That was pretty interesting. I wish I knew what each was running as fuel.

Red: Kerosene (RP-1)
Orange: liquid hydrogen
Blue: liquid oxygen

As for the solid rocket boosters, the shuttle's used some combination of powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer.

^^^^^ I like your signature!

flashguy

You can just see the Tesla on top of the Falcon Heavy after the cover is ejected.

Very cool. Correct me if I am wrong but it still looks like the Saturn is still the heavy lift king no?

I'm an un-informed enthusiast..... Can someone explain why we didn't just stick with the Saturn V ?? Wouldn't the price per rocket have gone down as we made more of the same ??

I've always wondered ?? mike

quote:

Originally posted by mike28w:
I'm an un-informed enthusiast..... Can someone explain why we didn't just stick with the Saturn V ?? Wouldn't the price per rocket have gone down as we made more of the same ??

I've always wondered ?? mike

IIRC they're not made anymore, not in many years.

I've always been amazed at the thrust the space shuttle's motors had.

Would be kinda nice to see the graphic tracking in a race form based on velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by mike28w:
I'm an un-informed enthusiast..... Can someone explain why we didn't just stick with the Saturn V ?? Wouldn't the price per rocket have gone down as we made more of the same ??

I've always wondered ?? mike

IIRC they're not made anymore, not in many years.

Yes. But he is asking why we didn’t revisit the old tried and true technology.

My guess is that the mission changed and we didn’t need that big monster any more but I’m just guessing.

When we go to back to the moon and on to mars we certainly will though....or something like it.

quote:

Originally posted by mike28w:
I'm an un-informed enthusiast..... Can someone explain why we didn't just stick with the Saturn V ?? Wouldn't the price per rocket have gone down as we made more of the same ??

I've always wondered ?? mike

In its final form the Saturn V could put over 110,000 pounds into a trans-lunar trajectory, or 330,000 pounds into low earth orbit. It is a very specialized vehicle for sending heavy payloads a long-way out.

After the Apollo program was cancelled (and the Skylab), there wasn't any real need, and NASA put its eggs into the "reusable" basket with the Shuttle with eyes on building a space station.

Some of the early concepts for the SLS did look at using an uprated / modernized version of the F1 engine ( https://arstechnica.com/scienc...-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/), but now they are using the Shuttle Main Engines (and throwing them away) since it is cheaper than developing the F1. (the original F1 is hand made, has no electronic controls, and not viable as a modern engine).

The sad truth is that, other than the Shuttle Main Engines (which are very, very good), the U.S. hasn't really invested in rocket development outside of the private companies like Space-X. (The Atlas-V first stage uses Russian RD-180 engines).

With entry of upstart competitors, we are starting to see innovation again.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by mike28w:
I'm an un-informed enthusiast..... Can someone explain why we didn't just stick with the Saturn V ?? Wouldn't the price per rocket have gone down as we made more of the same ??

I've always wondered ?? mike

IIRC they're not made anymore, not in many years.

Liquid Oxygen and Kerosine were identified by Von Braun as the the least expensive way to get a large payload most of the way into orbit. You can use that combo to lift other stages with H2/O2. Solid rockets can have a higher specific thrust, but can't be shut off.

The Falcon Heavy is obviously the best one. It kept up with the others even though it ran out of fuel five minutes before they did.

That was really cool. Thanks for sharing it

quote:

Originally posted by opticsguy:
Solid rockets can have a higher specific thrust, but can't be shut off.

Or throttled.