Author Topic: RS-68 CLV First Stage  (Read 79658 times)

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: RS-68 CLV First Stage
« Reply #120 on: 11/01/2007 05:06 pm »
It's the NASA standards that EELV did not use that are the gap, not the PWR and military standards.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Propforce

  • Sky is NOT the limit !!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RS-68 CLV First Stage
« Reply #121 on: 11/01/2007 08:31 pm »
Quote
TrueGrit - 1/11/2007  10:55 AM

RS-68 was designed the same PWR and military standards that were used on SSME...  The big difference in SSME and RS-68 development is the number of engines tested prior to first flight, not the design standards.  The exceptions are in the controller design which lacks triple redundancy, no in-flight redline shutdown capability, and the main valves which lacked the SSME pneumatic backup.


I am sorry but I could not keep a straight face reading this statement.

 They are not the same.  RS-68 is a COST-DRIVEN design, e.g., design it to the lowest cost (i.e., cheap), while the SSME was a PERFORMANCE-DRIVEN design.

You could say that they may use the same MIL "standards" but they certainly did not have the same design "REQUIREMENTS".



Offline Propforce

  • Sky is NOT the limit !!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RS-68 CLV First Stage
« Reply #122 on: 11/01/2007 08:35 pm »
Quote
Antares - 1/11/2007  11:06 AM

It's the NASA standards that EELV did not use that are the gap, not the PWR and military standards.

Did you just say that NASA has a deisgn standard for liquid rocket engines?  

Is that like the NASA-SP's?  or is it more like "ummm... Marshall, what do you think?...  how about you, Langely?.... Glenn, why are you so quiet? ....  OK, we'll have to get back to you on this, when we figure out what's going on internally first.... "


Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: RS-68 CLV First Stage
« Reply #123 on: 11/02/2007 04:15 am »
Quote
Propforce - 1/11/2007  4:35 PM
Quote
Antares - 1/11/2007  11:06 AM
It's the NASA standards that EELV did not use that are the gap, not the PWR and military standards.
Did you just say that NASA has a deisgn standard for liquid rocket engines?
No.  There are plenty of NASA Standards that RS-68 was not required to follow since it was a commercial development with some funding from DoD.  Of course, Rocketdyne's experience on NASA engines informed the design.  Use the standards where cost effective.  IMO, that's enough for ANY payload as long as the top of the stack has an abort mode.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1