The second issue of Aerospace Projects Review has a sixty-page article on flyback S-ICs.
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/images/v1n2ad5.gif" />
The issue 2 APR website:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n2.htm
CFE - 25/7/2007 2:19 AM No changes needed to MLP used in Apollo program..
collectSPACE - 25/7/2007 1:31 AMReminds me of an 18-page booklet prepared by Boeing in the late 60s/early 70s proposing the recovery and reuse of the S-IC...
Generic Username - 26/7/2007 11:44 PMBut once you started launching two or three flyback S-V's per monmth for a span of ten years, the flyback option becomes cost effective.And, yes, they were serious about launch rates like that.
tankmodeler - 27/7/2007 7:44 AMIt would be very interesting to see who actually belived that there might ever be that kind of space funding available, especially as, by that time, actual costs for this scale of effort would be relatively well known.
This is Boeings Shuttle-launcher, the Model 979-061A. A *lot* more about this design in the actual article.
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/images/v1n2ad6.gif" />
CFE - 8/8/2007 11:14 PMOne of Boeing's concepts is an almost-unmodified S-IC that makes a ballute-assisted splashdown. I am wondering how Boeing expected to stabilize the S-IC in the attitude depicted in the drawings.
I still don't understand why Boeing would want to blow the upper dome off, though.
meiza - 9/8/2007 6:57 AMH-1 saltwater testing. Related?
CFE - 9/8/2007 11:05 PMAstronautix.com reported that the F-1's would not be reusable.
I would assume that the baseline engine would need a lot of mods in order to be reusable, anyways.
collectSPACE - 25/7/2007 9:31 AMReminds me of an 18-page booklet prepared by Boeing in the late 60s/early 70s proposing the recovery and reuse of the S-IC...
All rocket liquid rocket engines are reuseable, insofar as they are always tested during the assembly process by firing them; it's all down to issues like launch and landing stresses and salt water, and the economies of reuse. Oh, and the politics - SSME were declared to be reuseable, and so they were - but just how much more reuseable they were than engines which were in any case repeatedly fired is debatable. Shuttle-style SRBs were, I'd suggest, not so much reusable as rebuildable... ...hence the disasterous economics.