Author Topic: 2011 RAC RP vehicle design parameters  (Read 1183 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 1151
  • Likes Given: 729
2011 RAC RP vehicle design parameters
« on: 02/16/2017 03:42 PM »
This is rather dragging up old history, but can anyone point me to or summarize the assumptions that went into the old RAC studies of kerolox vehicles?

From what I can find, they ended up with vehicles larger than Saturn V, despite lower payload targets and having better engines. Some concepts are on page 10 of the attached PDF.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3391
  • California
  • Liked: 2631
  • Likes Given: 1661
Re: 2011 RAC RP vehicle design parameters
« Reply #1 on: 02/16/2017 05:23 PM »
This is rather dragging up old history, but can anyone point me to or summarize the assumptions that went into the old RAC studies of kerolox vehicles?

From what I can find, they ended up with vehicles larger than Saturn V, despite lower payload targets and having better engines. Some concepts are on page 10 of the attached PDF.

I would be curious too, because it seems like a lot of fingers were on the scale to ensure Shuttle evolved components.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 528
Re: 2011 RAC RP vehicle design parameters
« Reply #2 on: 02/16/2017 06:04 PM »
One weird thing about the RAC studies was that they were done after the 2010 Authorization Act had already defined SLS as a RAC-1-style vehicle.  So, in a sense, fingers on the scale were a legal requirement.

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 2011 RAC RP vehicle design parameters
« Reply #3 on: 03/13/2017 03:46 AM »
This is rather dragging up old history, but can anyone point me to or summarize the assumptions that went into the old RAC studies of kerolox vehicles?

From what I can find, they ended up with vehicles larger than Saturn V, despite lower payload targets and having better engines. Some concepts are on page 10 of the attached PDF.

I would be curious too, because it seems like a lot of fingers were on the scale to ensure Shuttle evolved components.

We could have had the concept 2, option 2, with 5 segment srbs. We'd have an ar-1 factory, and a srb factory, to produce: a smaller, srb based rocket, an ar-1 atlas 5, and the kerolox SLS. Hell, they could have taken the time to develop an engine more compatible with the rd-180. But, Bill Nelson didn't see the Ukraine conflict coming.

Tags: