panick21 t1_ixjmdm5 wrote
Reply to comment by BoringEntropist in Berlin to Back French-Built Rockets in Race Against Musk by Soupjoe5
I defiantly agree they should not have continued with the A4.
> Essentially they copied the approach the Americans were using for the shuttle system: A big, low thrust first stage burning hydrogen with some big strap-on boosters for the initial kick.
Lessen Nr.1, copy from Von Braun or the Soviets, not post-Apollo NASA.
> in combination of dual launching satellites.
This was actually a major mistake, it limited the number of launches, limiting their options for mass production and they were not able to dominating both mid and large market.
> It made sense with the constraints the Europeans were working with. But like the shuttle the system didn't became as profitable as they hoped for.
I disagree that it made sense. If they can develop a GG hydrogen rocket, they could have developed a GG RP-1 rocket.
BoringEntropist t1_ixkgevl wrote
Yeah, going full kerolox in the first stage would have been better. I think it was because of politics, in particular pressure from the French. They were (and still are) leading the project. They wanted solid fuel to subsidize their military rocket developments, and kerolox would have made that unnecessary. This was the constraints I was talking about. In aerospace often times politics are more important than the engineering itself.
In A6 you can see this too. At the beginning it was envisioned as having a purely solid first stage, but the Germans wanted to keep building large tanks. Basically it was planned as a larger Vega, but instead we've got a shrunken A5.
panick21 t1_ixl6lof wrote
> This was the constraints I was talking about.
A self imposed constraint is not a constraint.
> In aerospace often times politics are more important than the engineering itself.
And it often makes the difference between a great design and a not so great one.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments