Re: SRB-Based EELV Launcher Article

From: Thomas Lee Elifritz (crackpots_at_everywhere.net)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:29:30 GMT

September 23, 2004

edkyle99@hotmail.com wrote:

>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
>
>>September 22, 2004
>>
>>
>>>>'All new' is dishonest. This [Delta III/IV second] stage was an
>>>>evolutionary development.
>>>>The RS-68 and CBC were nearly 'all new'.
>>>>
>>>>That's not what Boeing said.
>>>>
>>>>From:
>>>>"http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SA998XVjNkYJ:www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/RocketEnginePapers/EvolvedExpendableLaunchVehicleSystem-RS-68MainEngineDevelopment.doc+rs-68++development+j-2&hl=en"
>>>>
>>>>"Boeing has taken an evolutionary approach to Delta IV system
>>>>development, balancing the use of heritage hardware with development of
>>>>new hardware. One of the major new developments for Delta IV is the
>>>>RS-68 main propulsion system.
>>>>... Conceptual studies of the RS-68 were an outgrowth of the NASA Space
>>>>Transportation Main Engine (STME) Project begun in 1988. ..."
>>>>
>>>>Others see it that way too.
>>>>
>>>>From: "http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_m.htm"
>>>>
>>>>" ... the RS-68 engine does not rely on new technology, exotic
>>>>materials, or tight-tolerance manufacturing processes. The RS-68 uses
>>>>... a low-pressure chamber design evolved from the J-2, and an
>>>>available bolt-on nozzle. "
>>>>
That nozzle is my biggest bitch, and the RS-68 is heavy as hell, but at
least they didn't take a J-2 out of storage and call it 'revolutionary'.
It's new hardware. However, you have adequately demonstrated my point,
designs are evolutionary even if the hardware is new. Beal tried
something different, and he failed miserably, and Musk will surely be
over budget and late, even if he doesn't blow it up on the pad, and he
has no market either. Kerosene is for assholes.

What I would like to see is a fully regenerative closed cycle engine and
channel wall nozzle, with the weight of an SSME and the thrust of a
RS-68, and then even if they had to blow it off the back of the tankage,
and recover it in the ocean via parachute, that would be better than
putting a CEV on a SRB. It has already been demonstrated with the SSME.
That was the original SLI premise, before they corrupted that into OSP,
and further corrupted that into CEV. These programs are dead, we need to
go back to clean *** SSME evolution - Integrated Powerhead
Demonstrator, RS-83, Cobra, whatever ... SLI, not SEI. You can't make
small steps when you aren't even willing to take the first step.

SRBs are for children.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Quantcast