<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Calculating Propellant-Mass-Sensitive Term</title>
	<atom:link href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/calculating-propellant-mass-sensitive-term/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/calculating-propellant-mass-sensitive-term/</link>
	<description>Random Musings from the Warped Minds of Jonathan Goff, Ken Murphy, John Hare, and Kirk Sorensen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:17:09 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Selenian Boondocks &#187; Blog Archive &#187; SSTO is a bad idea, but NTR SSTO is worse</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/calculating-propellant-mass-sensitive-term/comment-page-1/#comment-8685</link>
		<dc:creator>Selenian Boondocks &#187; Blog Archive &#187; SSTO is a bad idea, but NTR SSTO is worse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1461#comment-8685</guid>
		<description>[...] try to figure a payload fraction for an NTR SSTO.  We find the propellant-mass-sensitive term (derivation here) assuming the liquid hydrogen has a density of 71 kg/m3, ullage of 3%, a mixture ratio of zero, and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] try to figure a payload fraction for an NTR SSTO.  We find the propellant-mass-sensitive term (derivation here) assuming the liquid hydrogen has a density of 71 kg/m3, ullage of 3%, a mixture ratio of zero, and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garland</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/calculating-propellant-mass-sensitive-term/comment-page-1/#comment-7861</link>
		<dc:creator>Garland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1461#comment-7861</guid>
		<description>This is the reason I read selenianboondocks.com. Marvelous post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the reason I read selenianboondocks.com. Marvelous post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Goff</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/calculating-propellant-mass-sensitive-term/comment-page-1/#comment-7617</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Goff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1461#comment-7617</guid>
		<description>Interesting.  

Just a few points that might be worth adding.  You didn&#039;t mention it in the post, but the MER&#039;s chart does mention tank ullage pressure (which will be a factor if you&#039;re using a different feed pressure like say for a pressure fed tank).  Also, you have to factor in what FOS you&#039;re using on the tank structure.  

Also the &quot;scales linearly with volume and pressure&quot; assumption only works really well for larger tanks (ie bigger than the ones we&#039;re working on at MSS), because you have certain structures like the skirts, flanges, sumps, slosh baffles, etc that are more nonlinear.  Past a certain size they&#039;re small enough that they&#039;re in the noise, but below a certain size and they start becoming a bigger and bigger fraction of the tank weight.  And that&#039;s actually long before you hit actual minimum gage issues.

~Jon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.  </p>
<p>Just a few points that might be worth adding.  You didn&#8217;t mention it in the post, but the MER&#8217;s chart does mention tank ullage pressure (which will be a factor if you&#8217;re using a different feed pressure like say for a pressure fed tank).  Also, you have to factor in what FOS you&#8217;re using on the tank structure.  </p>
<p>Also the &#8220;scales linearly with volume and pressure&#8221; assumption only works really well for larger tanks (ie bigger than the ones we&#8217;re working on at MSS), because you have certain structures like the skirts, flanges, sumps, slosh baffles, etc that are more nonlinear.  Past a certain size they&#8217;re small enough that they&#8217;re in the noise, but below a certain size and they start becoming a bigger and bigger fraction of the tank weight.  And that&#8217;s actually long before you hit actual minimum gage issues.</p>
<p>~Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
