Re: Ares I first stage design changes again?

behlingjo@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:26 am, kT <cos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
behlin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 9, 3:35 pm, kT <cos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Nothing at all significant about nearly a 9 to 1 fuel to mass ratio, and
the availability of many high performance engines that easily exceed the
thrust to weight ratio and Isp required for single stage to orbit
space flight?

But it isn't a SSTO, but an upperstage so your analogy is meaningless.

Actually, most upperstages have high mass ratios and T/W less than
one. The upperstage is just like the Centaur or Delta IV
upperstage.

So you are pointing out a non issue. The issue is the booster

And the solution is the upper stage, as first stage, delivered to orbit.

No five segment solid rocket boosters and nonexistent J2-X are required.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares I first stage design changes again?
    ... the availability of many high performance engines that easily exceed the ... thrust to weight ratio and Isp required for single stage to orbit ... but an upperstage so your analogy is meaningless. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares I first stage design changes again?
    ... the availability of many high performance engines that easily exceed the ... but an upperstage so your analogy is meaningless. ... most upperstages have high mass ratios and T/W less than ...
    (sci.space.policy)