|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 22, 2007 11:42:10 GMT -4
On the contrary: it is my contention that other dialects of English are merely debased varieties of the Archetypal form used by the Tyne... ;D Leave it out Guv. Your 'aving a larf. You lot don't speak proper like wot we Southerners do, init.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 9, 2007 20:17:49 GMT -4
Sure, once it's engineered then stick with it because it works. But I'm thinking in terms of a hypothetical clean-sheet design. With 30 engines in the first stage alone, I suspect this would not be the first thing you would want to change with a hypothetical clean-sheet.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 9, 2007 19:00:08 GMT -4
[Much simpler than trying to engineer a craft that hot-fires its upper stages safely. This may be true, but to be fair the R7 alone has done this around 1,700 times for 50 years with a near 98% success rate so the Russians seem to have got the hang of it.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 7, 2007 22:19:47 GMT -4
Why did the N1 use latticework between the first two stages? Was it strictly for weight savings? I seems like it would have had very problematic aerodynamics. I can't think of a single U.S. booster design that went that route. You will find this is quite common with Soviet launchers, there is lattice work between the first core and second stage of the R7 (Vostok/Soyuz) launcher and with the Proton. These rockets "hot fire" the second stage, ie the second stage engines ignite before the first stage burns out and is separated. this lattice work is, I suppose, the easiest system for allowing the rocket exhaust to escape. I am not certain why they employ this hot firing is employed but I have always assume that it dispenses with the need for ullage motors. The fact that the N1 also employs this lattice work makes me think that it too may have hot fired the second stage.
|
|