If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   NASA signs deal with Boeing to build the most powerful rocket EVER, will be able to take us to infinity and BEYOND. Okay, maybe to Mars   (latimes.com) divider line 58
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

2272 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jul 2014 at 10:18 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-02 08:05:53 PM  
God damn I love it when NASA talks dirty to me like that.
 
2014-07-02 09:56:17 PM  
F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?
 
2014-07-02 10:05:54 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?


Maybe they're talking about the two-stage configuration and the tonnage it can handle?
 
2014-07-02 10:06:40 PM  
*sigh*
SRBs, cuz ATK gots ta gets paid
 
2014-07-02 10:13:24 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

Maybe they're talking about the two-stage configuration and the tonnage it can handle?


I'm no rocket scientist (man... there's a straightline for ya), but my mental math thinks even the first two stages of the S-V were badasser than that

/but technically, it was a three stage rocket
//and they're really stretching it
 
2014-07-02 10:16:03 PM  
Oh... and the Saturn V was 40 some feet taller

/FWTW
//they don't make 'em like they used to
 
2014-07-02 10:19:20 PM  
How many Kerbals can we send?
 
2014-07-02 10:21:10 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: AlwaysRightBoy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

Maybe they're talking about the two-stage configuration and the tonnage it can handle?

I'm no rocket scientist (man... there's a straightline for ya), but my mental math thinks even the first two stages of the S-V were badasser than that

/but technically, it was a three stage rocket
//and they're really stretching it


I'm no rocket scientist either and I've seen the engines at the Cape. Just giant in size. Also saw the Orion spacecraft on display the last time I was there.
 
2014-07-02 10:28:29 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?


From memory (and posting on phone!), the 4x SSME-derivatives are just the core; what happens to the math if you strap on 4x 5-segment SSRBs?
 
2014-07-02 10:29:33 PM  

tkil: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

From memory (and posting on phone!), the 4x SSME-derivatives are just the core; what happens to the math if you strap on 4x 5-segment SSRBs?


Brain asplode
 
2014-07-02 10:29:43 PM  
With luck we'll catch up with 50 year ago.
img.bhs4.com

Space Shuttle Main Engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever put into service with an ISP of 452 in space..  50+ years ago, NERVA could hit 850.
 
2014-07-02 10:34:30 PM  

tkil: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

From memory (and posting on phone!), the 4x SSME-derivatives are just the core; what happens to the math if you strap on 4x 5-segment SSRBs?


OK... NOW I see it

4 x 2.8 million pounds of thrust provided by "light fuse and get away"

/makes sense now
//Wile E Coyote FTW
 
2014-07-02 10:39:52 PM  

Saturn5: With luck we'll catch up with 50 year ago.
[img.bhs4.com image 600x600]

Space Shuttle Main Engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever put into service with an ISP of 452 in space..  50+ years ago, NERVA could hit 850.


NERVA sucked for thrust-weight ratio though. F/W of about 3:1 versus around 120:1 for the best chemical rockets. Not something you want in a launch vehicle (to say nothing of the radiological problems you have to deal with if one blows itself to bits on the launch pad). Nuclear rockets are fine for once you actually get to space, where fuel efficiency matters a lot more than gross thrust, and you can efficiently place the crew module a safe distance from the reactor.
 
2014-07-02 10:44:41 PM  
FTFA "Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,"

That made me laugh.

/it will blow up at least once, go over budget, and not be delivered on time
 
2014-07-02 10:46:14 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Saturn5: With luck we'll catch up with 50 year ago.
[img.bhs4.com image 600x600]

Space Shuttle Main Engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever put into service with an ISP of 452 in space..  50+ years ago, NERVA could hit 850.

NERVA sucked for thrust-weight ratio though. F/W of about 3:1 versus around 120:1 for the best chemical rockets. Not something you want in a launch vehicle (to say nothing of the radiological problems you have to deal with if one blows itself to bits on the launch pad). Nuclear rockets are fine for once you actually get to space, where fuel efficiency matters a lot more than gross thrust, and you can efficiently place the crew module a safe distance from the reactor.


Different needs for a high thrust to get out of earth's gravity, vs long burn duration to gain enough momentum to make interplanetary travel take a reasonable amount of time.  The radiological problems have pretty well been solved in the ensuing decades.  It could burn up on re-entry and the reactor core wouldn't breach.  These aren't Three Mile Island size reactors.

Chemical rockets are great for huge thrust in a short period of time, but the amount of fuel mass you have to carry for the thrust you get very quickly becomes a problem.  The entire external tank on the Space Shuttle got you about 1.5M lbs thrust for 8-9 minutes.
 
2014-07-02 10:48:57 PM  
I can haz Kerbal thread?

i.imgur.com
/thought I posted this already
 
2014-07-02 10:51:05 PM  
Solid rocket boosters.
Biggest rocket ever.
Going to mars.

Two outta three of these things ain't happening.

/and that's me being optimistic.
 
2014-07-02 10:59:10 PM  

Saturn5: With luck we'll catch up with 50 year ago.
[img.bhs4.com image 600x600]

Space Shuttle Main Engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever put into service with an ISP of 452 in space..  50+ years ago, NERVA could hit 850.


You remember what the N stood for? The engine was a nuclear reactor, much different from the little RTG devices put on probes.
 
2014-07-02 11:01:18 PM  
On the ground, TWR is king.  In the space, ISP is king.  Gravity wells fark everything up.  Or help everything.  It depends on where you wanna go.

/Getting to orbit is halfway to anywhere
//KSP is an awesome educational tool
///Todays Cpl.D note brought to you by "Apoapsis".
 
2014-07-02 11:07:36 PM  

gingerjet: FTFA "Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,"

That made me laugh.

/it will blow up at least once, go over budget, and not be delivered on time


You sound like a glass full kind of person!
 
2014-07-02 11:19:37 PM  

The Bestest: *sigh*
SRBs, cuz ATK gots ta gets paid


This is why I was shocked when somebody finally said "no, this is just farking stupid" about the Ares 1.
 
2014-07-02 11:20:44 PM  
Nothing inspires you to build big ass rockets like wanting to beat the Russkies.

'MERICA!
 
2014-07-02 11:20:56 PM  
Mmmmm, Space Pork for ATK. SLS stands for "Senate Launch System".  It ain't going to Mars. They'll build it, do a couple Orion flights, then no one will front the money for a lander or space hab so they could visit asteroids, and it will die away.

They should stop screwing around and fully fund SpaceX to get DragonRider flying ASAP. Dragon and Falcon is where it's at, baby!
 
2014-07-02 11:26:39 PM  
Hmmm.. Something something Falcon Heavy...

/Spacex will eat their lunch
 
2014-07-02 11:28:49 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Nothing inspires you to build big ass rockets like wanting to beat the Russkies.

'MERICA!


We lost those plans, apparently, so we can't build the Saturn V these days.
 
2014-07-02 11:30:50 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-02 11:42:45 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: gingerjet: FTFA "Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,"

That made me laugh.

/it will blow up at least once, go over budget, and not be delivered on time

You sound like a glass full kind of person!


Indeed. Very optimistic. That's only if the Lazy B doesn't go on strike a few times over coffee in the break-room.
 
2014-07-02 11:56:31 PM  

gingerjet: FTFA "Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,"

That made me laugh.

/it will blow up at least once, go over budget, and not be delivered on time


It will be cancelled before it ever flies for "something better," just like the Ares V.
 
2014-07-02 11:58:23 PM  

Cordwainer Duck: rover picture


i.imgur.com

SCIENCE!
 
2014-07-03 12:15:44 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?


A single F-1 has more thrust than 5 RS-23 SMEs.
 
2014-07-03 12:16:54 AM  

UsikFark: ReverendJynxed: Nothing inspires you to build big ass rockets like wanting to beat the Russkies.

'MERICA!

We lost those plans, apparently, so we can't build the Saturn V these days.


You can blame the Smithsonian for that. They must have used them for ZigZags soon after they got the blueprints from the NASA contractors.
 
2014-07-03 12:59:55 AM  

Cpl.D: Cordwainer Duck: rover picture

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]

SCIENCE!


You know, when I first saw that picture, I cried.

/has no kerbal pictures on new computer
 
2014-07-03 01:20:31 AM  

AlwaysRightBoy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

Maybe they're talking about the two-stage configuration and the tonnage it can handle?


They are talking about the core 4 engines plus boosters that will be used at launch.. which will together have I guess 50% more power than the saturn V
 
2014-07-03 01:24:31 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?


Block two would be more powerful than the Saturn V, if it gets built.  Which it won't.
 
2014-07-03 01:26:17 AM  

The Bestest: *sigh*
SRBs, cuz ATK gots ta gets paid


Everything about this project is to make sure the old club gets paid.  The dumbest way to make a rocket is to use all 40 year old parts from the Space Shuttle.  But here we are.
 
2014-07-03 01:30:34 AM  

UsikFark: ReverendJynxed: Nothing inspires you to build big ass rockets like wanting to beat the Russkies.

'MERICA!

We lost those plans, apparently, so we can't build the Saturn V these days.


They were working on reverse engineering it.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrou s- f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/
 
2014-07-03 02:50:14 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: tkil: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F-1 engine (Saturn V) = 1.5 million lbs of thrust x 5
RS-25 engine (Shuttle) = 418,000 lbs of thrust x 4

most powerful rocket EVER

/wha?

From memory (and posting on phone!), the 4x SSME-derivatives are just the core; what happens to the math if you strap on 4x 5-segment SSRBs?

OK... NOW I see it

4 x 2.8 million pounds of thrust provided by "light fuse and get away"

/makes sense now
//Wile E Coyote FTW


And I got it wrong, of course.  Seems there have been a variety of different core / booster options mooted; I don't even know the latest set of "might actually happen".

Either way, it seems the "biggest rocket ever" is positing a core + boosters; if that core is 4x SSME or derivatives, that's "only" 4 x 1.86 MN = 7.5 MN (sea level).  Compare with Saturn V: 5x F1 = 5x 6.8 MN = 34.0 MN.  That means that any such claim must include boosters of some sort.

Each 4-segment SRB [I even got the initialism wrong, sigh] is 12.0 MN (sea level?), so 2x = 24.0 MN, and 4x = 48.0 MN.  So:

4x SSME + 2x 4S SRB = 7.5 + 24.0 = 31.5 MN (not quite Saturn V).
4x SSME + 4x 4S SRB = 7.5 + 48.0 = 55.5 MN (holy shiat, batman).

5-segment variants of SS SRBs can apparently hit 3.6M lb = 15.4 MN, so:

4x SSME + 2x 5S SRB = 7.5 + 30.8 = 38.3 MN (beats Saturn V handily).
4x SSME + 4x 5S SRB = 7.5 + 61.6 = 79.1 MN (uh, yeah, right).

Another possibility for the external boosters is to use the F1B (a re-engineered version of the F1).  With each rated at 8.0 MN at sea level.  Doesn't quite measure up to a SRB, but they have the advantage of being throttleable to some extent:

4x SSME + 2x F1-B = 7.5 + 16.0 = 23.5 MN (meh, rather short of Saturn V).
4x SSME + 4x F1-B = 7.5 + 32.0 = 39.5 MN (much better than Saturn V).

So without pondering much about density or efficiency, sheer thrust levels indicate that "more powerful than Saturn V [=34.0 MN]" only fits 4 of these configs:

38.3 MN = 4x SSME + 2x 5S SRB
39.5 MN = 4x SSME + 4x F1B
39.6 MN = 9x Raptor
55.5 MN = 4x SSME + 4x 4S SRB
79.1 MN = 4x SSME + 4x 5S SRB

[SpaceX Raptor is spec'd at 4.4 MN each, so 9x Raptor would be 39.4 MN, putting it at the median of that group (which is skewed to the lower end).]
 
2014-07-03 02:52:45 AM  

MechaPyx: UsikFark: ReverendJynxed: Nothing inspires you to build big ass rockets like wanting to beat the Russkies.

'MERICA!

We lost those plans, apparently, so we can't build the Saturn V these days.

They were working on reverse engineering it.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrou s- f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/


This is a great link. I personally wondered if the old engines kept around could be studied, or if they had been modified for display or by time and were no longer engineering examples... Now I know the truth.
 
2014-07-03 02:57:52 AM  

tkil: So without pondering much about density or efficiency, sheer thrust levels indicate that "more powerful than Saturn V [=34.0 MN]" only fits 5 of these configs:
 ...


Grr.  That's what I get for throwing in the 9x Raptor at the last minute.  :(
 
2014-07-03 03:04:24 AM  

tkil: [SpaceX Raptor is spec'd at 4.4 MN each, so 9x Raptor would be 39.4 MN, putting it at the median of that group (which is skewed to the lower end).]

39.6 MN.  Math is so damned hard.  (Or I'm far too sober.)
 
2014-07-03 04:02:48 AM  

Cpl.D: I can haz Kerbal thread?

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]
/thought I posted this already


Did that one work?
 
2014-07-03 06:26:27 AM  
The contention that the plans for F-1 are no longer around is BS. The real problem is the tooling and processes required to manufacture the parts for the F-1. Sad thing is, if we kept manufacturing F-1, we'd end up with cheaper, more efficient variants. Remember that the Shuttle engines are essentialy modified Satrun J-2 engine. In addition, the F-1 used a kerosene/lox mix, not hydrogen like the J-2. Makes a difference in terms of how much energy the fuel has, weight, and specific impulse. Anyhoo...a little historical background for this thread....

That being said, the F-1 and the J-2 systems are not the most efficient. The F-1 uses a gas generator to run the pumps to provide RP/LOX to the combustion chamber. The fuel used in the gas-generator is dumped overbaord, and not used in the combustion cycle. (If you look at slo-mo pics of Satrun V launches...the black stuff coming out of the nozzles is that exhaust....used to help keep the engine bell from melting). The Russians solved the inefficiency of this system decades ago, and was a big secret until the fall of the Soviet Union...when what US engineers though was impossbile...the ability to cluster engines (like the Saturn's) and provide fuel with tje same turbine pump system...and the fuel isn't dumped overboard....but used as part of the combustion process. More efficient...and reusable...the Atlas currently uses a variant of this engine based on a contract with the designers of the RD-170...Energomash.

What I do not understand is why NASA is looking at Boeing.....again. I am so fed up with the booster monopoly and I hope SpaceX succeeeds with their Falcon Heavy.
 
2014-07-03 06:45:26 AM  

Frothy Panties: What I do not understand is why NASA is looking at Boeing.....again. I am so fed up with the booster monopoly and I hope SpaceX succeeeds with their Falcon Heavy.


Falcon Heavy has a maximum lift of 55 tons to LEO. SLS Block 2 will lift 150 to 180 tons, more than the Saturn V's payload to LEO capability.
 
2014-07-03 08:25:37 AM  

tkil: tkil: [SpaceX Raptor is spec'd at 4.4 MN each, so 9x Raptor would be 39.4 MN, putting it at the median of that group (which is skewed to the lower end).]
39.6 MN.  Math is so damned hard.  (Or I'm far too sober.)


So what do you get with 3 times 9x Raptors in a 3 core first stage (reusable).

/something, something, MCT
 
2014-07-03 08:30:13 AM  
working on a engine design right now that should give ~50-60 TWR and a ISP of 700.
 
2014-07-03 12:15:28 PM  

mr lawson: working on a engine design right now that should give ~50-60 TWR and a ISP of 700.


That`s horribly overpowered and will upset balance. Obviously you run mods...
 
2014-07-03 12:46:37 PM  
Will it be made by a 3D printer?

/runs and hides
 
2014-07-03 01:14:54 PM  

dready zim: That`s horribly overpowered and will upset balance. Obviously you run mods.


????
/not kerbal...real life
 
2014-07-03 03:03:21 PM  

mr lawson: working on a engine design right now that should give ~50-60 TWR and a ISP of 700.


One or the other of those sounds really optimistic. What sort of rocket are we talking about? Nuclear?
 
2014-07-03 03:04:49 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: mr lawson: working on a engine design right now that should give ~50-60 TWR and a ISP of 700.

One or the other of those sounds really optimistic. What sort of rocket are we talking about? Nuclear?


Mentos/Diet coke.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report