Slashdot Mirror
Bigger Rockets For 'Heavy' Lifting
msslave writes, "A local news station in Dallas reported that a Texas company, Beal Aerospace has tested the second stage of its BA-2 rocket. Designed for the "heavy-lift" market, these engines are intended for increasing demand for satellite launches. And they have spent only a half a billion dollars to get this far.
"
Actually the article was not specific at all. There was no technical info apart from them saying that in the future they will build the largest rocket engine ever. The size of the rocket engine is not the only factor in determining the maximum payload the rocket could take into orbit. Also, usually several smaller engines is better, because this way you can stabilize using rotation along the main axis. For example the Russian N-1, that was really the biggest *booster* ever built had 31 engines I believe, some of which were small and on the periphery to provide spin stability. The space shuttle has relatively small thrust vectoring engines to maintain stability, because it can't spin-stabilize (astronauts will start puking). Also, on the space shuttle, during launch if one (or even two) engine fails, they can still land safely -- provided it is after the short risky period immediately after launch. Imagine if you had one huge engine instead and it failed. Basically your booster will just fall on the ground and explode. This will not be safe for astronauts or bystanders.
Another factor is the design of the booster (the big cylindrical thing we usually call a rocket) itself. The payload capability depends more on that than the size of the engine(s). IIRC the overall acceleration depends more on the engines.
I think this article is misleading, or at least naive.