Henry S said:
> <<<Any pressurized tank, *especially* one pressurized to the point needed
> for
> pressure-fed engines, typically makes excellent structure with little or
> no added stiffening. (Witness the classical Atlas, whose tanks are just
> sheet-metal balloons, with essentially no strength of their own.)>>>
"Excellent structure"? I doubt it. If nasa did it, it's wrong. That is a good
starting point for CATS rocket analysis. Don't copy nasa. Do the opposite.
When you attach a piece of rocket structure to a stressed metal balloon
fuselage, you create stress failure points. The lightest-weight design isn't
the safest and easiest design for our alternate access to space.
Simply put, a tank needs internal reinforcement to be a strong fuselage.
You don't want the ship breaking apart when strong aero dynamic turning
moments are applied. Balloon tanks? C'mon. Highly inappropriate. success wishes
from Allen
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
