A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Why is a LOX/Kero SSTO not rather easy?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old August 31st 03, 07:30 AM
Larry Gales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is a LOX/Kero SSTO not rather easy?


I am not a particular fan of SSTO, but it appears to me that SSTO has
long been within our grasp.

The best figures that I could get for the Titan II 1st stage
(based on Rusty Barton's reply to my earlier post) are a
GLOW 0f 258000 lbs, and a dry weight of 10900, giving it a mass ratio of
23.7. Now comparing it to a LOX/kero vehicle powered by something like
the Russian NK-33, I see the following plus and minus factors affecting
its mass ratio (I am not including a payload in these calculations):

On the minus side, the Titan II 1st stage is not a complete vehicle. It:

(a) lacks a nose cone
(b) lacks most avionics
(c) lacks a cargo bay
(d) has 6% denser fueland so has a slightly smaller fuel tank

On the plus side:
(a) the NK-33 is 420 lbs lighter than the Titan II engine
yet it is sufficient for a vehicle nearly 10% heavier
(b) the structure does not have to support the 32 ton 2nd stage
and so can be significantly lighter.

My guess is that those factors mostly cancel out. I also assume that
making a vehicle reusable adds about 40% to its dry weight:
Wings add 7%
Landing gear add 3%
TPS add 15%
Other add 15%

So if we crank those factors in:
Dry weight = 10900*1.4 = 15300 lbs
Glow = 258000 + (15300 - 10900) = 262400
MR = GLOW/(GLOW-Dry weight) = 262400/15300 = 17.15

Now for the NK-33 we have an average Isp of 331, and given a required
dV of 9200 m/s (300 m/s less than a LH2/LOX rocket due to less air
resistance, lower back pressure losses, and earlier peak acceleration)
we get a required MR of 17.01, which is slightly less than what we
can achieve. So we can make orbit with a single stage using very old
technology.

Of course, this is without payload, but given the fact that the Titan II
1st stage was not optimized for weight (you would not normally optimize a
1st stage) and we have lighter materials today, such as aluminum-lithium
and carbon fiber, I would think we would have the necessary margin
for a significant payload.

We also might fly with a wet wing and eliminate the kerosene tank
altogether. And of course if we scaled it up by a factor of 3
we would gain a substantial economy of scale.


So it appears to me that we have had reusable SSTO capability for
dense fuel vehicles for a long time.

-- Larry
 




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
Cheap, easy to handle fuels/oxidizers Earl Colby Pottinger Technology 41 December 23rd 03 01:04 AM
Why is a LOX/Kero SSTO not rather easy? Larry Gales Technology 14 September 22nd 03 07:22 AM
Why is a LOX/Kero SSTO not rather easy? Larry Gales Technology 1 September 2nd 03 05:49 PM
Low mass ratio SSTO Ian Stirling Technology 15 August 26th 03 07:16 PM
Accelerator Turbojet for SSTO johnhare Technology 0 July 9th 03 10:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.