Nor, apparently, is even the somewhat more benign "onion" staging viable. Not worth it, compared to the mass, intricacy, power needs and introduced failure modes that come with pumping several tons per second of cryogenic liquids around. The proportional gain from dropping just a tank would be.minor. For bare naked tanks the dry fraction will be much less, possibly even under 2%. The Falcon 9 first stage with engines, avionics, gridfins and legs still manages dry mass of only 6.5%. KSP tanks are about 10% dry mass(tanks only, no extras), thus ropping them provides very solid gains for your rocket. Mainly because pumping fuel around at the speeds and volumes needed for launch is a really big job, but also partially because the actual tank dry mass we achieve is so much better than KSP does, that the benefit is much reduced. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.Īsparagus staging is possible, but not viable. This is much easier to engineer - no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running - the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it. In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). All this increases weight and complexity. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP. Is this even realistically possible in real life? or would the drawbacks outweigh the benefits Now I know that without specific information in terms of Mass of the stages etc it's impossible to do the actual maths, but:
so all this added weight would reduce the effective delta-V you could gain from it. This is the meat of the question, Asparagus staging in KSP is easy, just done with magical fuel lines, but in reality, it would take huge pumps and fuel lines and structural supports. This means that the Fuel and Oxidizer Tanks in S4 actually feed all 7 Engines, until empty and dropped, then S3 feeds all 5 until empty, the dropped, Same with S2, and then S1 is now already very high in the atmosphere traveling very fast but is basically fully fueled and continues on into orbit Asparagus Staging where Engines and tanks surround the main rocket, which feed into the rocket beside it around the central core then to the next to the next and then to the central core which above it has the final stage, this setup in KSP allows lifting huge spacecraft into orbit.Onion Staging where an outer tank feeds into an inner tank and when empty is dropped, similar to the crossfeed between the Shuttle and Main Orange Tank.Conventional Staging where each stage separates, then reveals the engines above it, the same as used in the Saturn V Rocket.In the computer game Kerbal Space Program, there are 3 main Staging Options that are used Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, as its very much hypothetical.
0 kommentar(er)
