Re: DIY space transport

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:57:31 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>
>Kelly McDonald wrote:
>
>>The SSME is a prime example of this. Performance at the cost of
>>everything else.
>>
>
>Certainly not the simplest rocket engine design of all time; but if you
>are going to be able to reuse it, it's probably worth going with one
>with all the bells and whistles, and as high a ISP as you can get.
>The "expendable" SSME for the SDV cargo carrier hits me as odd though,
>given the motor's complexity. I'd go with the RS-68.
>
>Pat

Why?? The Shuttle's original purpose was to be a cheap routine method
to access LEO. Not be a bleeding edge technology demonstrator. Which
is what the SSME was.

In the case of the Shuttle it problably would have been far more cost
effective to have build a more robust, reusable engine, with a lower
performance. Not having its high chamber pressures and complex staged
combustion design in favor of an engine you didn't need to remove and
tear down each flight would have been a good start. So what if it
would have meant a larger ET.

Sure the SSME's arn't as cranky as they once were, but how much time
and money did it take to get them to this point.

This was probably the biggest failing of the Shuttle programme, they
tried to make it all things to all people. They should have listened
to Faget when he drew his DC-3 design.

Kelly McDonald


.

Quantcast