#1
|
|||
|
|||
USAF Reusable Booster System (RBS)
I'm gonna have to try this one!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/0...ploy/print.html Quote:
__________________
brianc -- NAR 83726 \ TRA 11640 \ L2 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting concept. Sounds a lot like a thing called "The Space Shuttle."
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hmm, interesting, but wheres a good pic of it in full stack mode and one of a top view as well?
Its another delta derivative, so its very similar to stuff I have done before, such as the delta based glide booster from over 15yrs ago. IOW, it was a fully functional glider serving as a booster stage with a large flexie RG atop it as a sustainer. Worked well until one of the D motors in it catoed, burning the booster to a crisp and not igniting the flexie sustainer. Might have to revisit this thing again, preferably upscaled. Let us know what you are going to be doing with this, Brian! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It will get porkulated by the congresscritters if DoD tries to follow through with it. Just like the shuttle did when Congress found out NASA was going to use fewer people to run operations. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There was a link to a PPT in the news link. Not great dimensional information but it is interesting. In the 2nd pic, the lower right vehicle looks similar the Centuri Space Shuttle. Greg |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I thought it was the DoD that got NASA to pork it up so it would be big enough to haul spy sat payloads. Or are you speaking of the program as a whole, not the specs on the shuttle?
__________________
I love sanding. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yep .... that's pretty much the way it worked. Much of Shuttle's capability was driven by DoD - not NASA - requirements. There was a "partnership" there that made the program palatable to Congress. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Which itself came from early NASA Space Shuttle proposals ... or at least appears to have come from them. History repeats. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The program as a whole. I found about the porking of the shuttle for employment from Jerry Pournelle's website. It was not widely publicized, but it was there. Certain powerful congresscritters wanted no shuttle caused drops in employment in their districts. Even with the DoD specs increasing the size/cross-range capability/etc, NASA projected that it would take far fewer people to run operations. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
This is a flyback BOOSTER... lofting either an expendable upper stage or a spaceplane. This has been proposed before but the cost always seems to get in the way.
There were proposals for a bimese or even trimese shuttles using either one or two 'flyback boosters' to propel lift an orbiter to act as a first and second stage where the orbiter would finish it's own ascent to orbit while the boosters returned to their own runway landing. Cost ultimately killed the idea which then led to the expendable tank solution, but which required huge SRB's to lift the thing off the ground for the first 2 minutes of flight. Hence the shuttle we have. It's a VERY interesting read, if you're really interested in how the shuttle as we have it came to be, since it is SO different from the original proposals were. I highly recommend "The Space Shuttle Decision" by T. A. Heppenheimer. It details all the twists and turns and political machinations that can turn a technically challenging but feasible 'next step' engineering problem/solution into an overbudget, underperforming, compromised by compromises politically-derived vehicle that doesn't really satisfy ANYBODY'S requirements. We're seeing much the same from NASA all over again, only this time they can't blame the DoD/Air Force. Constellation is NASA's own perfect screwup... Shuttle had to switch from the Faget short straight wing/conventional tailplane orbiter design to the delta wing configuration to get enough cross-range for AF/DOD requirements when returning from polar orbits. The orbiter got HUGE in response to AF/DOD requirements for payload bay sizing and lift capabilities for national defense payloads. The expendable tank came about after it was figured out that a shuttle would be TOO BIG to ever lift off carrying it's own fuel internally, and would not be able to carry a payload because of the internal tankage. The SRB's came about after the orbiter size had grown to the point that the amount of fuel required to propel it to orbit was SO heavy it would never lift off without booster rockets, and the money wasn't there to develop flyback boosters or a 'mother ship' to carry it to altitude where it COULD fly to orbit on it's own power with an external tank. All those decisions compromised the shuttle design, all for requirements that NEVER were utilized. The AF/DOD shuttle launch pads at Vandenberg were converted for Delta IV and NEVER used to launch a shuttle into the planned military polar orbits, which had to launch from Vandenberg to allow the SRB's the parachute into the Gulf of California or the Pacific off the Mexico coast... polar shuttle missions couldn't be launched from Florida without risking dropping the SRB's on Cuba or South America. Because of phasing of polar orbits (as the earth rotates underneath the orbiting vehicle) the large cross-range was required, which compromised MANY of the shuttle designs. What's sad is that had the resources POURED into shuttle been diverted to upgrades and streamlining production and cost reductions on Saturn vehicles, we would have gotten FAR more return on investment... The Saturn S-IC stage could have been redesigned into the S-ID stage, with the four outer F-1 engines jettisoning halfway to orbit like the ATLAS missile did, with the remaining F-1 propelling the stage and it's cargo to orbit. Such a 1.5 stage to orbit vehicle could have given the same lift capability to orbit as shuttle for the same price or less, despite being an expendable vehicle. Plans were also in the works for using an S-IVB stage and a modified S-IC stage as a replacement for Saturn IB, or developing liquid booster rockets for the Saturn V, each of which would have had two F-1 engines, which could have been used as a first stage for a Saturn IB replacement. Sadly such plans all came to naught in the rush to trash the Saturns. Now here we are 40 years later rushing BACK to the expendable capsule paradigm and expendable boosters, because shuttle has proven SO horrifically expensive, unsafe, and ill suited to exploration beyond LEO. Interesting how history works sometimes.... OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|