Vamsi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,858
- Likes
- 29,461
Merlin has Sea level ISP of 285sec...our SCE-200 will have 300sec....Sea Level ISPya it is around merlin engine
Merlin has Sea level ISP of 285sec...our SCE-200 will have 300sec....Sea Level ISPya it is around merlin engine
1. We will surely do a hop test.@Moonlander ISRO will use ADMIRE test vehicle to prove Supersonic retro propulsion & vertical landing, SpaceX used Grasshopper to do the same.
1.How you guys are gonna prove VTVL tech, Are you also planning for a similar kind of tech demonstrater?
2. Isn't it good way to develop a Falcon1 like small LV with a single engine in 1st stage to prove the basic techs instead of directly going for medium LV with 9 engine?
Ya'll Nibbiars then why not modularity like the ISRO straps boosters?.1. We will surely do a hop test.
2. See when designing rockets the major R&D part contributes to man power before component testing and designing. a small rocket is completely different than designing a big one, if you remember spacex wrapped work on Falcon 1 after 4 launches yet it took them 6 more years to come up with falcon 9. If I go with this approach then i am increasing my time and money involved by significant margin while gaining very less on the technology aspect.
Yes , small LV is completely different than large LV, it will have different aerodynamics, control Laws etc....I agree with this ...but my point is.....small LV is cheaper than a bigger LV....in small LV u can afford failures when compared to the bigger one....also, the experience, Know-how & know-why we gain during the small LV development will reduce uncertainties during the development of larger LV, which also may reduce the chances of failure for the bigger one.1. We will surely do a hop test.
2. See when designing rockets the major R&D part contributes to man power before component testing and designing. a small rocket is completely different than designing a big one, if you remember spacex wrapped work on Falcon 1 after 4 launches yet it took them 6 more years to come up with falcon 9. If I go with this approach then i am increasing my time and money involved by significant margin while gaining very less on the technology aspect.
I don't fully agree on that, everything will change surely launching a SLV first will bring confidence and failure in that will cost less money but there is no guarantee that you will succeed in developing a HLV after developing a SLV, like what happens with GSLV or what happened with FALCON 9 in the beginning.Yes , small LV is completely different than large LV, it will have different aerodynamics, control Laws etc....I agree with this ...but my point is.....small LV is cheaper than a bigger LV....in small LV u can afford failures when compared to the bigger one....also, the experience, Know-how & know-why we gain during the small LV development will reduce uncertainties during the development of larger LV, which also may reduce the chances of failure for the bigger one.
More the number of boosters involved more complex will be the reusability.Ya'll Nibbiars then why not modularity like the ISRO straps boosters?.
Their Energia system was best if had managed to survive till now.Ya'll Nibbiars @Moonlander Nibba what you thoughts on the PNG/CNG powered LV?.
View attachment 137869
nice placeA small glimpse of what our common area looks like, space industry is all about brainstorming and innovations. All of this is only possible with well being of employees, trying our best to make office as employee friendly as possible.
View attachment 138452
View attachment 138453
View attachment 138454
View attachment 138455
View attachment 138456
Will have good sleep on sofa. Are washroom equipped with shower then?. I can spend a whole weekday there.A small glimpse of what our common area looks like, space industry is all about brainstorming and innovations. All of this is only possible with well being of employees, trying our best to make office as employee friendly as possible.
View attachment 138452
View attachment 138453
View attachment 138454
View attachment 138455
View attachment 138456
I have worked with teams who took less than 3 months to design, manufacture and build a 18kN engine and i have worked with teams who took over 2 years for 25kN engines. So at the end everything is about how would you like to approach your engine development. Are you willing to flood in some extra money and do rapid prototyping and shorten the team frame required or do you want to follow an economical methodology of hit and trial, followed by computation simulations and analytical approach which for sure slow things down or you can come up with a hybrid, you get what I am saying right ?nice place
I had asked a question above, that how much time does it takes to develop a liquid rocket engine.
what are your estimates ??
Scale of economics.I have worked with teams who took less than 3 months to design, manufacture and build a 18kN engine and i have worked with teams who took over 2 years for 25kN engines. So at the end everything is about how would you like to approach your engine development. Are you willing to flood in some extra money and do rapid prototyping and shorten the team frame required or do you want to follow an economical methodology of hit and trial, followed by computation simulations and analytical approach which for sure slow things down or you can come up with a hybrid, you get what I am saying right ?
Kind off and risk taking abilities, things can blow out of proportion very fast in rapid prototyping.Scale of economics.
Like thisKind off and risk taking abilities, things can blow out of proportion very fast in rapid prototyping.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Passenger cars deliveries from China to Russia rise to $4.6 bln in January-June | Europe and Russia | 0 | ||
Skycraper and Highrises in India | Economy & Infrastructure | 1038 | ||
Behind the rise of brits in BHARATVARSH | Knowledge Repository | 18 | ||
China's industrial profits rise 28.2% y-o-y in October | China | 16 |