Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > Projects
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-11-2011, 07:32 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,819
Default

OK, I'm back...

In addition to the regular "check the cows, tend the farm" stuff that I usually have to do, I've been knocked on my BUTT this week with strep throat. We went to Space Center Houston last Sunday since I promised my nephews we'd go for his birthday (which was in August). So, Betty, Keira, Tristan, Ian, and I went after church since it's only 65 miles from my back door, and church probably trims close to 15 off that. Monday morning I woke up with a bit of a sore throat, but we'd been planning to go to the Splashway Water Park in Sheridan with my brother and his girlfriend and her brother, so off we went. Monday evening I was feeling pretty bad. Tuesday I was wiped out, and Wednesday, but I figured it was viral and the doc's office is a waste of time for that, so I just waited. Thursday I felt a little better and caught up on stuff some, but Friday morning I felt bad again, so I finally went to the doc. Got some antibiotics and was wiped out pretty much yesterday and not much better this morning, though I feel a little better this afternoon. Stupid antiobiotics smell like paint thinner in a pill... (GAG!)

ANYHOW, I FINALLY got back to work on the Saturn V this afternoon. I did the "detail location wrap" for the S-IC first stage using details from Apollo Maniacs.com among other places, and the Saturn V blueprints I got off NARTS years ago. The S-IC is actually the least difficult to detail of all the stages.

Anyway, here's the wrap for the BT-80 first stage and some of the resource pics I grabbed off the net to help... all the "Position numbers" line up along the reference line on all three detail position wraps, though one might want to actually change which "Position number" aligns with the reference line, so all the wrap overlaps are joints are on the "back" of the rocket away from the launch pad, if one is planning to launch off a Saturn tower...

Here's the Apollomaniacs pics...

Later! OL JR
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn V BT-80 First Stage Detail Location Wrap.png
Views: 40
Size:  954.2 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  S1Cpos1.gif
Views: 41
Size:  121.3 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  S1Cpos2.gif
Views: 32
Size:  120.7 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  S1Cpos3.gif
Views: 37
Size:  120.0 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  S1Cpos4.gif
Views: 49
Size:  116.5 KB  
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-15-2011, 11:08 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,819
Default

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok... back to the drawing board...

Interesting topic of conversation over on the nasaspaceflight.com/forums came up about "what if Apollo had continued..." In part of the discussion, it came to replacing Saturn IB's "cluster's last stand" first stage powered by eight H-1 engines with "something else".

At one point the 260 inch monolithic SRM being developed and tested by Aerojet was proposed, but the thing was SO massively heavy it was going to require an ENTIRELY new integration and stacking design at KSC to make it work, and that wasn't in the cards. As it was, only the half-length motor was ever built and test fired before the project was canceled.

The subject came up about LIQUID replacements for the S-IB stage... interestingly enough they'd been proposed but of course never developed, due to the fact that, being a first stage, weight and ISP inefficiencies don't hurt performance anywhere NEAR as much as they do on upper stages, where weight and ISP is critical to performance. S-IB was actually somewhat of a weight savings over the earlier Saturn I first stage it replaced, though of course the basics of the design in using multiple tanks clustered together could NEVER be as efficient as a monolithic fuel tank and monolithic oxidizer tank, even separate bulkhead tanks like the Saturn V S-IC stage used. But, you have to save about 11 pounds of weight on the first stage to increase payload by 1 pound, unlike on upper stages where it's much closer to 1 pound weight saved equals 1 pound of extra payload (this is especially true of escape stages leaving earth for the moon or elsewhere). SO it was judged not worth the expense to develop a replacement.

Now, in an alternate universe, which the thread presupposed, where shuttle was deemed 'a bridge too far' and was rejected in 1972 instead of being approved and all Saturn hardware and capabilities ultimately scrapped, the opposite decision is taken to "build upon what we have" (much like the Russians did incidentally) and so a program was initiated to evolve Saturn into something more affordable and sustainable-- cheaper to build, cheaper to integrate, and cheaper to fly. Obviously in this paradigm, you have to streamline production and reduce programs where possible-- engine programs, stage programs, etc all soak up funds and make the overall program more expensive, so being able to eliminate the H-1 engine, and the S-IB first stage would have been highly desirable. Replicating it's performance and capabilities (and actually improving upon them) would have been nice side-benefits, especially if it could be done with the existing F-1/F-1A engines and structures similar to that in use on the S-IC Saturn V first stage, and using the existing S-IVB stage, which would surely have switched to the J-2S engine at that time.

Now, Improvements to Saturn V had been proposed including using up to FOUR strap-on liquid rocket booster pods (LRB's) to supplement the Saturn V first stage thrust. There were similar proposals using SRB's of various type and designs (from 120 inch SRB's from Titan III, to 156 inch "notional" SRM's (which eventually became the SRB's I suppose) to even mammoth 260 inch monolithic SRM's by Aerojet). Basically ALL the proposals for Saturn V boosters ignored or glossed over various important constraints on the KSC infrastructure, such as the fact that the acoustics (noise) from the ignition and liftoff of THIRTEEN F-1 engines AT ONCE from a Saturn V (5 F-1's) with FOUR LRB's (2 F-1's EACH) would have broken every window in the eastern half of the state of Florida...

Now, there were proposals to use this dual F-1 booster as a first stage replacement. Someone pointed out on the NSF thread that this wasn't particularly feasible-- the thrust from TWO F-1's was ENTIRELY too much for a Saturn IB type vehicle (unless it was ONLY launching massive payloads instead of crews, which would have required a BIG redesign of the S-IVB most likely). The EIGHT H-1 engines of the S-IB first stage produced 205,000 lbs thrust each (in their last upgrade) for a total of 1,640,000 lbs, a little more than the 1.5 million pound thrust of the stock F-1. Two F-1's on the first stage of a Saturn IB type vehicle would produce around 3 million pounds of thrust, about DOUBLE the Saturn IB first stage! Talk about "blink and you miss it!" The gee loads on a crew would have been unedurable! A single F-1A would have produced 1.7 million pounds thrust at liftoff and would have been a suitable replacement for the cluster of H-1's. Assuming you desired to keep the initial liftoff thrust/weight about the same, and simplified the control of the vehicle at the same time, using a standard F-1 on the first stage augmented by a PAIR of H-1's mounted on either side in the outboard positions (to provide roll control and augment thrust) would have increased the liftoff thrust substantially (to nearly 2 million pounds) allowing for heavier payloads without overaccelerating the stack (would probably have required shutdown of the outer 2 H-1's before burnout, just as the inner four H-1's shut down early on S-IB and the central F-1 shut down early on S-IC.) Weight savings by switching to monolithic tanks on the stage similar to S-IC and powering the stack by a single F-1/F-1A and implementing a pair of roll-control verniers or other methods would have probably been preferable, ESPECIALLY for a crew launch vehicle! In addition, this S-IB stage replacement could have produced a SINGLE F-1/F-1A booster for use with Saturn V-- a pair of which would have provided SEVEN F-1's thrusting at liftoff-- surely all the "boost" a Saturn V would ever have needed!

SO-- the "Saturn I-F", which I've faithfully copied from the EXISTING NASA STUDIES OF THE TIME, is basically over-powered and unrealistic. A SINGLE F-1 booster is MUCH more likely, ESPECIALLY if using the substantially higher-thrust F-1A engine! Such a booster would have had a realistic (if perhaps unaffordable or unnecessary, if no large payloads needing it were funded) performance for a booster for Saturn V, if needed, and would have had double duty as a crew launch vehicle first stage.

Such a single F-1/A first stage/S-IVB second stage crew launcher would basically have given NASA the safety benefits touted for the Ares I "Stick" crew launcher (two stage launcher, single engine on each stage) without the problematic issues such as motor buzz and the impossibility of shutting down an errant SRM first stage, and trying to do an abort off an exploding SRB "unzipped" by range safety in the event of an abort, which would have filled the sky with burning chunks of APCP. A single F-1/A booster would have had the same benefits of a single engine on the first stage, coupled with a single engine on the second stage, with one staging event, and the added benefit of being able to simply turn off the F-1 in the event of an abort.


SO, back to the drawing board... I'll have to replace the twin F-1 first stage on the "1-F" with a single F-1 version... no problem as I can build a twin of it for a pair of LRB's for the BT-80 Saturn V (which would have had NINE F-1's thrusting at liftoff, STILL too much IMHO, but if you deleted the center engine on the S-IC itself and capped it off, you'd have had a more manageable EIGHT F-1's with the twin-F-1 boosters on either side... (which would likely be more efficient anyway as it would allow the S-IC to burn longer with the same fuel load, with only 4 F-1's guzzling the fuel instead of 5...)

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-16-2011, 09:09 AM
mkrobel mkrobel is offline
Junior Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 26
Default

Here is my Saturn IF (a Saturn 1B with a single F-1 and no clustered tanks).

I don;'t know that I agree with the other comments about the two engine version. After all, they were going to put a Gemini on top of a Titan IIIM with 2.2 Million pounds of thrust and liquids were smoother than solids.

I have also inlcuded my 1/144 version of the Saturn 2F1 (Saturn I with 2 F-1s in the first stage) and a mock up of a parrallel staged version (which I call Saturn 2F1(C) after the Titan IIIC).

The Saturn IF booster first stage is the length of the SIB booster, while the Saturn 2F1 is the length of an SIC.

enjoy.

Mike
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 1F.JPG
Views: 94
Size:  51.9 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 2-F1C (2).jpg
Views: 90
Size:  559.6 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 2-F1C (1).jpg
Views: 68
Size:  553.9 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 2-F1.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  635.0 KB  

Last edited by mkrobel : 09-16-2011 at 09:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2011, 04:54 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,819
Default

That's pretty sweet looking, Mike...

In fact your "1-F" immediately sprang to mind when I started reading that thread... I was like "so THAT'S why he went with one F-1!"

It makes sense... doubling the first stage thrust means that to keep the gee loads the same, you have to carry a LOT of payload with you or deeply throttle the engines. F-1's didn't throttle (much if at all given they shut the center one down on Saturn V before stage burnout to keep the gees down when the S-IC was running on empty and getting "very light".) and you wouldn't want to launch a full "lunar stack" to LEO on every S-IF flight of course... It'd be a good payload lifter, no doubt, but for a crew ferry... I dunno... Guess you could put a big water tank in the SLA to keep the gees manageable... LOL Shutting one F-1 down in a small asymmetric cluster wouldn't work (technically it COULD, but it would be HIGHLY undesirable with only two engines) There's a certain beauty to the simplicity of the single F-1/single J-2S lifter anyway-- it's a "natural" solution (which the "stick" tried to emulate but ungainly and awkwardly with that SRB first stage and all the problems it brings).

Point taken about the Gemini on Titan III (MOL) but it sorta makes me wonder now just how realistic that was... I know they flew the boilerplate MOL and Gemini capsule retooled with the heat shield hatch, but what were the gees during SRM burn I wonder??

Quick question Mike-- on your 1-F, it's difficult to see the fins-- did you use "I-B" fins on yours or "something else"?? I know yours is a static model and not a flying one, but I'm curious as to your choice and rationale... A single F-1 eliminates the need for the fairings, which really frees one up on fin choices... I'm currently debating between using the 8 Saturn IB swept fins or modified Saturn V fins or even going back to Saturn I Block II fins, since this is a flight model and MUST have fins. The two engine version with the fairings presents quite a quandary in the fins dept. since the prototype "LRB pods" didn't have them, obviously, but a flying rocket needs them-- requiring either to go with "plug in" supplementary (clear or otherwise) fins or, when using it as a first stage, choosing some likely "candidate fins" to put on the stage. Clearly Saturn V fins would be the ones of choice on the fairings, but then that leaves *what* for the opposing fins-- "Saturn I Block II-ish" located directly opposite the fairings and centered between them (clean aerodynamically) or two or even three "Saturn IB-ish" fins located between the fairings on the main body tube between the fairings (complicated aerodynamics due to the tapered fairings). Just curious as to your thoughts on the subject...

The three-body "LRB pod" design is quite interesting... I've thought about something quite similar in relation to a story idea I've had about the aftermath of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis... Saturn V never happens, obviously, but 10 years later a new President decides to ultimately finish what we started, in a smaller, cheaper way, of course... F-1 existed (more or less) and they dust off the old plans and suddenly Saturn C-3 looks just about perfect, especially if it uses a new design principle that someone just invented-- the 3-body booster, which they're currently using to launch small space stations using three Titan II first stages strapped together topped by an enlarged second stage (6 LR-87's lifting a twin Centaur upper stage-- sort of a Titan III but using common cores instead of the SRM's.) Scaling it up to use three cores with 2 F-1's each, giving six F-1's thrusting at liftoff, with a lengthened S-IVB second stage with four J-2's, lifting either a standard S-IVB or an RL-10 powered S-IV stage (or both) would provide a substantial capability *on the cheap*. (I'm predicating that dusting off the plans and making Saturn V is deemed "too expensive" after the deep Depression that follows the nuclear war in 1962; the whole program is envisioned as not only an inspiration to the nation and announcement to the world that "we're back" but also a sort of latter day CCC program to help reinvigorate a stagnated and lackluster technical/aerospace economy and the economy in general with "spinoffs"...)

Anyway, thanks for the pics... You don't have a bigger one of your 1-F do you?? I just like the looks of that rocket!

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2011, 06:16 PM
mkrobel mkrobel is offline
Junior Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 26
Default

Its gone through several paint jobs since I took that picture. Right now it has no fins, but it orignially in had 4 Saturn IB fins. I think Little Joe II fins might look ok on a flying version, and if they scaled okay, it might look pretty cool with 4, or maybe 6.

I have the whole F-1 exposed in the version I made, I think it might have looked better with some of it recessed into the body so that no so much of it is exposed.

Actually, some of the stuff you wrote about the Saturn C3 is what made me build the 2F1. The Apollo was short fueled for launch on Saturn IBs - it only had about 1/2 of the propellent load a CSM would carry atop a Saturn V, so that actually made me think that my 1F was not much of an advance. The 2F1 would/could carry a sizeable logistics module or orbital lab module to LEO and that would probably keep the G Load down.

Interesting thought about the Titan III made with all Titan II cores. Of course, that immediately made me think of a Saturn IF with 2 Titan II cores on it. And there was a concept to have the Titan II SLV use up to 8 Castor SRMS, like a Delta II.

I'll take a larger photo of the Saturn 1F and have it next to the Saturn 2F1 so you can compare them.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2011, 08:29 PM
mkrobel mkrobel is offline
Junior Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 26
Default

Here is a larger photo of the Saturn 1F and a comparison shot of the Saturn IF and Saturn 2F1
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 1F and Saturn 2F1.jpg
Views: 115
Size:  947.7 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Saturn 1F (Large).jpg
Views: 46
Size:  795.8 KB  
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-17-2011, 12:04 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkrobel
Its gone through several paint jobs since I took that picture. Right now it has no fins, but it orignially in had 4 Saturn IB fins. I think Little Joe II fins might look ok on a flying version, and if they scaled okay, it might look pretty cool with 4, or maybe 6.

I have the whole F-1 exposed in the version I made, I think it might have looked better with some of it recessed into the body so that no so much of it is exposed.

Actually, some of the stuff you wrote about the Saturn C3 is what made me build the 2F1. The Apollo was short fueled for launch on Saturn IBs - it only had about 1/2 of the propellent load a CSM would carry atop a Saturn V, so that actually made me think that my 1F was not much of an advance. The 2F1 would/could carry a sizeable logistics module or orbital lab module to LEO and that would probably keep the G Load down.

Interesting thought about the Titan III made with all Titan II cores. Of course, that immediately made me think of a Saturn IF with 2 Titan II cores on it. And there was a concept to have the Titan II SLV use up to 8 Castor SRMS, like a Delta II.

I'll take a larger photo of the Saturn 1F and have it next to the Saturn 2F1 so you can compare them.

Mike


Thanks for the pics mike! Those are nice builds.

I see your point about the single F-1 versus the double. The single would work and be somewhat of an upgrade, IF they'd used the F-1A with the 1.7 million pounds liftoff thrust, 2 million vacuum. That should buy you some pretty decent cargo capacity having an extra couple hundred thousand pounds of liftoff thrust. The other possibility that leaps to mind is keeping a PAIR of H-1's on the core with the regular F-1, which would actually get you a bit more payload, as it'd be up near 2 million pounds liftoff thrust. It also greatly simplifies roll control on the vehicle. It might also provide some interesting performance figures, as surely you'd have to shut down some of the engine(s) early... either shut down the two H-1's and continue on the F-1 for a bit until burnout, or shut the F-1 down and continue for quite a bit on the two H-1's... that would ensure roll control of the vehicle, and though it's suboptimal having to keep dragging the weight of the F-1 along, it'd almost be like a 'stage and a half' type vehicle. The H-1 and J-2 were roughly in the same ballpark for thrust, though of course H-1's ISP was much lower, being a kerolox engine versus a hydrogen powered engine like J-2. But shutting the F-1 down after say around 150-200 seconds of flight and continuing for another minute to about 100 seconds on the twin H-1's would really stretch the remaining fuel in the first stage, and at roughly double the thrust of the lone J-2 in the S-IVB above, it shouldn't really be underthrusted-- almost act like a second stage in between the first stage and the S-IVB! Once the thing reached propellant depletion, the H-1's are shut down, the first stage jettisoned, the J-2 on the S-IVB fired up, and the interstage jettisoned and off ya go.

Of course the twin F-1 could accomplish much the same thing with two engines instead of three. But it also couldn't be throttled, and the gees would get pretty nasty toward the end of first stage burn unless you shut one down and slewed the other one enough to thrust through the centerline, and just take the hit from the off-center thrust. Shuttle did it (off-center thrust) so it's certainly possible. It just seems a bit of a waste though, and IMHO now that I think about it, I have to wonder WHAT some of those guys were smokin', proposing FOUR twin-F-1 boosters on a Saturn V, with 13 F-1's firing at liftoff... I mean, come on... TWO boosters STILL gives you NINE F-1's at liftoff, more than the Nova C-8! Did they ever think SERIOUSLY they'd need THAT much boost!!!??? I'd love to see the acoustics maps for that monster-- geez... and if one ever blew up on the pad-- it'd take out everything east of Kissimmee! LOL That's why it's REALLY surprising nobody just took a quick 'back of the envelope look and say "Ya know, a pair of SINGLE F-1 (A?) boosters on either side of a Saturn V gives you SEVEN F-1's at liftoff... that's gotta be pretty much enough. Four just seems superfluous. It'd also give you a pretty good first stage.

If you wanted to use the Apollo CSM on a Saturn 1 type vehicle, ie full SPS fuel load, then yeah you're right; you'd need the twin F-1 version, the single F-1 version, or the F-1/twin H-1 version. (Speaking of which, there's nothing saying it HAD to be H-1's flanking the F-1-- perhaps a kerosene LR-87 would have been better-- should have been plenty of them around after Titan I was retired! For that matter, grab all those old Titan I kerosene-fueled first stages and use them as strap-on boosters-- for Titan II Heavy, or heck bolt them to the side of the Saturn 1-F... Shame to let em go to waste!) You can do a lot of interesting stuff with a 2 million pound + liftoff thrust vehicle and a full CSM... especially if you have the room/performance to carry some payload along with you (small hab module for extended missions like to L2 or geosynch orbit, cargo module for space station resupply, experiments platform, space station modules, etc...)

Yeah, I've seen the Titan II with Delta boosters-- got a pic of it I grabbed off NSF in one of the threads or other... I've also got a picture of the FOUR engine Titan II-- FOUR LR-87's instead of the usual two-- I think they called it "Barbarian"... I've even got a graphic of it with a pair of Titan III SRM's flanking it... now that would have been a beast!

SO, I guess that either of the variants, single or dual F-1's would have been equally viable or likely if they'd ever gone beyond the 'what if' stage... The 2 H-1's/1 F-1 version is kinda neat, and might have some interesting performance advantages (or might not, I don't have the know-how to really tell) but the biggest disadvantage is the two seperate engine types-- using H-1 forces you to keep them around, and if you have to use 2, might as well use 8 and leave the F-1's for Saturn V... so probably zero chance it would have ever happened even if it DID have good performance...

I like the paint pattern on your single F-1 version-- the thrust structure roll pattern is very "Jupiter missile-ish" LOL I can see the logic of using Saturn IB fins on it, but personally I think the Saturn I Block II clipped delta fins look a lot better, using four of them instead of the 8 on the IB. Still, the 8 have character and add a bit of 'continuity' to the look of the thing... like more of an evolution of the IB, whereas the SI/BII fins might make it look like more of a throwback...

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-17-2011, 01:38 PM
mkrobel mkrobel is offline
Junior Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 26
Default

OK, by mentioning Barbarian, you make me have to show my Titan IVL4, topped by an Apollo CSM. The core is a 1in pipe with 4 first stage Engines from Glenn's Titan III/IV. The SRBS are obviously Titan IV SRBS, also from Glenn. In fact, it is all Glenn's stuff, except for the piple.

I used to think that they lit off all 4 solids at once, but there is a concept - called Titan 3D - that was studied, where they fired the first two, then as the first pair neared burnout, the fired the 2nd pair, and only after than, did they ignite the pair. I posted pictures of it from up-ship.com

Hope you like this version. It would make a neat flying model, if you could pull off parrallel ignition on the pad, discard the first pair, air ignite the 2nd, and then light the core. Thered be boosters and parachutes all over the sky!

Mike
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Titan IVL4.JPG
Views: 73
Size:  56.0 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  titan-iiid.jpg
Views: 61
Size:  78.1 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  titaniiil2.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  114.9 KB  
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2011, 04:04 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkrobel
OK, by mentioning Barbarian, you make me have to show my Titan IVL4, topped by an Apollo CSM. The core is a 1in pipe with 4 first stage Engines from Glenn's Titan III/IV. The SRBS are obviously Titan IV SRBS, also from Glenn. In fact, it is all Glenn's stuff, except for the piple.

I used to think that they lit off all 4 solids at once, but there is a concept - called Titan 3D - that was studied, where they fired the first two, then as the first pair neared burnout, the fired the 2nd pair, and only after than, did they ignite the pair. I posted pictures of it from up-ship.com

Hope you like this version. It would make a neat flying model, if you could pull off parrallel ignition on the pad, discard the first pair, air ignite the 2nd, and then light the core. Thered be boosters and parachutes all over the sky!

Mike


Those are sweet!

Gee... I dunno... that'd have to be ONE MIGHTY STRONG CORE to take the thrust of two SRM's on either side, and use it to drag a couple of several hundred thousand pound SRM's UNLIT along at significant gee loads until the first pair burned out... Geez, the structural loads on that one makes my head hurt and I'm just visualizing it! Interesting idea but seems pretty impractical. Sorta like SRB-X on steroids... LOL

Airstarts in model rocketry aren't that difficult-- usually done by timer. Jettisonable boosters are doable too-- by several different methods... It would be a neat looking flight...

What's "Glenn's stuff"?? Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2011, 06:59 AM
mkrobel mkrobel is offline
Junior Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 26
Default

Glenn = realspacemodels.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe 1998-2018