| User | Post |
|
8:56 pm November 16, 2009
| Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Last night I learned that the Apollo spacecraft actually used the final stage of their Saturn V booster (which was a re-startable engine) to perform their trans lunar injection burn. I had always just assumed they used the service module engine for this.
Since we seem to be slightly inclined toward solid fuel for simplicity's sake, we won't be able to restart our final stage while in parking orbit. This means we'll either need effectively a forth stage to our booster, for TLI use, or we'll have to use our service module engine for both TLI and TEI, meaning our SM will need *double* the delta-v budget of Apollo's. Of course, that might not be so severe a problem, since our CSM will weigh a lot less than theirs, but it still doesn't exactly sound great.
Any thoughts on which of these options would be best?
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
1:33 am November 17, 2009
| brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
Remember, the Apollo SM had to do the burn to enter lunar orbit too, and it would have been carying the LEM at the time too. Also, I don't think we have really settled on a solid fueled design yet. I personally favor a presure fed liquid fueled design, at least for the upper stage. Also, a comercial launch vehicle is definitely an option, and possibly our best one.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
1:40 am November 17, 2009
| Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Ah, yes. Not quite double the delta-v, then, but significantly more. But, due to the reduced crew size and lack of a LEM, I suppose our CSM should be so much lighter that this is managable.
I saw your other post containing data on commercial options – good work. I think it is worth keeping this in mind at all times. We should only go with the custom booster option if we really think we can save a considerable amount of money without compromising too much on quality/reliability.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
2:41 am November 17, 2009
| Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
One option would be to only light a certain number of the booster stages of the 3rd stage (we would need to keep accleration down anyway), drop them, and then use the remaining boosters for TLI once in orbit.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|