KASASpace

If I recall correctly they have a base mold, and then make the other molds based off of that one mold. For some things. Maybe not turbo pumps. But so much hasn't yet been applied to rocketry that should have been years ago. Industrialization for example. Actually, that was a joke. Pitiful you couldn't see that.

Yes I know. It gets confusing for me sometimes. And occasionally I have an urge to make a joke about it. Sorry, I'm not the greatest person in terms of morality. (Seriously guys, writing nothing is a good compromise.......)

The final design will be as simple as possible. Perhaps using a small amount of the highly pressurized combustion products to pressurize a canister of neutral gases? Wait, they proved that this is the actual reality!!!? When did that happen? Let me reiterate: If I build from a design, and then test and add as small an improvement as possible as quickly as possible (Soviet Style), than is that considered typical? Wait, aren't turbopumps effectively compressors? Is it that hard to build a compressor? Once you have the molds you can do it easily........... And this is not repairing, it's taking apart and putting back together using as much of the original as possible. (repairing is more like adding what's missing, so it would be finishing another engine) I never said "take the tiniest of parts". You clearly don't understand much of what I say. Let me reiterate: If you can take a turbopump, some piping, and only a portion of the combustion chamber, than that's the majority of the engine. BTW: 40/200 = 1/5. So, that's actually quite a lot. (Sorry, I had to.) I either use nothing: 200000 Or a comma: 200,000

Who would add extra pumps? Use the pumps on the boosters. Or use the core's pump. (Notice how I said pump, not plural. That's right, one pump for multiple engines on one stage. It can be and has been done. And, as you said, less components = more reliable) What in the heck are "values"? Half the fuel, no. Let's say 3/4 of the fuel. You can lose 25% of the tank's length. That's quite a lot of weight! Now, you can use a shorter tank. You can then use less outer material, less tankage, less structural weight, and less thrust needed. You can then either increase payload or lower the rocket's weight more. As I said, you can use one turbopump for a whole cluster of engines, and thus no extra pumps. And plus, you can then use the pump inside the core around halfway through the fuel pump. The Saturn V had over a million components. It's reliability (Apollo 4 stats) was 99.999%. The whole thing. All three stages.

Not hard does not imply easy, it implies easy OR intermediate. Now, it isn't hard to understand. It's actually really simple. Like the game Risk . Not how I'm thinking of how it will be done. It's not standard procedure. I'm talking even if it fails and the cause is not known. Did I say "refurbish"? No, I said recover them and then strip out what can be used. Melt or get rid of everything else. What I just said applies here. You wouldn't refurbish the damn thing! You would take what you can. Salvaging the engine. If you can take the combustion chamber, or even some piping, or perhaps other things you get a cheaper second engine. Plus, using ablative nozzles would remove much of that "complicated" piping and such.

Did you even read it? Having to use less fuel, and thus get a smaller rocket, and thus get less weight, and thus get less and less fuel needed is the best thing a rocket engineer could want. Heck, it's what half of them want for Christmas every year. The thrust needed is decreased, thus less pressure needed in the combustion chamber, thus less everything. The Curse of the Rocket has two sides: The light side: You shave off a bit of mass, you can shave off even more mass for quite a while. The dark side: The more mass added the more fuel needed. It's more reliable because you would use many common components. The engines for the boosters would be the same, and so thus the engine is a little bit cheaper than normal, especially if mass produced. (it will happen eventually) The boosters would all be the same. That means you simply build six of them at a time. More common components, the cheaper a rocket is. Just like everything else.

Simple does not equal easy. It means simple. It doesn't mean easy. We could von Braun it. By that I mean design it, test it, fix it. He literally did that with his team on the A-4/V-2. Now, we would first do testing on the ground, like all other rockets. And then test the components. You actually can recover the engines, BTW. You could then take what is usable and melt down the rest. Plus, you could design the engine to be ablative. Not aerogel, but like early heat shields. Now, turbopumps..............

Explosive bolts are actually extremely reliable. The only known instance (that I remember) where it failed was on the second manned flight of the Mercury capsule. And even then, it's not confirmed.

Really, an Apollo 18 reference? Okay, now to the point: I say cooperation. Each person could actually help develop and build a Launch Vehicle to put payloads into space. Then, work together to build payloads and pay for launches

You could use the individual pumps for the engines on the boosters to pump the fuel into the neighboring stage. It's simple, and only more plumbing in the way of piping. Oh, and: BTW, the less fuel the smaller the tank, and thus a smaller rocket. And thus less thrust needed. And thus a smaller engine. Less fuel is the best thing a rocket scientist can do.

The Soviet R-7 had a clustered engine on the individual booster rocket. So, perhaps a similar setup? So if one fails, you shut off the corresponding one on the opposite booster. Perhaps you could jettison the ones that failed? I mean using a modular system, like some sort of clamps? That can be undone if an engine fails? And I know that the more events the more dangerous it is, but it's an efficient concept. Plus, you can resort to an infallible separation technology: Explosive bolts. I'm sure they're used anyways, but when they are used you can detach and thrust away a parallel stage.

Who wants a really expensive rocket that ony throws about 10 tons in to LEO? I would want a cheap one that's also reliable. So wait until a bunch of successes in a row.

So, I was making an Excel Spreadsheet. I had a two stage vehicle that put 500 of anything into orbit (all units were arbitrary until the D-v equation, but the gravitational constant was in its own cell, so you could change it easily) When I added an Asparagus feature to the design, in the fashion of the Kerbal-X (smaller tanks around a bigger one) I managed to eradicate the need for a second stage. So, either I was really wrong in my equations (I checked thoroughly) or we should at least be trying to actually go and build something like this. So, I have a question: What are your thoughts as to Asparagus Staging? Is it a beautiful concept? A pipe dream? Or is it the craziest thing ever? Explain why you have your views of the concept, please.

Not really. Just hard to use. Because you can make it so it toggles that engine cluster or something, and then you throttle control it.

There's always action groups

Now that's an idea!

Interesting........ It helps to keep the Kessler syndrome low, but then again, other launch vehicles don't always do the same.

Hmm, so 2 stages. I don't know why I thought it said "stages and a half" as in multiple rockets. Wait, what do you mean by 2 and a half stages? Do you mean the payload has to operate as its own stage as well?

I never claimed that they would have died without it. I said lucky they had because they managed to get a quick solution easily. (Do YOU even know what the DSKY is? It's the interface between the crew and the computer. It could have been used to start up the engine, but I wouldn't know. I don't have all the programs in it memorized.)

"Stages and a half" looks like you mean multiple launch vehicles with stage and a half design. You wouldn't say "stage and a halves" would you? http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlas.htm That's the Encyclopedia Astronautica. One of the best resources for space flight. If you look in the very first paragraph it says: It *could* be considered that (the STS). (Although, I have to commend you on your Saturn family.......)

So, stored torque? That gets rejuvenated in the system. Like this: It stores AM and uses it up once used. It then regains some of it back when the RWs are used to stop spinning in that direction.

That was from what you yourself referenced. I know what a circuit breaker is. Sure, it has little to do with a computer, specifically the AGC, but it does have some thing to do with it. If they had taken too long to repair the breaker, or if the START button had taken some sort of damage (so much happened it was mighty possible). Maybe if they could have used the DSKY..........

Then kindly explain why the Atlas LV-3b used Balloon tanks. It was a booster launch vehicle, and they placed an upper stage on it. The Centaur. Atlas V is not a 1 and a half stage, Ariane V is not. And I'm quite sure that the Delta IV isn't as well. Atlas V: ONE RD-180 first stage engine. Sure, you can add booster stages, but those aren't individual engines, those are entire stages. Ariane V: Has a second stage, albeit small. UPDATE: Plus, the SRBs contain their own fuel. Delta IV: Also has a second stage, using the RL-10. The upper stage was planned to be adapted for the SLS' first two missions : EM-1 and EM-2.

Ballon tanks are actually fairly viable, as they are light. But you could add a few structural emplacements to make it lighter than a typical tank, like a semi-balloon tank. It doesn't look like you know what 1.5 stage means. The Atlas LV-3b was a 1.5 stage. The Space Shuttle was a 1.5 stage. 1.5 stage means all the engines fire at launch, but then the heavier engines are dropped, aka the booster engines and then the sustainer is left.

I'll give you that, but the drag wouldn't actually be that big of a problem. The biggest problem is more than likely Max-Q......... but onto drag! The most drag experience would be when the rocket isn't pointing towards its velocity vector. So, to minimize drag, you only point a few degrees off at all times. And plus, the 9,144 m/s of Dv needed to get to orbit takes into account drag if I'm not mistaking..........