K_Jameson
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,064
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
There's already a Phantom II;
This is what I meant talking about "the most successful aircraft in modern history"
There's already a Phantom II;
:thumbup:The reason I cast my 120 votes for GalaxyOne were because:
A. Anyone with a space program sized budget that can't make an online poll that only allows one vote deserves to have the cheesiest name win.
B. The company that seriously considers GalaxyOne enough to put it on a three option ballot should be required to use that name as retribution :lol:
also, no offense intended here, GalaxyOne is just a laughable option IMHO.
@Pipcard: Somehow, Galaxy I does seem quite a bit better.
My personal reason for disliking GalaxyOne: as you said... LauncherOne, SpaceshipOne, XboxOne
Compare with this proposed Atlas V evolution plan:
It seems that the only difference is that the core stage has been widened to be the same width as the 5-meter fairing.
...and of course with a new methane powered 1st stage engine from Blue Origin. :tiphat:
This is what I meant talking about "the most successful aircraft in modern history"
Since it looks like a fatter Atlas V at first glance, I propose the name "Fatlas".
Any questions? No? Good.
Since it looks like a fatter Atlas V at first glance, I propose the name "Fatlas".
Any questions? No? Good.
http://i.imgur.com/faiMxqM.jpg[/
Compare with this proposed Atlas V evolution plan:
[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/2rzsao7.jpg
It seems that the only difference is that the stages (except for the Centaur in the NGLS-M) have been widened to be the same width as the 5-meter fairing.
Actually, that image is only a "potential configuration" (what it might likely look like), and as the article and Galactic Penguin SST said earlier, it's going to use methane or LNG engines instead of kerosene.Thanks for that. Looks like it would use two RD-180 engines on the first stage. What would be the payload capability?
Bob Clark
Musk says that overhead starts with how the launch vehicle is designed. The workhorse Atlas V, for example, used for everything from planetary probes to spy satellites, employs up to three kinds of rockets, each tailored to a specific phase of flight. The Russian-built RD-180 first- stage engines burn a highly refined form of kerosene called RP1. Optional solid-fuel strap-on boosters can provide additional thrust at liftoff, and a liquid hydrogen upper stage takes over in the final phase of flight. Using three kinds of rockets in the same vehicle may optimize its performance, but at a price: “To a first-order approximation, you’ve just tripled your factory costs and all your operational costs,” says Musk.
Instead, from the very beginning, SpaceX designed its Falcon rockets with commonality in mind. Both of Falcon 9’s stages are powered by RP1 and liquid oxygen, so only one type of engine is required. Both are the same diameter and are constructed from the same aluminum-lithium alloy, reducing the amount of tooling and the number of processes and resulting in what Musk calls “huge cost savings.”
(This is why, when I make my fictional M-III rocket, it will be all-methane. The M-III will have a wider core stage, like the NGLS, which allows it to have even wider fairings)
Thanks for that. Looks like it would use two RD-180 engines on the first stage. What would be the payload capability?
Bob Clark