Space Plane Concept Forgotten?

[trailrider]

"The DC-2 was the not nearly as successful DC-3 predecessor. But it was used to apply lessons learned to the DC-3. I think of shuttle as space ages DC-2. That one day, probably private enterprise/industry or another nation will build the DC-3 of space."<br /><br />In point of fact, the DC-2 was VERY successful! In some respects it was SUPERIOR to the -3! The -2 would carry ice better than the -3. (See Gann, "Fate Is The Hunter"). The reason the DC-3 was (and continues to be) such a phenomenon was that, as a development of the -2 (it was originally intended to permit sleeping berths as well as holding more passengers sitting up in the "daylight" version), it made use of the -2's design, but was enlarged. (A DC-2 outer wing would mate up with a -3's wingbox carry-through. In actual fact, a DC-3 that had been bombed by the Japanese in the CBI theater was fitted with a DC-2 wing, and flew to another field a considerable distance away. All that the pilot had to do was crank in some rudder and aileron trim!<br /><br />The Shuttle WAS SUPPOSED to be the DC-3 of the Spaceage. In fact, I wouldn't even classify it as the Ford Tri-motor of the Spaceage! It COULD have been...IF the original concept of using a manned flyback booster, possibly taking off horizontally (but even vertically) could have been realized, though whether they would have run into ice formation impact problems due to the "Navajo stack" design, I can't say. But there was not enough money to develop both the orbiter and the manned booster. Whether the USAF's requirement for the 65,000 lb 28-deg. LEO (40,000 lb from Vandenburg AFB), drove the design too hard, I can't say for sure. Even if the requirements were smaller, trying to make the beast carry both cargo AND personnel turned out to be trying to make it do too many things in one, single configuration.<br /><br />Initially, using the SRB's WAS a cost savings. We saved about $25M per flight for the first four flights (IIRC) by recovering the boosters

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The only good thing with the "stick" is that the SRM is behind the "payload" and so you can use an escape tower to pull the payload away from the wreck!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />IF you have enough reaction time. You might not get more than a millisecond. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I guess I could have added that the TPS was too 'edgy' in that it was unable to survive being whacked by a chunk of foam. <br /><br />My point wasn't to throw a wet blanket over the future of spacelaunch, just that some approaches are poor choices. Based on the material limitations we have, it seems to me that the best bets are big disposable rockets, and re-useable single (or air launched) stage to tether. History has shown that larger rockets are more cost effective, with no 'brick wall' in sight at the moment. The SSTT approach takes a completely different tack, but it's elegence is that it uses significantly simplified versions of the spaceplane and space elevator concepts, as far as mass fraction, TPS, and tether strength go. Tether systems are still early in the demonstration phase, so we'll have to be patient and wait for that technology to mature technically (as opposed to wait for a breakthrough) for such applications to be feasible.

 

[krisci3]

Perhaps this is not related to the topic at hand, but is it aerodynamically possible to put an ablative on a lifting body? What would the technical challenges be in installing such a system on a vehicle the size of the space shuttle? Also, I remember that the ablatives for the Apollo capsules were all injected by hand. Will the process be automated for Orion?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"One should look at the winged vehicle concept for what it can offer. I showed mine here and for what little I showed...two things should be evident. Launch location is one...the 747 is over the ocean which means most any coast with ocean to the east and a 747 capable airport less than 200 miles from the launch site will do."</font><br /><br />I actually got a third thing out of it. Namely that if someone next to you says "Aerodynamics", you're likely to say "Gesundheit" in reply.<br /><br />I'm well aware that you noted in the second photo that they are simply pages from your graphic novel and are not indicated to mean that it would actually work... except that you then refer back to your concept in later posts as if it were demonstrating advantages of winged launch vehicles and lifting body spacecraft. You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />There's any number of flaws in the concept -- not just that of technology levels but of basic physics. I'll deal with just a single one. There should have been another word bubble on the first photo... the one where the spacecraft had separated from your '747' and was just above and ahead of it. Coming from the cockpit of the launch plane should have been a bubble that read "Dive! Dive! Dive! For Heaven's sake <b>DIVE</b>!!". The only <font color="orange">possible</font>way that your launch plane could have fallen faster than your flying brick is if it were to shove the stick forward and dive at full throttle.<br /><br />Lifting bodies don't fly. As with Buzz Lightyear, they can only fall... with style. In order to reach orbit, your wedge would need 95% of its volume filled with propellants. It has no wings and no means of propulsion until the thrusters light off. Yet you have it <b>above</b> the launch plane. Filled with propellants, at speeds well below mach 1, that craft would have a 1:1 drop ratio... if you're lucky.

 

[scottb50]

I think the scale is way off also. Something the size depicted couldn't come anywhere close to carrrying enough propellant to reach orbit, even if it was all tanks and engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The shuttle Enterprise took off from a SCA just fine several times. It just never ignited its engines. I do not know if the SCA dove or not. However, Enterprise's forward motion would have helped it gain lift. Once you are above the tail, drag doesn't matter as long at you can complete seperation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />Somebody compared the Space Shuttle to the Edsel. I think that a better analogy is to say the Shuttle is like a Ferrari. This is where we fell down. By building a fleet of 7, the 'standing army' would have been busy all the time, instead of standing around, techniques would have been standardized, and economies of scale realized. The small fleet size resulted in requiring training people who could not be fully utilized, and unit costs that were very high. A Chevrolet used to be fixable by a backyard mechanic, whereas the Ferrari required a factory trained one, with special tools. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

willpittenger,<br /><br />I think that for the forseeable future, a horizontal take off of a spacecraft is going to require a catapult. We can build a wing of enourmous size, capable of carrying several million pounds, but giving it the power to take off on its own will make it very inefficient. A catapult which can accelerate the 'stack' of carrier and orbiter to 350 miles per hour will allow the wing to generate the lift needed with out burning tons of fuel. This catapult should be close to sea level, to allow the most lift possilble. Lifting the orbiter to 50,000 feet would allow the propellant to be used for acceleration, rather than fighting gravity. The shuttle has burned nearly half of the fuel in the external tank by the time the SRB's seperate, yet it still has to accelerate another 4 miles per second to reach orbit. It does that with half the capacity of the external tank. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[holmec]

This thread seems to be a visit to the past.<br /><br />But what about the current new space plane design by Rutan namely SpaceShipOne. It was very successful with 3 suborbital spaceflights. And SpaceShipTwo will probably be the first Space liner. Its even better than X-15 because the X-15 needed the infamous pink foam covering it as a heat sheild to reenter. SpaceShipOne design needs no heat sheild for reentry but uses the wings to slow down.<br /><br />Yes, but its nice to think about past "what if"s. <br /><br />But as far as I see it NASA came up with the Shuttle and that's about it (no small achievement). But I do consider SpaceShipOne to be a offspring (of sorts) of X-15 and the early lifting body crafts. We will see if Scaled Composites ever makes Rutans orbital version of the SpaceShip.<br /><br />Not to mention that SpaceShipOne did something no other space ship or craft has done and that is to fly twice into space and back in a period of no greater than two weeks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">The shuttle Enterprise took off from a SCA just fine several times.</font><br /><br />-- Enterprise was half the mass of a 'working' shuttle (Endeavor: Mass: 116,277 kg; Enterprise: Mass: 68,027 kg -- from Astronautix).<br />-- Enterprise had absolutely no cargo/etc. onboard.<br />-- Enterprise wasn't 95% filled with propellant and oxidizer required to get it into orbit.<br />-- Enterprise had wings... stubby deltas to be sure, but still providing considerably more lift than the 'wedge' shown.<br /><br />And the 747 that flew it *still* had to dive for separation.

 

[space_dreamer]

At Bristol Space Planes we haven’t forgotten space planes! Far from it! <br /><br />The issue with space planes Vs rockets is flight rate. If you’re only going to launch 6 times a year there is no need for a much more complex, much more expensive space plane vehicle because you will never get the money back you put it to development. <br /><br />If you need to launch 50 times a year then disposable rockets become much more expensive than a reusable space planes. <br /><br />The current trend for disposable rockets with capsules is good for space plane prospects! <br /><br />A vehicle which can go to orbit and back as many times in a year, than all the disposable rockets launched in a year put together, would totally flood the launch market. Yes, it would bring the cost of going to orbit down massively and the number of launches would increase. But at the moment launches wouldn’t increase at a fast enough rate to keep the space plane company in business. <br /><br />Building an aircraft when there is little need for it and the economics aren’t right, just because it seems like the future, is what happened with Concord. At Bristol Space Planes several of are top people worked on Concord so we are acutely aware of this.<br /><br />By 2015 with a Bigalow Space station will be in orbit with the International space station, there will be a proven market for a lot more launches (if the price is right) and that is when space planes will come into there own. Space plane companies will be able to get billons from investors and banks because they will see that the returns will justify the investment.<br /><br />We at Bristol Space Planes are developing a two man, mach 4 rocket plane called Ascender (see picture) to act as a test bed to develop and test systems and technologies for our six man orbital space taxi, which when the time comes, will revolutionise space flight. <br />

 

[gawin]

I think that until we can get a reliable proven scramjet engine and a proven hypersonic craft large enough to carry people and/or payloads that we will not see a true space plane. I think that once this is achieved then we will finally see a real low cost to orbit that will allow true use of space by the masses.<br /><br />As much of a fan I am of space planes and truly dislike capsules. Capsules are the way to go rite now with the technology and funding that is available to us. I may not like capsules but I am also a realist and realize that the only way at the present time to get to and from space and the moon regularly and in the cheapest manner possible we have to use capsules.<br /><br />I also think that we are not far off from a scramjet hypersonic craft. The only thing is that the public will not see the craft for many years after it is being flown because it will almost assuredly come from a Black Military project.

 

[qso1]

I think the Rutan design holds great promise and that we will begin to get closer to realizing that promise...economical access to LEO.<br /><br />SS-1 did not exceed 3,500 mph on its space flights and did not require a heat shield partly for that reason. An orbital version of the craft which will see velocities of 17,500 mph, will require a heat shield. The question becomes, will it be a conventional heat shield design or a radical one?<br /><br />My own variant of spaceplane concepts which I posted earlier is taking into consideration, the evolving of craft derived from various craft. In the case of SS-1, my design illustrates air launch from an aircraft. The orbital vehicle is too large to be slung underneath a commercial jet, even one as large as a 747 which is why its top mounted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I think that until we can get a reliable proven scramjet engine and a proven hypersonic craft large enough to carry people and/or payloads that we will not see a true space plane.<br /><br />Scramjets don't make sense for orbital flight, unless berthing with a "rotovator" or other tether. Scramjets might make sense for high-speed point-to-point travel on Earth but I have yet to see anything that a hypothetical scramjet could do for orbital flight. Not only are you hauling wings and landing gear into space, you're also hauling 1 or 3 propulsion systems and liquification hardware. THe craft has to spend extra time in the atmosphere, collecting and liquifying propellant (general proposals). RBCC triples the development complexity, and there are serious material issues throughout the vehicle. There are plenty of good spaceplane designs that have flown, but none with these kind of engines or flight regimes, for good reasons. <br /><br /> /> As much of a fan I am of space planes and truly dislike capsules.<br /><br />Pure chauvanism. You're saying you don't like something that works because you don't like how it looks. Would you demand a submarine have wings, too? Or an airplane have sails and a nice keel? Remember, as a private citizen, the only ride to space you have, right now, is in a Soyuz capsule.<br /><br /> /> I also think that we are not far off from a scramjet hypersonic craft. The only thing is that the public will not see the craft for many years after it is being flown because it will almost assuredly come from a Black Military project.<br /><br />While that may have happened in the past, scramjet tech has been publicly demonstrated in the X-43 flight. Nothing "Black" about it. <br /><br />You spaceplane fans should look up OTRAG for a launcher that really would have revolutionized space access. Only problem: the wrong people built it and got bombed for it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Trailrider:<br />"The DC-2 was the not nearly as successful DC-3 predecessor.....<br /><br />Me:<br />Fair enough, I used the wrong analogy but I hope the point was communicated. That being that the shuttle has been more a learning experience than robustly operated airliner like spaceplane.<br /><br />Trailrider:<br />IF the original concept of using a manned flyback booster, possibly taking off horizontally...<br /><br />Me:<br />It might well have been more economical to have a two stage fully reuseable system with an FBB first stage but hindsight, well...you know about that I'm sure. Will never really know which would have been the most economical concept for a shuttle system.<br /><br />TrailRider:<br />Whether the USAF's requirement for the 65,000 lb 28-deg. LEO (40,000 lb from Vandenburg AFB), drove the design too hard, I can't say for sure.<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't think shuttle was all as unable to perform as its sometimes portrayed to be. Doing too many things in one design. The shuttle actually did this quite well on most of its missions and actually the orbiter itself experiences relatively few anomalies on orbit.<br /><br />The shuttles only real problem is economic. It is simply not economical enough from a pure cost per mission standpoint.<br /><br />Safety is another issue. I've mentioned in the past that shuttle actually is a very forgiving system considering the close calls. Where did I get this idea one might ask? Certainly not from the media. Not even from NASA, at least not directly. Indirectly it is from NASA in the form of just what I mentioned. RSLS aborts, hydrogen leaks, an abort to orbit (ATO). Flat tire, brake problems, burnt through tile on a wing tip, APU fires upon landing, and general launch delays which after about 2 delays...panic begins to set in with the public. These potential catastrophes did not occur which is why I mentioned the shuttle as a forgiving system.<br /><br />Of course, I realize I'm probably in the minority for thinking that and that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

In the concept I posted here earlier, my AN-225 like 747 also dives just a few degrees nose down then banks away. I incorporated that after looking at the ALT flights and sized my 747 larger to accomodate the mass of a fueled wedge.<br /><br />Remember Moonraker? The shuttle actually fired its mains and launched off the back of the 747 at the beginning of the movie.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br />Enterprise had wings... stubby deltas to be sure, but still providing considerably more lift than the 'wedge' shown.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats correct. This is why shuttle has a 1,200 mile crossrange. I also mentioned my design probably wouldn't work in reality but when writing about a somewhat realistic future, one has to be able to show concepts that are barely feasible at the present time. If I designed strictly to todays reality, there would be no future possibilities to explore. Many of the designs today, including private enterprise/industry have much actual engineering and operational experience behind them but will they be proven to work technically? Probably. Economically? That has to be proven. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Crossrange isn't important on return from orbit if you can take your time. All you need to do is wait until the spacecraft is going to go straight over the landing site and carry out the de-orbit burn at the right point prior to that. <br /><br />What use, other than weapons delivery, is crossrange when patience does the job at a fraction of the cost? <br /><br /><br />I could see a scramjet powered aircraft used as a first stage. Pegasus would get alot more kick if it were dropped at Mach 10. Scramjet aircraft push the envelope of material science even further than rockets do though, effectively flying steady state in re-entry like conditions.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Scramjets don't make sense for orbital flight<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />They do not make sense away from LEO. However, I still like the concept for LEO purposes. You then transfer the cargo to something else. A spaceplane has a lot of versatility.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would you demand a submarine have wings, too?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The Soviets designed just that during WWII. It was stupid, but... They also had a flying tank that really did fly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Crossrange isn't important on return from orbit if you can take your time. All you need to do is wait until the spacecraft is going to go straight over the landing site and carry out the de-orbit burn at the right point prior to that.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe. However, if you can stay in the air, you can come down where you are and do something like turn around. If a crewmember needs a hosipital NOW, can you wait several hours? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

If you reread my post, you will see I was talking about craft for 50-75 years into the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Remember Moonraker?"</font><br /><br />Yes I do. As I recall it was not a documentary of the US Space program. What exactly is your recollection of it?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I also mentioned my design probably wouldn't work in reality but when writing about a somewhat realistic future, one has to be able to show concepts that are barely feasible at the present time. "</font><br /><br />Yes -- and as *I* mentioned, you state that... but then keep referring to your design in posts as if there is some technical merit to it. You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />There's no 'somewhat realistic' or 'barely feasible' to it -- the concept as shown is unworkable. There are not mere technological problems -- it has problems with the laws of physics -- both those involving aerodynamics and mass fractions for orbital craft. The flaw I pointed out is only the most obvious to me. The differences in lift between your wedge and the 747 carrier mean that its nearly impossible for the 747 to lose altitude *faster* than the wedge it just released. It may well not be 'nearly' but 'completely' impossible. I can't determine this without more calculation than I'm going to expend on the concept.<br /><br />I have no problem with you posting pictures like that and saying "Gosh wouldn't something like this be nice". However, you stated at the outset that the concept might not work in order to avoid having to defend the flaws, then procedded to refer back to it over and over again in later posts comparing 'your concept' favorably against other designs.<br /><br />Either be prepared to defend the myriad flaws in your concept, or stop using it as an example.

 

[josh_simonson]

>If a crewmember needs a hosipital NOW, can you wait several hours?<br /><br />A capsule can land almost anywhere in an emergency, and it's extremely likely that within 1 40 minute orbit it will be able to drop nearby to a rescue facillity. Why should we spend tens of billions of dollars for greater capability when our explorers at the south pole do not have it?<br /><br />If we're so hellbent on safety that we'll wring our hands and dole out that expense just to make an emergency return a little faster, we're never traveling beyond LEO to places where the return flight home is measured in days, weeks or months.

 

[scottb50]

40 minute orbit? I think the atmosphere would preclude that. You would still need a safe area to land in and depending on the orbit there may not be one available for quite some time. Cross range capability might be a good thing in that case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

josh_simonson:<br />Crossrange isn't important on return from orbit if you can take your time. All you need to do is wait until the spacecraft is going to go straight over the landing site and carry out the de-orbit burn at the right point prior to that.<br /><br />Me:<br />True, and the reason I didn't put a more traditional wing on my concept. Cross range maneuvering would allow for an emergency landing at another field in case some emergency prohibited landing at the planned site after de-orbit. But I couldn't think of a credible emergency scenario. I don't know what the actual cross range capability of this design would be but if the landing path included airports within maybe 50 miles either side of the path, there might be just enough cross range to allow an emergency landing.<br /><br />But since I basically did this concept for a story rather than real life, and because the story is pretty close to real life as I can get. I chose The 747 because it was the least expensive solution and the company was still struggling financially. The 747 was modified, made nearly as long as the Russian AN 225 and two jet engines added near the end of the empenage. Barely visible in the images I posted here, the rudders block them from view. Although I didn't script it, I had considered showing the wedge being launched off a FBB and it would have been able to carry more payload in that way. This concept actually originated as a more traditional shuttle type stack except there was to be a larger FBB with no SRBs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>