[AR] clustering big rockets
- From: "John Dom" <johndom@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:29 +0100
Henry Spencer (>) wrote on 261215:
...confusing why a new launcher like SLS still requires SRBs. Politics?
SLS is ... a way of maintaining employment at MSFC and some of the major
shuttle contractors...
I wrote new, in the sense that the SLS version should (incl. SRBs) for the
first time in 45 years re-enable NASA to fly
Saturn V 140 t to LEO missions. Enabling planning of large post STS space
projects.
Why not go for more powerful liquid motors or more of them instead...
Because the US has no suitable large liquid engines.
Can say, Atlas V or Delta IV liquid first stage engines be clustered (not
unlike SpaceX actually does) so SRBs/strapons become unnecessary?
the RS-68 uses the wrong fuel for high-thrust first-stage engines,
Wrong design concept? Wasn't it designed to go for an early Moon base. SSP
2006. Killed LUNA GAIA PROJECT.
Although the Russians have plenty strategic launchers, they kept a lot of
them liquid propelled like the recent Topol-Ms.
The huge Russian Energiya rocket (not a weapon)
http://tinyurl.com/zaofmeu
which sent their Buran space shuttle protoype to orbit carried no SRBs. The
Energiya boosters (or parallel stages) were, like its ME liquid propelled:
UDMH/NTO. In principle they could have been recovered by parachute (over
land?). Bird(s) is now reduced to museum marvels.
I wonder why the French did not go for cooperation on this 5 times more
powerful Energiya: 100 t to LEO, 20 t to GSO, 32 t TLI too, like it did for
the Soyuz carriers. Ariane V versions are only 20 t to GEO and 7 to GSO.
By comparison Saturn V was 140 t to LEO capable.
jd
Other related posts: