![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |