both reentry and SSME return (block first into the
nose cone for stability, axial gee forces similar to launch, nozzle up
to prevent it from getting wet, and padded with an inflatable bubble).

What we want to do is *demonstrate* COTS capabilities, using innovation.

You can read all about it on November 22, 2007, right now I'm busy.
  #8  
Old November 20th 07, 06:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default The Delta V Heavy

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:05:03 -0600, kT wrote:

That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in
which the core stage is delivered to orbit ....


??? On the issue of recovering and using compelx engines frome a
coastal launch, TSTO and SSTO both work. Which is preferable is
another can of worms. But on the sole count of brining engines back
for reuse, both accomplish that, which was my point.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #9  
Old November 20th 07, 06:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default The Delta V Heavy

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:16:52 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:05:03 -0600, kT wrote:

That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in
which the core stage is delivered to orbit ....


??? On the issue of recovering and using compelx engines frome a
coastal launch, TSTO and SSTO both work.


You don't even need a coastal launch, if the vehicles are fully
reusable.
  #10  
Old November 20th 07, 11:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The Delta V Heavy

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:05:03 -0600, kT wrote:

That defeats the purpose of single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceflight, in
which the core stage is delivered to orbit ....


??? On the issue of recovering and using compelx engines frome a
coastal launch, TSTO and SSTO both work. Which is preferable is
another can of worms. But on the sole count of brining engines back
for reuse, both accomplish that, which was my point.


Actually, no, the EELVs are TSTO, and they don't recover engines, yet.

When TSTO EELVs start regularly making the ISS run after the collapse of
ESAS and VSE, then soon there will be a market for on orbit upper stages
and their engines. I mean, why would you want to throw away a perfectly
good vacuum startable upper stage, after you've put it up into orbit?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here, where I come from, we
call that insanity. You can call it whatever you want.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Delta V Heavy kT History 56 December 2nd 07 10:07 PM
Since Boeing and LM are partnering 50/50 and Boeing already has Delta IV Heavy does that mean we'll never see the Atlas V Heavy? D. Scott Ferrin History 5 May 6th 05 05:34 PM
Delta IV Heavy Seven up Ilpo Lagerstedt Technology 3 January 11th 05 09:54 PM
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars Damon Hill Policy 1 December 22nd 04 08:39 PM
Delta-IV Heavy First Flight Status & Delta-IV Growth Options Iain Young Policy 6 August 14th 04 09:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.