home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!convex!ewright
- From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
- Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
- Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
- Message-ID: <ewright.725141307@convex.convex.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:08:27 GMT
- References: <18822@mindlink.bc.ca>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
- Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
- X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
- Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
- not necessarily those of CONVEX.
- Lines: 21
-
- In <18822@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
-
- > Agreed. Failure of second and third stage engines of conventional
- >launchers to ignite after staging has historically been a common cause of
- >launch failures. However, I presume that the DC-1 will have the capability
- >of surviving at least 1 engine failure when at near maximum fuel load
- >(otherwise failure of any one out of multiple engines would cause a crash in
- >the period immediately following an SSTO takeoff).
-
- However, you've overloaded the DC-1 to get that 5x payload capacity
- you talk about. It's going to be over max takeoff weight.
-
- > I grant that no amount of engine out capability will help a DC-1 if
- >it separates from the booster and none of the engines fire because of a fuel
- >problem.
-
- Or if you have negative separation, or separation followed by a
- collision, or several other scenarios you need to worry about.
-
- The problems of staging are not nearly as trivial as you make
- them out.
-