01-23-2018, 11:39 AM
|
 |
Master Modeler
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tbzep
It seems Space-X isn't the only company with a fetish for the number 9.  |
Indeed--a numerologist could have a field day with that and with other numbers connected with Peter Beck (Rocket Lab's CEO) and Elon Musk, even "proving" that they're the False Prophet and the Antichrist. :-) Also:
While I like the aesthetics of the Saturn I's & IB's 8-engine layout, the "8 around 1" arrangement (which I also like) allows for a narrower airframe. Spreading the desired total first stage thrust among 9 rather than 8 engines also makes it a bit easier to design the engines for their lesser "unit burdens" (in terms of pump speeds, chamber pressure, thrust, etc.), which makes reuse-ability easier (Peter Beck has mentioned that Electron's first stage may be made reusable in the future), and:
Those small Rutherford rocket engines--possibly without their first stage nozzle extensions--could also be used to power a Philip Bono-type aerospike plug-nozzle, base-first re-entry SSTO vehicle (his designs used many small rocket engines ringed around the altitude-compensating aerospike nozzle, which gave it deep-throttling capability--by utilizing more or fewer of the engine modules--for landing). While SSTO will work, particularly if the vehicle is large enough (including with LOX/kerosene; G. Harry Stine and Gary Hudson both pointed out historic and existing rocket stages and engines that could achieve SSTO with useful payloads [Hudson's Shuttle ET with 6 or 8 SSMEs had an impressively-large payload]), Bono's basic SSTO-type configuration could also be used for smaller, two-stage reusable launch vehicles. Peter Beck has mentioned developing completely reusable launch vehicles in the future, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bono's basic SSTO configuration--utilized in TSTO or SSTO vehicles--is one potential path that he's considering. |