[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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. This wasn't a "NASA did it" rocket anyway: Atlas was a military ICBM project in the first place; NASA's use of it for the orbital Mercury launches came along later. The Titan II was a "dual-spec" (Gemini launch vehicle/ICBM)... only (of the pre-shuttle manned US launchers) the Saturn series were NASA-specific. And (unlike the shuttle) I haven't seen any of these 3 held up as major examples of "what not to do in a space vehicle design"... -dave w _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
