"Real" calculations are normalized by static and flight tests. My term I admit, but a valuable one.
"Real" calculations are normalized by static and flight tests. My term I admit, but a valuable one.
An Aerospace M motor has been tested at Frontier Rocketry by local university students. The project has been going on for over a year.
SSTO requires some kind of nozzle system that compensates for the pressure changes from ground level to space. That means either multiple motors (which are probably too heavy), aerospike/plug nozzle, or a variable expansion nozzle (I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology here, but it's a conventional engine with mechanically adjustable elements to change the nozzle expansion ratio as pressure drops).
On the other hand, this statement is, at least in spirit, correct. They wanted SSTO because it was sexy and at least sounded cheap to operate. The Shuttle showed us that reusability can be highly overrated in terms of cost savings. I strongly suspect the same is true of SSTO. I think you should set cost and performance goals, then let the engineers work out the best way to make that happen. Giving them a technology first (SSTO, or scramjets, or complete reusability) and then expecting them to achieve an economical, safe, and practical system is totally wrong-headed. It's also very, very, NASA.
Yeah, but for an SSTO vehicle like the VentureStar, all the margins are razor thin. This could be, and probably is, a critical factor.
>
yet
and yet more yet and yet more yet more yet and yet more yet more yet more yet and yet more yet more yet more yet more yet and yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet and yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet and yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet more yet
You see? The Yeti DOES exist...
David Erbas-White
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.