Pappystein Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Kerbal01 said: I learned this while doing some research for the TItan IIIA page on wikipedia. Ed Kyle's site set me straight. While he mentions it several times in the wording on his site.... Ed Kyle's page is a very good reference but it is not 100% accurate. Specifically many of the Titan Drawings for the later Titan 3 Rockets have the stage lengths being wrong per his own descriptive text. 10 hours ago, Kerbal01 said: I learned this while doing some research for the TItan IIIA page on wikipedia. Ed Kyle's site set me straight. Didn't the japanese end up doing basically this with the N-I/II rocket that was delta derived? Yes and no, The Japanese upper stage is nearly 100% New Engineering. The HOSS upper Stage is a repurposed Delta 2 tankage that has been cut down. That means it is likely LESS efficient than the Japanese upper stage (and probably why it didn't go into production.) I would rate efficiency wise, the Delta 3/4 DCSS, then the and the H-II upper stage THEN HOSS. That due to boil off concerns. The DCSS is an evolved H-II after all with an RL10 engine vs the LE-5 BUT HOSS is probably the easiest to model Game wise.A Tank and An Engine plate that allows the Delta II inter-stage to work with RL10 engines. and a small adapter plate for a PLF and Delta Guidance (re-purpose the Delta P one most likely) Edited February 20, 2019 by Pappystein Corrected statement highlited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.