You are not logged in.
OK, I know that space craft always put on weight and expense after the initial study is complete. I know it probably was incapable of lifting much to orbit at all... back in 1971.
But with new materials and techniques, can anyone think of any reasons it couldn't work now?
If so, any reasons why the MEV and ERV couldn't be launched on this monster? perhaps a small amount of on orbit mating of ERV and MEV to a NERVA stage assembly?
Interested in any answers to this
Offline
can anyone think of any reasons it couldn't work now
Why is it that everyones' default position is that "new technology" will magically make all things possible? Why is that the default position for grand ideas is that they ought to work?
The reason why it wouldn't work very well is because the thing would be so heavy if made of metal, or so expensive if it were made from composites, that such a rocket doesn't make much sense.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
can anyone think of any reasons it couldn't work now
Why is it that everyones' default position is that "new technology" will magically make all things possible? Why is that the default position for grand ideas is that they ought to work?
The reason why it wouldn't work very well is because the thing would be so heavy if made of metal, or so expensive if it were made from composites, that such a rocket doesn't make much sense.
Such is the siren call of the snake oil saleman!
Offline
Actually my default position is that it wouldn't work, despite my very palpable hopes to the contrary.
But is there anything you can put your finger on that would make it impossible? I can't find a copy of the study, but found a quote in "Encyclopadea Astronautica" to the effect that this was THE most exhaustive study ever done for a shuttle alternative. I know that doesn't mean the design was closed, but surely some math was done, right?
I agree composites would make the beast prohibitively expensive.
Offline
Makes Energiya Buran seem downright cheap.
Offline
Actually my default position is that it wouldn't work, despite my very palpable hopes to the contrary.
But is there anything you can put your finger on that would make it impossible? I can't find a copy of the study, but found a quote in "Encyclopadea Astronautica" to the effect that this was THE most exhaustive study ever done for a shuttle alternative. I know that doesn't mean the design was closed, but surely some math was done, right?
I agree composites would make the beast prohibitively expensive.
Project SERV final review (PDF, 7MB)
Offline
Too many assumptions, too little margin for error, and too far between number crunching and the launch pad.
One should very rarely state that something is impossible if it doesn't obviously break some law of physics... the question then is one of degree, can the rocket lift the advertised mass or not? And if not, how much less?
When you make a rocket bigger, it is true that it becomes more efficient, but real SSTO and powered landings demands a really extreme level of efficiency to yield a practical rocket.
The old DC-I concept rocket also used an aerospike engine, was almost as big as the Shuttle tank, and was to be made largely of composites. Maximum payload of around 10MT of cargo, perhaps a bit more if you omitted the cockpit section...
...and it was scrapped in part because of over-optimistic weight assumptions and tight margins.
Can it be done? Perhaps... but what are the chances? If it were this easy, why would anybody bother doing it any other way?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline