Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:03:22 -0400
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dfce6$4360d6d1$927a2ce9$21813@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Except that the shut down process is so violent, you might as well say
that
> solids can be destroyed on command.
>
> Also, for a reusable vehicle, shutting down a liquid engine doesn't
> necessarily destroy the engine. When you shut down a solid, you end up
> doing things like blowing off the nose and the thrust chamber at the same
> time. This effectively eliminates the possibility of reusing the engine.
I meant nozzle instead of thrust chamber. You can blow both ends off the
solid at the same time, so that the resulting release of pressure from each
end (roughly) cancels out to zero thrust.
Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- References:
- Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Ray
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Ray
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Jeff Findley
- Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by Date: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|