One question I have is how to figure out how much
weight gets added with a pressure fed system, for the
added strengthening of the tank and for the added
pressurant -- helium or nitrogen at 600 PSI should be
denser than the same gas at 40 PSI (or what have you).
So at some scale, one should hit a
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Bill Clawson wrote:
One question I have is how to figure out how much
weight gets added with a pressure fed system, for the
added strengthening of the tank and for the added
pressurant -- helium or nitrogen at 600 PSI should be
denser than the same gas at 40 PSI (or what
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
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 18:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
NIH syndrome won't serve the alt.space community any better than it's
served
On Wed, 5 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nasa has done more harm than good to the CATS movement and ignoring
*that* is foolish. Look at the results, not at the biased
institutionalal propaganda which they call information.
We weren't talking about that. We were talking
