Re: balloon tanks

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Henry S said:
> 
> > <<<Any pressurized tank, *especially* one pressurized to the point needed
> > for
> > pressure-fed engines, typically makes excellent structure with little or
> > no added stiffening.  (Witness the classical Atlas, whose tanks are just
> > sheet-metal balloons, with essentially no strength of their own.)>>>

> "Excellent structure"? I doubt it. If nasa did it, it's wrong. That is a good
> starting point for CATS rocket analysis. Don't copy nasa. Do the opposite.

This wasn't a "NASA did it" rocket anyway: Atlas was a military ICBM project
in the first place; NASA's use of it for the orbital Mercury launches came 
along later.

The Titan II was a "dual-spec" (Gemini launch vehicle/ICBM)... only (of the 
pre-shuttle manned US launchers) the Saturn series were NASA-specific.

And (unlike the shuttle) I haven't seen any of these 3 held up as major examples
of "what not to do in a space vehicle design"...

-dave w