Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- From: Damon Hill <damon1SIX1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:19:35 -0500
Cruithne3753 <cruithneThirtySevenFiftyThree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:fo6ri.31900$2U6.31775@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
So, why not "double-barrel" a pair of 4-segs mounted side by side, with
either the rest of the stack mounted asymmetrically on top of one SRB or
symmetrically with an inverse Y-shaped connection?
Two problems:
Excessive thrust with excessive acceleration. This is about
6 million lbs/thrust on a vehicle that weighs a fraction of
Shuttle.
Takes a simple concept and makes it unnecessarily complex.
The assymetric configuration has been suggested on other
launchers so it might be workable but still comes back to
the first issue.
Perhaps a 'super-sized' Ariane V configuration with three-
segment SRBs to reduce thrust? This still suffers from
problem the second. I'd rather go with a down-sized Ares V
and just not deal with big, skinny long solid/liquid stacks.
The Stick is an awkward concept that just doesn't look
'right', especially when one tries to fix its shortcomings.
The logic that retaining uninterrupted use of Shuttle
SRBs is going to save money seems questionable.
--Damon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- References:
- How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- From: Cruithne3753
- How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- Prev by Date: Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- Next by Date: Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- Previous by thread: Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- Next by thread: Re: How about a "Double-Barrel" Ares I?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
