- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,368
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
As we all know, Ares I was sold on its supposed safety performance, which was said to be better than the EELVs studied in ESAS.
But I got thinking: Orion was of the size range that only the EELV heavies could lift it. The heavies had more engines, and more seperation events. A smaller vehicle could be lifted on something like the Atlas 401 or Delta IV Medium, which would be simpler vehicles.
But in keeping with that sort of payload mass...
Imagine taking the second stage of Ares I, with its J-2 engine. Instead of mounting it atop an SRB, mount it atop a kerolox liquid core stage, powered by an engine such as the F-1A. The core stage could either share 5 m Delta tooling, or tooling with the upper stage.
This vehicle could be substantially safer than the EELV heavies, but could be more flexible, have advantageous features, and not be so... nice to Utah.
Now imagine, as a "CaLV" to this "CLV", a THREE CORE HEAVY variant of this single-core launcher, perhaps with crossfeed, as well as an 8.4 meter EDS.
Just as a fun brain-doodle, what advantages and disadvantages would such a system have had?
Also, which is the safer way to design a launch vehicle? With the fewest propulsion elements (a la Liberty) for the lowest chance of catastrophic failure, or with redundant propulsion elements (like Falcon 9) to enable continued flight after non-catastrophic failure?
Would engine-out capability lower LOM rates, but make LOC rates higher, if the LES was relatively reliable?
But I got thinking: Orion was of the size range that only the EELV heavies could lift it. The heavies had more engines, and more seperation events. A smaller vehicle could be lifted on something like the Atlas 401 or Delta IV Medium, which would be simpler vehicles.
But in keeping with that sort of payload mass...
Imagine taking the second stage of Ares I, with its J-2 engine. Instead of mounting it atop an SRB, mount it atop a kerolox liquid core stage, powered by an engine such as the F-1A. The core stage could either share 5 m Delta tooling, or tooling with the upper stage.
This vehicle could be substantially safer than the EELV heavies, but could be more flexible, have advantageous features, and not be so... nice to Utah.
Now imagine, as a "CaLV" to this "CLV", a THREE CORE HEAVY variant of this single-core launcher, perhaps with crossfeed, as well as an 8.4 meter EDS.
Just as a fun brain-doodle, what advantages and disadvantages would such a system have had?
Also, which is the safer way to design a launch vehicle? With the fewest propulsion elements (a la Liberty) for the lowest chance of catastrophic failure, or with redundant propulsion elements (like Falcon 9) to enable continued flight after non-catastrophic failure?
Would engine-out capability lower LOM rates, but make LOC rates higher, if the LES was relatively reliable?