Author Topic: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements  (Read 20923 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
« Last Edit: 07/13/2017 06:02 pm by Lar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #1 on: 07/10/2017 05:28 pm »
Here are examples of bad "LEGO rockets" (rockets pieced together out of other existing elements).
« Last Edit: 07/10/2017 07:25 pm by Lar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #2 on: 07/10/2017 05:31 pm »
Good "LEGO rockets".  (only because the Agena was adaptable (increased tank size) and it also served as a spacecraft bus in addition to being an upper stage)
« Last Edit: 07/10/2017 07:30 pm by Lar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #3 on: 07/10/2017 05:33 pm »
How to make a LEGO rocket  (the parts are never off the shelf, they have to modified between each version)

« Last Edit: 07/10/2017 07:30 pm by Lar »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #4 on: 07/10/2017 10:13 pm »
Where would Energia/Zenit fit on the spectrum of good to bad LEGO?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Joffan

Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #5 on: 07/10/2017 10:29 pm »
Does (/will) the Falcon Heavy count as a LEGO rocket? As Jim observes, we're never talking about zero modifications to "clip the parts together", but it seems that SpaceX must be relatively close to that situation by using recovered first stages for the side boosters.
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline sfxtd

  • Slow, but Sure User
  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #6 on: 07/11/2017 12:03 am »
Does (/will) the Falcon Heavy count as a LEGO rocket?
I always thought Jim's LEGO analogy was meant to discourage the idea of taking existing rocket components (stages) that were not originally designed to go together and suggesting that one could use them together relatively easily and at lower cost. Most of the "Good LEGO rockets" had at least some idea that the parts could be combined as part of the design concept for at least one stage.

Falcon Heavy has been a design concept from very early on, so undoubtedly many F9 engineering decisions were made with that goal in mind, so not really LEGOs as originally analogized. Putting an Agena or Centaur US on a FH would be... odd.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #7 on: 07/11/2017 12:04 am »
Is SLS a "LEGO rocket"? 
I'd say more of a Mega Bloks one ...  :)

More seriously it does kind of fit the definition, no? Using parts from other projects rather than a clean sheet design...

Does (/will) the Falcon Heavy count as a LEGO rocket?
I always thought Jim's LEGO analogy was meant to discourage the idea of taking existing rocket components (stages) that were not originally designed to go together and suggesting that one could use them together relatively easily and at lower cost. Most of the "Good LEGO rockets" had at least some idea that the parts could be combined as part of the design concept for at least one stage.

Falcon Heavy has been a design concept from very early on, so undoubtedly many F9 engineering decisions were made with that goal in mind, so not really LEGOs as originally analogized. Putting an Agena or Centaur US on a FH would be... odd.

Agreed.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 12:05 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #8 on: 07/11/2017 11:40 am »
What if you used a Centaur upper stage on a Falcon 9.  Would that improve the F9 capabilities?  Maybe not to LEO, but GEO, or GSO? 

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 722
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #9 on: 07/11/2017 12:02 pm »
Also instructive in this thread are earlier comments made over the years by NSF posters about adding solid and/or liquid boosters; different load and thrust paths, for which a core would have to be significantly redesigned, to the point of being a new rocket.  Here horizontal processing also introduces new problems, as does any TLE-like interfaces which have to carry more load. Same goes for the core.

Also, the type of ' why not cluster 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 boosters together' - without regard for the same load paths. Or, further away from the 'would it achieve lift-off' kind of questions, introducing impossibilities - or total rework - of all ground processing, erecting of the launcher, GSE / tower redesign, flame trench/ pad rework, etc.

These, and the other examples of a thread, really drive home that a rocket can't be seen apart from it's associated GSE, processing, vertical/horizontal integration, launch pad, even company capabilities (SpaceX and SRB's, hello). It really is a system.

What if you used a Centaur upper stage on a Falcon 9.  Would that improve the F9 capabilities?  Maybe not to LEO, but GEO, or GSO?

To pre-empt this sort of question is exactly why this thread is created. Rockets are not like LEGO elements.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 530
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #10 on: 07/11/2017 12:26 pm »
How does the Saturn 1B fit in here? Is it a LEGO rocket, what with the Saturn V bits in the second stage (S-IVB and Saturn V instrument unit, as well as Apollo CSM) and the Redstone and Jupiter tanks in the first stage?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #11 on: 07/11/2017 12:49 pm »
Does (/will) the Falcon Heavy count as a LEGO rocket? As Jim observes, we're never talking about zero modifications to "clip the parts together", but it seems that SpaceX must be relatively close to that situation by using recovered first stages for the side boosters.

See Delta IV and Atlas V heavy. They were designed with the intent of making a heavy

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #12 on: 07/11/2017 01:06 pm »
How does the Saturn 1B fit in here? Is it a LEGO rocket, what with the Saturn V bits in the second stage (S-IVB and Saturn V instrument unit, as well as Apollo CSM) and the Redstone and Jupiter tanks in the first stage?


The Saturn I & IB did not use Redstone and Jupiter tanks in the first stage.  They used tanks that were the same diameter as Redstone and Jupiter vehicles.  The vehicles has 4 bulkheads that created two tanks, one each for LOX and RP-1.  Each tank for Saturn had only two bulkheads and only carried one propellant.   The length of the Saturn tanks were sized so that the combination of 4 Redstone type tanks for RP-1 vs  4 Redstone type tanks and one Jupiter type for LOX were at the proper mixture ratio.  The S-IV was sized for the Saturn I.  To make the Saturn IB, the first stage and engines had to be uprated to handle the S-IVB second stage. 

The  instrument unit and Apollo CSM don't play into this because the IU was just a set of avionics.  And the CSM was just the payload; which, however, was not the same as a Saturn V launched CSM.  Saturn IB launched CSM had to have propellant offloaded since it could not lift a fully loaded one.

Offline nicp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Retired software engineer.
  • UK
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 1341
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #13 on: 07/11/2017 03:06 pm »
Also instructive in this thread are earlier comments made over the years by NSF posters about adding solid and/or liquid boosters; different load and thrust paths, for which a core would have to be significantly redesigned, to the point of being a new rocket.  Here horizontal processing also introduces new problems, as does any TLE-like interfaces which have to carry more load. Same goes for the core.

Also, the type of ' why not cluster 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 boosters together' - without regard for the same load paths. Or, further away from the 'would it achieve lift-off' kind of questions, introducing impossibilities - or total rework - of all ground processing, erecting of the launcher, GSE / tower redesign, flame trench/ pad rework, etc.

These, and the other examples of a thread, really drive home that a rocket can't be seen apart from it's associated GSE, processing, vertical/horizontal integration, launch pad, even company capabilities (SpaceX and SRB's, hello). It really is a system.

What if you used a Centaur upper stage on a Falcon 9.  Would that improve the F9 capabilities?  Maybe not to LEO, but GEO, or GSO?

To pre-empt this sort of question is exactly why this thread is created. Rockets are not like LEGO elements.

However, my comment (which Jim referenced in the creation of this thread) did ask the question as to _why_ such things are a bad idea. I said "As a new thread I'm sort of thinking of Jim's Raptor upper stage thing (I like), a place where impractical ideas - or even potentially practixal ideas can be discussed. With explanations as to _why_ this or that is ridiculous or physically possible but economically impossible".

I don't know if that's what Jim wants from the thread, but people keep coming up with wacky ideas (many of which are truly wacky) but some are fun to imagine at least, and perhaps would be fun to discuss.
For Vectron!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #14 on: 07/11/2017 04:15 pm »
Here are examples of bad "LEGO rockets" (rockets pieced together out of other existing elements).
I respectfully disagree.  Thor-Delta was equally "bad" by this definition, since it consisted of stages cobbled together from Thor and Vanguard.  The difference was simply that Thor-Delta was successful while Juno II and Thor-Able suffered multiple failures. 

Juno II also had its successes.  It gave the U.S. its first heliocentric satellite (Pioneer 4), and orbited three additional Explorer satellites.  I see it as a useful machine for its time.  http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter5.html

Atlas Able and Juno II are the true definition of bad lego rockets because of the horrible mismatched upper stages*.  Able was way too small for Atlas as well as the SRM tub was for Juno.  Both could support (and Atlas did) much larger and more optimized upper stages.  The Thor Delta was better because of the match in stages.


* A bad lego rocket is where the components make a vehicle less than the sums of the parts.  The components subtract just as they add.

(A+B) + (C+D) > (A+C) + (B+D)

(Atlas+Agena) + (Thor+Able) > (Atlas + Able) + (Thor+Agena)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 04:32 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #15 on: 07/11/2017 05:00 pm »
Adding SRMs to Falcon 9 is similar.
All  the minuses are:
redesigned first stage structure
Design and develop SRM
Redesign TEL
Redesign pad
Redesign hangar
Add SRM handling GSE and storage
Resite pad and hangar for solids (or move to another launch site)
Update processes for proximity to SRM's

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #16 on: 07/11/2017 06:54 pm »
Where would Scout fit in the "Good LEGO" or "Bad LEGO" philosophy?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #17 on: 07/11/2017 07:15 pm »
Where would Scout fit in the "Good LEGO" or "Bad LEGO" philosophy?

Good, and the exception to the rule.  There is/was such a variety of available motors, that vehicle could use properly sized motors.  The Minotaur family of vehicles is similar.  However, some configurations are kludges but that is because of cost and motor availability.

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
  • Liked: 4098
  • Likes Given: 2773
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #18 on: 07/11/2017 09:49 pm »
Do we need to involve LEGO in this thread? - With "bad" and"good" *LEGO rockets* it seems there is not even agreement about what it actually is supposed to mean. Also, the LEGO company is a stalwart, great collaborator of NASA, flying figurines on all those unmanned missions, inspiring kids like my own with - for instance - their Saturn V set... - I think they deserve better.

How about "rocket kludges", "frankenstein rockets", or something like that? - Easier to understand and unequivocally negative, which is the purpose of this thread as I understand it.

I'd like to request a title change...

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #19 on: 07/11/2017 09:55 pm »
The SLS block 2 is supposed to use the same core as the block one, but trade out the solid boosters for, as far as I've heard, a Not-yet-defined liquid booster set.

What does this mean for the connecters between the boosters and the core? how overbuilt would they need to be if they need to handle  any plausable booster for the block 2? This seems a classic "Lego rocket" moment.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #20 on: 07/12/2017 05:02 pm »
The SLS block 2 is supposed to use the same core as the block one, but trade out the solid boosters for, as far as I've heard, a Not-yet-defined liquid booster set.

What does this mean for the connecters between the boosters and the core? how overbuilt would they need to be if they need to handle  any plausable booster for the block 2? This seems a classic "Lego rocket" moment.

That's not a "LEGO rocket moment" at all, since the boosters are new builds, designed for SLS.

A "LEGO rocket moment" is when an existing stage/component in use is adapted to work with another existing stage/component, in a way that does not match its original intended use.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #21 on: 07/12/2017 05:20 pm »
What if you used a Centaur upper stage on a Falcon 9.  Would that improve the F9 capabilities?  Maybe not to LEO, but GEO, or GSO?

Centaur would make a really nice 3rd stage for Falcon 9 or FH, but a lousy 2nd stage. Performance to LEO, GEO, Escape, or Mars would be worse, as would performance with reuse. Only expendable direct to GSO would be better than F9, but not better than FH with the current upper stage.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #22 on: 07/12/2017 06:09 pm »
The SLS block 2 is supposed to use the same core as the block one, but trade out the solid boosters for, as far as I've heard, a Not-yet-defined liquid booster set.

What does this mean for the connecters between the boosters and the core? how overbuilt would they need to be if they need to handle  any plausable booster for the block 2? This seems a classic "Lego rocket" moment.

That's not a "LEGO rocket moment" at all, since the boosters are new builds, designed for SLS.

A "LEGO rocket moment" is when an existing stage/component in use is adapted to work with another existing stage/component, in a way that does not match its original intended use.

How about the SLS Block 1 Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) actually being a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS)?

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/07/sls-upper-stage-residency-former-home-iss-modules/

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #23 on: 07/12/2017 06:15 pm »
The SLS block 2 is supposed to use the same core as the block one, but trade out the solid boosters for, as far as I've heard, a Not-yet-defined liquid booster set.

What does this mean for the connecters between the boosters and the core? how overbuilt would they need to be if they need to handle  any plausable booster for the block 2? This seems a classic "Lego rocket" moment.

That's not a "LEGO rocket moment" at all, since the boosters are new builds, designed for SLS.

A "LEGO rocket moment" is when an existing stage/component in use is adapted to work with another existing stage/component, in a way that does not match its original intended use.

How about the SLS Block 1 Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) actually being a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS)?

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/07/sls-upper-stage-residency-former-home-iss-modules/


SLS Block 1 fails the test

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #24 on: 07/12/2017 06:26 pm »
Jim,

      While in most cases, rockets are not LEGOs, I seem to remember that the Saturn V had some rather interesting variant suggestions.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv.html

      Not that they went anywhere with these, but they are interesting.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #25 on: 07/13/2017 05:56 pm »
All the discussion about the use of the trademarked term LEGO, and how much deference users and moderators need to give The LEGO Company, has been moved to

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42818.0 (now live after some surgery and editing)

This thread does not need to concern itself further with the topic of the trademark, and can continue on with discussion of why treating rocket stages and parts like LEGO elements, to be mixed and matched willy nilly without a care in the world, is a truly bad idea.  (oops, I may have telegraphed my opinion there!)
« Last Edit: 07/13/2017 06:24 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #26 on: 07/14/2017 04:36 pm »
Atlas-Able was definitely a poor idea, the upper stages were too skinny proportionate to the Atlas which resulted in damage from aerodynamic loads. All three Atlas-Ables launched failed due to this--first one the shroud comes off, second the Able suffers some sort of damage that results in loss of oxidizer pressure, and third one aerodynamic buffeting around the adapter section ruptured the Atlas's LOX tank (before someone claims the Able ignited prematurely, it didn't, this was disproven by GD-A/NASA docs).

Mercury-Atlas 1 also of course failed due to buffeting that caused structural failure of the LOX tank and after that happened, a requirement was put out that all Atlas upper stage/payload combinations undergo structural dynamics testing.

As for Juno II, some of the failures (including the most well-known and spectacular one) were not caused by the upper stages at all. In that case, the real problem was the lack of qualified, motivated tech personnel since Juno II was a close-ended program with no plans for further development. Vanguard was not very successful either, despite a much smaller size gradient between the first stage and upper stages.

The success rate for Agena vehicles in the early years was also about 50%. So we can't blame mismatched upper stages for everything, at this early stage in the space program, getting a LV to fly at all was a challenge.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #27 on: 07/14/2017 04:42 pm »
Atlas-Able was definitely a poor idea, the upper stages were too skinny proportionate to the Atlas which resulted in damage from aerodynamic loads. All three Atlas-Ables launched failed due to this--first one the shroud comes off, second the Able suffers some sort of damage that results in loss of oxidizer pressure, and third one aerodynamic buffeting around the adapter section ruptured the Atlas's LOX tank (before someone claims the Able ignited prematurely, it didn't, this was disproven by GD-A/NASA docs).

Mercury-Atlas 1 also of course failed due to buffeting that caused structural failure of the LOX tank and after that happened, a requirement was put out that all Atlas upper stage/payload combinations undergo structural dynamics testing.

As for Juno II, some of the failures (including the most well-known and spectacular one) were not caused by the upper stages at all. In that case, the real problem was the lack of qualified, motivated tech personnel since Juno II was a close-ended program with no plans for further development. Vanguard was not very successful either, despite a much smaller size gradient between the first stage and upper stages.

The success rate for Agena vehicles in the early years was also about 50%. So we can't blame mismatched upper stages for everything, at this early stage in the space program, getting a LV to fly at all was a challenge.

Success rate was not a factor in selecting Juno II and Atlas Able as bad rockets.

Offline WallE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #28 on: 07/14/2017 04:52 pm »
Success rate was not a factor in selecting Juno II and Atlas Able as bad rockets.

Obviously if they were good, well-designed rockets, they wouldn't have failed at the rate they did.  8)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #29 on: 07/14/2017 05:15 pm »
Success rate was not a factor in selecting Juno II and Atlas Able as bad rockets.

Obviously if they were good, well-designed rockets, they wouldn't have failed at the rate they did.  8)

No, Juno II would still be a bad rocket no matter how much attention was paid to it.  And that is the point, by using existing parts, they can't be well designed.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #30 on: 07/14/2017 05:35 pm »
And that is the point, by using existing parts, they can't be well designed.

I think this is going way too far. Two examples:

Atlas III combined the Atlas II launcher with the RD-180 engine, replacing the existing MA-5A. It was by no means optimal but surely it was well designed?

Titan IIIA was closer to a clean sheet design than the Titan IIIB with the purpose designed Transtage. However, the IIIB ended up being the launcher of choice in this category despite using the existing Agena, both integrated with the payload and in ascent only mode.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #31 on: 07/14/2017 06:20 pm »

1.  Atlas III combined the Atlas II launcher with the RD-180 engine, replacing the existing MA-5A. It was by no means optimal but surely it was well designed?

2.  Titan IIIA was closer to a clean sheet design than the Titan IIIB with the purpose designed Transtage. However, the IIIB ended up being the launcher of choice in this category despite using the existing Agena, both integrated with the payload and in ascent only mode.

1.  No, It was optimized.  The Atlas III tanks were lengthened to accommodate the different mixture ratio and higher thrust.

2.  No, Titan IIIA was never a real launch vehicle.  It was just a test for a Titan IIIC core.  The Titan IIIC core was different than the Titan IIIB.  The Titan IIIB was just a booster upgrade for the Atlas Agena. 

Offline ennisj

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #32 on: 07/14/2017 08:12 pm »
Does Shuttle-Centaur qualify as a LEGO rocket?

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #33 on: 07/14/2017 08:23 pm »
Some rockets, namely the OTRAG series, were made to exactly be LEGOs.

http://www.astronautix.com/o/otrag.html

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #34 on: 07/14/2017 08:47 pm »
That one never really worked out. (The tax avoidance credit part apparently worked much better, until tax law got changed.)

Ariane 1-4 was quite a bit of mix and match. Or maybe call it extensive carryover from previous versions.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #35 on: 07/14/2017 09:00 pm »
Does Shuttle-Centaur qualify as a LEGO rocket?

No, because it is actually better than any other shuttle upperstage.

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #36 on: 07/14/2017 09:27 pm »
That one never really worked out. (The tax avoidance credit part apparently worked much better, until tax law got changed.)

Ariane 1-4 was quite a bit of mix and match. Or maybe call it extensive carryover from previous versions.

Interorbital Systems is a small company out of Mojave that has been trying to resurrect the modular concept for a few years now. They are currently test firing engines and modules, now made of filament wound composites. The original OTRAG designer is consulting on the project.

Its about as LEGO looking as any rocket could be without being assembled from plastic bricks.

http://interorbital.com/interorbital_06222015_012.htm
« Last Edit: 07/14/2017 09:32 pm by Helodriver »

Offline JazzFan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Florida
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #37 on: 07/15/2017 01:08 pm »
How about the Iraqi Al-Abid ?

Offline TeenSpaceNerd

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • United States
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #38 on: 07/25/2017 02:01 pm »
I think the question is, where do we draw the line between modular, and LEGO rockets? If we define LEGO as "Using a part not specifically intended for a rocket" (which I see the forum has already shunned to some extent) we end with quite a lot of modular rockets left out. If we define it as "Using a part that does not fit with the rocket", that could also be modular. Imagine you have a sattelite and you are going to launch it on a company who uses Modular rockets. You say: "I want the upper stage to be twice as tall, with this engine!" Because the company prides itself on being modular, they will do so. The rocket will fail on launch, yes, but it is not a LEGO rocket, in any sense of the word.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #39 on: 07/29/2017 12:41 pm »
Obviously if they were good, well-designed rockets, they wouldn't have failed at the rate they did.  8)

By the standards of the day, Juno II was not particularly unreliable.  Compare, for example, its record for deep-space launches, where it achieved more in two flights (Pioneers 3 & 4) than its more nearly optimally designed competitor Thor-Able did in three (Pioneers "0," 1 & 2).

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #40 on: 07/29/2017 12:43 pm »
I think the question is, where do we draw the line between modular, and LEGO rockets? If we define LEGO as "Using a part not specifically intended for a rocket" (which I see the forum has already shunned to some extent) we end with quite a lot of modular rockets left out. If we define it as "Using a part that does not fit with the rocket", that could also be modular. Imagine you have a sattelite and you are going to launch it on a company who uses Modular rockets. You say: "I want the upper stage to be twice as tall, with this engine!" Because the company prides itself on being modular, they will do so. The rocket will fail on launch, yes, but it is not a LEGO rocket, in any sense of the word.

I think Jim made his definition pretty clear: it's a rocket pieced together from stages that were not designed to be used together.  By that standard, OTRAG-like vehicles don't count as Lego rockets, since the modules were designed from the beginning to be agglomerated.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Rocket parts aren't like LEGO elements
« Reply #41 on: 05/16/2019 08:12 am »
One of the most lego-rocket looking rockets is the Fireflash missile:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireflash

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0