Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:11:54 GMT
In article <139fd4om04ail1d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not talking hypersonic aircraft here, I mean just strapping some
ramjets to the exterior of the vehicle that are feed by its fuel supply
and dropped of once their use is done, like the strap-ons on a Delta II...
Solid-fuel rocket strap-ons do this better, not least because they can
start on the ground, which is the time when rockets really *need* extra
thrust. (People looking at solid strap-ons for the Saturn V concluded
that by far their most important use was to lift more liquid fuel off the
ground.)
By angling the ascent profile to keep the vehicle gaining speed inside
the atmosphere, a significant amount of oxidizer can be saved, and
overall vehicle size decreased, as in the Gnom design...
Which is of virtually no practical importance, except in Gnom's intended
application -- a long-range missile with severe mass constraints imposed
by ground-operations factors.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- From: surfduke
- Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- From: John Halpenny
- Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- From: Pat Flannery
- Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- Prev by Date: Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- Next by Date: Re: What is this spacecraft ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- Next by thread: Re: Can't We call the early Atlas a SSTO?
- Index(es):