home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!davsmith
- From: davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
- Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:36:23 GMT
- Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
- Lines: 25
- Message-ID: <1h8ca7INN9nk@news.cerf.net>
- References: <18680@mindlink.bc.ca> <ewright.724959243@convex.convex.com> <rns2_yp@rpi.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
-
- There's an advantage (I believe) of SSTO vs multi-stage systems that's
- getting left out here. When launching a DC-1 all the engines are started
- and then throttled up. This means that if an engine refuses to start,
- OR if there is a major fuel system problem such that none of the engines
- will start you can abort the launch on the pad. With the two-stager
- enough engines have to start at separation time to assure that the DC-1
- can at least abort.
-
- I would assume that engine start is when things are most likely to go wrong.
- This means you have to be extra careful to check all the things related to
- engine starting, etc. (I'm not sure how to categorize the risks in
- restarting the engines to de-orbit. Is it less risky than the initial
- start because the engines have already run once or is it equally or
- more risky? There is the option of an EVA to repair engines in orbit
- but you don't have all the spares, equipment or trained personnel you would
- on the ground)
-
- The DC-0 stage should also have the capability to abort and land with
- an attached DC-1 which means extra fuel that normally won't be used, or
- some whomping big parachutes, or ...
-
-
- --
- David L. Smith
- smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net
-