Hi I'm new to this forum too.
I read earlier that you believe that the SSME under much larger production would cost approximately 50% of what it does now. That seems like a pretty big if, since the SSME is more complex than the RS 68. How would having the SSMEs cost say $50m impact your forecasts.
Also couldn't 5 segment SRBs be continued to be researched, though at a much slower pace with fewer resources. It seems we could use them in much later missions such as Mars. It would be a shame to throw away all the research and testing that was done already and not use it.
Right now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.Ross.
The biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/02/2009 02:25 pmRight now, we are waiting for an official invite to present to them.Ross.And if it doesn't come?
And no, the LOX tank is sized to precisely the same capacity as the current ET's Ogive tank.We do still have an option to increase the capacity of both the LOX and LH2 tanks by ~7-9% (in the same way as NLS was going to), but right now, mostly for simplicity sake, we have simply chosen not to mess around with altering the capacities. We can close all performance requirements comfortably without it.
I find it sad if the easy tankage structure changes that give lots of performace per kg of structure are not done when the hard ones are done. Why design a long engine thrust structure when you can elongate the LH2 tank and design a smaller thrust structure? What is the additional design work with making the LOX barrel section a little longer when you anyway redesign the tank for inline launch?
What is "SSME Bk-IIA" and "SSME Bk-III"?
what % thrust are SSMEs being run at?given no re-use could they be pushed higher?
Quote from: William Barton on 06/02/2009 02:22 pmThe biggest selling point of the Jupiter 246 is, it's a modest and logical evolution of our *currently flying HLLV*, and though it may not be the launch vehicle of our wildest dreams, it is adequate for any mission the USA can reasonably anticipate flying any time in the next 40 years.Sadly, your 40 years maybe correct.What I like about the Direct vehicles is that they provide a growth path as well. If Direct vehicles fly for 30 or 40 years the last ones won't be the same as the first ones.
SSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)
It'll be 30 years in April 2011, not 40.
Quote from: dlapine on 06/02/2009 05:42 pmSSME BK-IIA = Space Shuttle Main Engine Block IIA (current model)Not exactly; the current engines are Block II. Block IIA engines would be with the earlier generation HPFTP, versus the ones that are flying today.