On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >My feeling is that we need a compact shape to get there, and some sort
> >of deployable squatness to get back.
>
> The easiest way is to stage of course. But I've been wondering if
> deployable width could work.
An observation I saw years ago, which still strikes me as basically valid:
what really consumes gross amounts of design effort is when different
major issues are strongly coupled. Fast jets are hard to design because
structure, aerodynamics, and propulsion are strongly coupled. The most
fundamental reason for using rocket planes for early supersonics research
was that the compactness of rocket engines decouples them from structure,
and their lack of need for air decouples them from aerodynamics.
One way to decouple things is by having different modes. There is much to
be said for decoupling ascent aerodynamics from reentry aerodynamics by
having a different shape for each. (There is a price, of course, but it
may be worth it.)
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
