home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
- Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
- Message-ID: <1992Dec25.011350.4716@ke4zv.uucp>
- Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
- Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
- References: <18680@mindlink.bc.ca> <ewright.724959243@convex.convex.com> <rns2_yp@rpi.edu> <1h8ca7INN9nk@news.cerf.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:13:50 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1h8ca7INN9nk@news.cerf.net> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
- >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.
-
- Well that's true with a vertical stack, but if you use a cluster
- stack like Shuttle does, except no solids, then you can fire up
- all the engines on the pad and make sure they're running right
- before liftoff. Picture the putative DC-0 as a ring structure
- with the DC-1 nested in the middle. Your major problem comes
- at separation time. If separation fails completely, you just
- land the whole thing, if separation succeeds, you're home free,
- but if separation *partially* fails, you're screwed.
-
- Gary
-
- --
- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
- 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
- Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
-