Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:41:21 -0000
On Jul 1, 4:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:16 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:So how do you justify the "complexity" observation?
:I've already said that hybrids weigh more. There's no doubt about that.
:I've also observed that the question then is whether the extra weight is
:worth it.
:
:The increased complexity and moving part count is not relevant to a
:discussion about performance.
:
Of course it is. It takes energy to move moving parts. If your
engine has a lot of moving parts, it has more wasted energy during
operation.
How much energy is involved in these extra moving parts? Quantities are
important.
:What specifically? You're trying to argue that it tells me that LACE
:claims that a working LACE engine testbed was working as early as 1960.
:
And we're still using rockets. This should tell you something.
engines are not up to the task, but it could tell me many other things
instead.
LACE engines don't make sense if you're launching vertically. In the
1960s, NASA's goal was beating the Soviets to various aspects of space.
Building a winged lauch vehicle wasn't on their list of priorities, and
still isn't.
Sylvia.
An aerodynamic launch of Skylon is perfectly doable, that is if
sufficient fuel density can be obtained prior to running itself out of
atmosphere from which to extract said energy. Of course, the added
inert mass of those LACE confifured Skylons is imposing a fair amount
of volume and unavoidable inert mass that has to go all the LEO way,
and then some.
Yes, that's a given. There's no need to keep repeating it.
How many extra thousand complex componets did you say Skylon has?
In terms of moving components it has a few extra pumps/turbines that
operate only in the air breathing mode.
Packing along enough LOx and LH2 is going to be an impressive fly-by-
rocket trick, especially if still leaving enough room for packing
along a 12 tonne payload that includes a good number of crew and
passengers that obviously don't care what their ticket to ride happens
to cost (because the rest of us are the ones having to pay for it
all).
The Skylon's dimensions are such that it can hold the liquid oxygen and
hydrogen, plus its payload. This information is all available on
Reaction Engine's site.
BTW, I think your Skylon needs a good pair of fully reusable LRBs.
Then it wouldn't be an SSTO.
Sylvia.
Yes it really would be SSTO, though somewhat like dropping off those
two spare fuel tanks of inert mass, that just so happen to have a
substantial rocket engine within each, getting those released at
perhaps 30 km that'll robotically and/or via remote pilot get flown
back to home base each time.
BTW; if I were running the show (instead of NASA), I'd go as much as
50/50 with your Skylon.
-
Brad Guth
.
- References:
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: BradGuth
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- From: Sylvia Else
- Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- Prev by Date: Re: Biggest Practical Size For A Space Telescope?
- Next by Date: Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- Previous by thread: Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- Next by thread: Re: How big would an SSTO be?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
