Skip to main content
Space Exploration

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • $\begingroup$ I see, the trick is to ignore everything that happens before jettison time, then the problem then becomes trivial. It seems I'd overthunk it. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 7:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, that provides a lower bound on performance — if you keep the engine, you can use the engine, shortening time to orbit and reducing gravity losses, but (a) those losses are more significant early in the flight and (b) Atlas Original Flavor, at least, was already a brutal accelerator with an ascent time half that of most orbital launchers. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ I see; in that case I'll hold off to see if someone would like to post an answer beyond by 6.8 - 4 = 2.8 that addresses part of the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 8:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another factor is that a permanently attached set of engines can be lighter than a section that has to cleanly separate in flight, for the same performance. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ That's true as well. For that though, I tried to work around it with careful wording of the question, asking only how the specific act of "engine-mass-dropping" increased payload mass to orbit, not the design. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 15:02