Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Possibly. Technically, it's possible to substitute the RD-170 with the F-1. However, the RD-170 has its own benefits, like leading to the Zenit rocket and other derivative rocket engines.
It's also a bit easier to produce (doesn't require the huge engine bell of the F-1) but there are four combustion chambers. So it's a tradeoff in one direction or another, really, but I personally think the RD-170 is a better choice for mass-produced boosters, yeah.
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
True, but I would point out that the RD-170 has slightly more thrust and the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster has even more. A variant of the SSSRB is being used for the Ares V, with a pair of them at the side of the Ares V. Which is why I am wondering whether to put money into the SSSRB and develop them.
Well, Shuttle SRB's are incredibly awesome stuff. The Shuttle assembly weighs 2/3 of the Saturn V, can deliver almost the same payload (112 tonnes) and is partially resuseable,
and the SRB's can be simply extended with extra sections! We should aim for our Energia II to be as awesome
Well, even most of the newest boosters coming up are designed with government money. It will be a while before private enterprise kicks in.
Of course. I propose we should have the following programs open:
1) Heavy and superheavy liquid-fuelled rockets (Saturn V, then Ares-Energia and Vulkan)
2) Solid fuelled strap-on boosters (like SRBs for use with lower-throw weight systems, San Dorado has some experience in that already)
3) Buran+space fighters (weaponization!)
4) A space station
5) A super-large hypergolic engine (to gather experience for other rockets)
6) A medium, mass-produceable hypergolic engine (to allow cheaper production of rockets)
7) Solid-fuelled engines