Eyes Turned Skywards

Reader mode
Michel Van

Michel Van

Nice graphic, e of pi

i have to check this design to alternative arrangement, but i busy with other stuff for the moment,,,

here unkown Europa-3 Propsal with Hammerhead configuration and Diamant B LRB

EuropaIII_2.jpg

found here
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/West_Europe/Europa/Gallery/Europa_III.htm
 

e of pi

Michel Van said:
Nice graphic, e of pi
Click to expand...
Thanks. I know it's rough, but I wanted to give a brief idea of the sizes. See what I meant about there not really being room for 5xRZ.2/RZ.3?

i have to check this design to alternative arrangement, but i busy with other stuff for the moment,,,
Click to expand...
Having trouble making out any details on the images on that page--can't see the fuels on that. First stage on the left-hand one looks like either N2O4/hydrazine or methane/LOX (based on oxidizer and fuel tanks being roughly the same size). Given the era, the former seems more likely, which lead me to suspect that it's almost an early Ariane? And then some kind of proposal for the Ariane second stage on Blue streak with boosters?

By the way, just a note that this marks the 701st reply to the thread, and I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to the discussion on here, as well as to all the people who've pushed this to over 68,000 views--a figure I find rather mind-boggling, personally.
 
Last edited:

Bahamut-255

e of pi said:
By the way, just a note that this marks the 701st reply to the thread, and I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to the discussion on here, as well as to all the people who've pushed this to over 68,000 views--a figure I find rather mind-boggling, personally.
Click to expand...

Not surprising when you consider the fact that this is one of the much better Space AHTLs that's out there. Personally, I'd be very surprised if this fails to punch through the 100,000 mark by the end of Part II.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

e of pi said:
By the way, just a note that this marks the 701st reply to the thread, and I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to the discussion on here, as well as to all the people who've pushed this to over 68,000 views--a figure I find rather mind-boggling, personally.
Click to expand...

i din't notice, that i broke the 700 post barrier.
Hey only 299 Post until 1000 post in this discussion !!!
and I will work hard to get it.

even on prise to neglect my TL's in this forum,
wen i reactivate them or because i push EtS to 1000 post, i got finally this guy reputation...
Young1.jpg


...just kidding
 
Workable Goblin

Workable Goblin

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Launching from altitude has theoretical advantages, but massive practical disadvantages. To get high enough that air is perceptibly thinner, which imo is the only significant advantage, guarantees you are high enough that snow and ice will be problems. Your "cliff" idea offers no advatage at all, that i can see.

As for expanses of ocean north and south, well you only need north OR south, because you can get polar orbits either way.

So Kourou really is very close to being ideal.

As for islands for tracking stations, ships might be a bit more expensive, but they offer far more flexibility.
Click to expand...

Satellites are even better, though :)
 
Brainbin

Brainbin

e of pi said:
By the way, just a note that this marks the 701st reply to the thread, and I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to the discussion on here, as well as to all the people who've pushed this to over 68,000 views--a figure I find rather mind-boggling, personally.
Click to expand...
And what very well-deserved milestones they are! Of course, it's also brought you up to Page 2 in terms of total views - one more page to go! :)
 

Falkenburg

Monthly Donor
Despite having nothing to add to the discussions, at least I'm contributing to the Viewing figures. ;)

Falkenburg
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

I top that with ClF5/MHF-5
in 1968 NASA really study that stuff as fuel for Deep space mission, Manned Mars lander and RCS.

Source:
Propellant Selection for Spacecraft Propulsion Systems,
Volume II: Mission and vehicles
Contract NASW-1644
Lockheed, 30 August 1968
 
Workable Goblin

Workable Goblin

e of pi said:
Sheesh. Looking at a couple different engines using that fuel in the engine list on astronautix, I can't even see why you'd bother. All that nastiness for 259-275s?
Click to expand...

The idea may have been a deep-space storable hypergolic propellant combination. Conventional hypergolics require heating to keep from freezing in space--that's a major power demand on outer planets probes. So if you could get a prop combo that didn't freeze and was still hypergolic and therefore could be counted on to ignite after a few years in space, you could get some extra performance out of your probes. Storability theoretically wouldn't matter, since the propellant would be in deep space, far far away from any humans.

Similarly with flox or liquid fluorine upper stages; since they don't ignite until they're in space, the whole "spews HF all over the launch pad" thing shouldn't be a problem. Of course, the rockets can still explode...
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

truth is life said:
The idea may have been a deep-space storable hypergolic propellant combination. Conventional hypergolics require heating to keep from freezing in space--that's a major power demand on outer planets probes. So if you could get a prop combo that didn't freeze and was still hypergolic and therefore could be counted on to ignite after a few years in space, you could get some extra performance out of your probes. Storability theoretically wouldn't matter, since the propellant would be in deep space, far far away from any humans.

Similarly with flox or liquid fluorine upper stages; since they don't ignite until they're in space, the whole "spews HF all over the launch pad" thing shouldn't be a problem. Of course, the rockets can still explode...
Click to expand...

far, far, away from humans ?
Rockwell look in use of that nasty stuff in Manned Mars lander
while Boeing wanted to use ClF5/MHF-5 on RSC for there Manned Mars ship study in 1968 !
also the RCS on rockwell Manned Mars lander use that ugly stuff.
means they contamiate the landingarea with toxic waste....

only Lookheed look on use for unmanned advace Viking probe or deep space probe...
 
Workable Goblin

Workable Goblin

Michel Van said:
far, far, away from humans ?
Rockwell look in use of that nasty stuff in Manned Mars lander
while Boeing wanted to use ClF5/MHF-5 on RSC for there Manned Mars ship study in 1968 !
also the RCS on rockwell Manned Mars lander use that ugly stuff.
means they contamiate the landingarea with toxic waste....

only Lookheed look on use for unmanned advace Viking probe or deep space probe...
Click to expand...

Eh, I was going off of Ignition!. I don't pay too, too much attention to all the crazy fringe proposals that went around back then...although, given, the aerospace people back then were really hitting the drugs hard (well, it was the '60s...). Not just for those proposals, either...
 

e of pi

Warringer said:
Wait a minute... FOOF as oxygenizer? Who exactly thought that was a good idea?
Click to expand...
Did you read the link? :) It's a Charlie Stross story about a fictional effort called NAIL SPIKE which was trying to get Soviet scientists to kill themselves by leaking supposed top-secret rocket designs.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top