After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming. Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system. According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!As you can see, it's still unpainted. With Bill W.'s permisison, we are running a contest for the best paint scheme. Any ideas?...
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/25/2010 01:42 amVery nice photos. I can guess what colors Antonio would prefer, a certain La Liga team, possibly Why, white and red , of course!
Very nice photos. I can guess what colors Antonio would prefer, a certain La Liga team, possibly
Are you concerned at all about hurricane storm surges, being so close to shore? Any sort of steps you're taking to mitigate that, that you can talk about?
Quote from: antonioe on 07/24/2010 02:35 am... According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank ...Oh, and BTW, what engineer thought "let's make this just slightly under 300ft tall"....
... According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank ...
...After looking at this, I'm believing that the Enhanced stage does not use RL10 or liquid hydrogen. The performance described seems to mesh better with an upper stage working at 330-340 sec specific impulse and 10 to 20 tonnes thrust. Something like half of an RD-0110 (LOX/kerosene), or some type of pump-fed hypergolic engine. In other words, no existing U.S. engine - though it would make sense for Aerojet to be involved in this somehow......May be two RD-58M or two 11D33?......How about AJ-10, it is an engine with substantial flight history and powers the delta II upper stage right now plus it is an artojet engine......Here's an idea: LR-91...
Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Please paint the Eye of Sauron on it.
He also reports that it holds some 250,000 gal of water, and I believe we can dump all that water in about 40 seconds...
There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!
Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
Quote from: antonioe on 07/27/2010 02:14 amThere has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability. Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight? - Ed Kyle
Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?
$$$?
Quote from: antonioe on 07/27/2010 02:14 amThere has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?
Quote from: strangequark on 07/27/2010 12:40 pmQuote from: antonioe on 07/27/2010 02:14 amThere has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.