Mixing
Is Asparagus Staging Possible
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, as its very much hypothetical.
In the computer game Kerbal Space Program , there are 3 main Staging Options that are used
Conventional Staging where each stage seperates the reveals the engines above it, the same as used in the Saturn V Rocket.
Onion Staging where an outer tank feeds into an inner tank and when empty is dropped, similar to the crossfeed between the Shuttle and Main Orange Tank
Asparagus Staging where Engines and tanks surround the main rocket, which feed into the rocket beside it around the central core then to the next to the next and then to the central core which above it has the final stage, this setup in KSP allows lifting huge spacecraft into orbit
This means that the Fuel and Oxidizer Tanks in S4 actually feed all 7 Engines, until empty and dropped, then S3 feeds all 5 until empty, the dropped, Same with S2, and then S1 is now already very high in the atmosphere travelling very fast but is basically fully fuelled and continues on into orbit
This is the meat of the question, Aspsargus staging in KSP is easy, just done with magical fuel lines, but in reality, it would take huge pumps and fuel lines and structural supports. so all this added weight would reduce the effective DeltaV you could gain from it. but i'm not sure how much
Now i know that without specific information in terms of Mass of the stages etc its impossible to do the actual Maths, but:
The Question
Is this even realistically possible in real life? or would the drawbacks outweigh the benefits
stages fuel-system
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, as its very much hypothetical.
In the computer game Kerbal Space Program , there are 3 main Staging Options that are used
Conventional Staging where each stage seperates the reveals the engines above it, the same as used in the Saturn V Rocket.
Onion Staging where an outer tank feeds into an inner tank and when empty is dropped, similar to the crossfeed between the Shuttle and Main Orange Tank
Asparagus Staging where Engines and tanks surround the main rocket, which feed into the rocket beside it around the central core then to the next to the next and then to the central core which above it has the final stage, this setup in KSP allows lifting huge spacecraft into orbit
This means that the Fuel and Oxidizer Tanks in S4 actually feed all 7 Engines, until empty and dropped, then S3 feeds all 5 until empty, the dropped, Same with S2, and then S1 is now already very high in the atmosphere travelling very fast but is basically fully fuelled and continues on into orbit
This is the meat of the question, Aspsargus staging in KSP is easy, just done with magical fuel lines, but in reality, it would take huge pumps and fuel lines and structural supports. so all this added weight would reduce the effective DeltaV you could gain from it. but i'm not sure how much
Now i know that without specific information in terms of Mass of the stages etc its impossible to do the actual Maths, but:
The Question
Is this even realistically possible in real life? or would the drawbacks outweigh the benefits
stages fuel-system
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, as its very much hypothetical.
In the computer game Kerbal Space Program , there are 3 main Staging Options that are used
Conventional Staging where each stage seperates the reveals the engines above it, the same as used in the Saturn V Rocket.
Onion Staging where an outer tank feeds into an inner tank and when empty is dropped, similar to the crossfeed between the Shuttle and Main Orange Tank
Asparagus Staging where Engines and tanks surround the main rocket, which feed into the rocket beside it around the central core then to the next to the next and then to the central core which above it has the final stage, this setup in KSP allows lifting huge spacecraft into orbit
This means that the Fuel and Oxidizer Tanks in S4 actually feed all 7 Engines, until empty and dropped, then S3 feeds all 5 until empty, the dropped, Same with S2, and then S1 is now already very high in the atmosphere travelling very fast but is basically fully fuelled and continues on into orbit
This is the meat of the question, Aspsargus staging in KSP is easy, just done with magical fuel lines, but in reality, it would take huge pumps and fuel lines and structural supports. so all this added weight would reduce the effective DeltaV you could gain from it. but i'm not sure how much
Now i know that without specific information in terms of Mass of the stages etc its impossible to do the actual Maths, but:
The Question
Is this even realistically possible in real life? or would the drawbacks outweigh the benefits
stages fuel-system
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, as its very much hypothetical.
In the computer game Kerbal Space Program , there are 3 main Staging Options that are used
Conventional Staging where each stage seperates the reveals the engines above it, the same as used in the Saturn V Rocket.
Onion Staging where an outer tank feeds into an inner tank and when empty is dropped, similar to the crossfeed between the Shuttle and Main Orange Tank
Asparagus Staging where Engines and tanks surround the main rocket, which feed into the rocket beside it around the central core then to the next to the next and then to the central core which above it has the final stage, this setup in KSP allows lifting huge spacecraft into orbit
This means that the Fuel and Oxidizer Tanks in S4 actually feed all 7 Engines, until empty and dropped, then S3 feeds all 5 until empty, the dropped, Same with S2, and then S1 is now already very high in the atmosphere travelling very fast but is basically fully fuelled and continues on into orbit
This is the meat of the question, Aspsargus staging in KSP is easy, just done with magical fuel lines, but in reality, it would take huge pumps and fuel lines and structural supports. so all this added weight would reduce the effective DeltaV you could gain from it. but i'm not sure how much
Now i know that without specific information in terms of Mass of the stages etc its impossible to do the actual Maths, but:
The Question
Is this even realistically possible in real life? or would the drawbacks outweigh the benefits
stages fuel-system
stages fuel-system
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
asked 3 hours ago
Blade Wraith
1412
1412
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Blade Wraith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP.
To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven; the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). All this increases weight and complexity.
In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it.
It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running -- the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. This is much easier to engineer -- no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. This is what Falcon Heavy actually does. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP.
To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven; the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). All this increases weight and complexity.
In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it.
It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running -- the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. This is much easier to engineer -- no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. This is what Falcon Heavy actually does. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP.
To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven; the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). All this increases weight and complexity.
In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it.
It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running -- the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. This is much easier to engineer -- no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. This is what Falcon Heavy actually does. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP.
To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven; the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). All this increases weight and complexity.
In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it.
It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running -- the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. This is much easier to engineer -- no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. This is what Falcon Heavy actually does. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
It's possible, but not as easy in real life as it is in KSP.
To maintain proper tank pressurization, the crossfeeds have to be pump-driven; the fuel and oxidizer crossfeed lines have to be pretty large to move the required amount of propellant (i.e. on the order of the same power as the core section's engine turbopumps). All this increases weight and complexity.
In your proposed design, a minor issue is that the pumping direction of the outer tanks produces a rolling torque on the rocket which has to be countered (via gimbaled engines or other attitude-control mechanisms). No torque is produced by the S2->S1 feeds in your design, so a single-level N-to-1 crossfeed, like Falcon Heavy's proposed 2-to-1, doesn't have to worry about it.
It turns out to be possible to get some of the benefits of asparagus crossfeed by throttling the core engines down while the boosters are running -- the outer tanks thus empty first because they're consuming propellant faster. This is much easier to engineer -- no crossfeed plumbing, just throttlable engines. This is what Falcon Heavy actually does. Installing more or larger engines on the outer boosters would be generally equivalent, as well.
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
answered 2 hours ago
Russell Borogove
74.7k2234318
74.7k2234318
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
If you want to empty and drop off S4 first, its tubopumps have to have 4x as much power as the S1 turbopumps (S4 has to be emptied at 4x the rate of S1).
– Hobbes
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
3x for crossfeed, 1x for its own engines, but that's only if you need the core to stay 100% full -- crossfeed can still be useful at less than 100%. Your point is taken, though, and I've edited.
– Russell Borogove
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Blade Wraith is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Blade Wraith is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Blade Wraith is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Blade Wraith is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31849%2fis-asparagus-staging-possible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Not quite a duplicate, but very relevant: space.stackexchange.com/questions/18665/…
– Lex
3 hours ago
It was considered for Falcon Heavy byt eventually abandoned. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Propellant_crossfeed
– Steve Linton
3 hours ago
@lex, Cheers, i looked through a couple of the how did the shuttle do it questions. Its genuinely interesting stuff but doesn't really look into if it is actually possible, people just seem to wave it off as not possible without explaining why.
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
@SteveLinton, again, cheers, i see options to it often but never any reasons behind why it wasn't done. just it won't be done
– Blade Wraith
3 hours ago
Somewhat related: Ballpark comparison of a hypothetical Falcon 'Quad' Heavy with cross feeds
– uhoh
3 hours ago