Author Topic: SSTO Thread  (Read 182203 times)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #480 on: 12/24/2008 05:33 am »
Thats debatable, and not that simple. I doubt the 15 second figure. Prior experience people go by for example is the plasma damage X-15 suffered on one flight when a test scramjet cause some serious damage simply from the shock wave plasma at hypersonic speed.

The X-15 was an inconel airframe was it not? Not titanium...


It was both:
"The wing presented a difficult design problem, to account for uneven heating from leading edge to trailing edge and between lower and upper surfaces. At high angles of attack, inconsistent heating typically subjects the wing's lower surface to temperatures 400° F higher than those of the upper surface. The result of higher heating at the leading edge and lower surface is that these two surfaces try to expand faster than the rest of the wing. Thus, the wing structure had to be designed to allow for this expansion without deforming to a large extent, while, at the same time, carrying rather large airloads. A balance was achieved by allowing some expansion of skin to alleviate a part of the thermally induced stresses, and by the use of titanium internal structure, which has a higher elasticity than Inconel X. The internal structure provides enough restraint between attach points to give the hot wing surfaces a tufted-pillow appearance as they try to expand. Corrugations in the internal structure allow it to flex enough to keep skin stress within tolerable limits. "

Inconel was primarily the skin/TPS/leading edges. An all-inconel airframe would have been too heavy to fly, esp with those little wings, wing loading would have been huge, which would have increased thermal and structural stresses.

Shuttle wing structure:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/structure/wing.html
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #481 on: 12/25/2008 05:34 pm »
Here's the previous discussion about the extra time that would have been bought by a titanium airframe on Columbia:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13302.msg289708#msg289708
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #482 on: 12/26/2008 02:01 am »
Drag losses are much worst with small vehicles.

Depends on how you do it.  As it is, drag losses are roundoff errors on typical launch vehicles (I think I was hearing ~200m/s for a typical EELV).  There are options like air launch or other things that can help deal with that.  Or you can just bite the bullet and deal with it.  Admittedly if you get *too* small, drag losses get truly heinous, but I'm not talking about a 5kg to orbit vehicle, a 1000kg to orbit vehicle is still a respectable sized craft, but small enough to keep the development cost cheap enough to be feasible.

Quote
A small RLV is even more difficult.

But it's easier on the one dimension that matters most--the financial one.  Raising hundreds of millions or billions of dollars for a bigger RLV is a lot harder than raising a smaller sum for a vehicle that is a lot smaller.  There still are technological challenges with small RLVs (especially if you try to go too small), but if you don't overcome the financial challenge, you don't get to even try on the technical side.  And quite frankly, I have higher confidence in being able to solve the technical issues than the financial ones.

~Jon

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #483 on: 12/26/2008 02:26 am »
Also it should be a lot easier to raise the money for a big RLV, once a small RLV has demostrated regular operations and retired most of the technical risk.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #484 on: 12/26/2008 12:18 pm »
Also it should be a lot easier to raise the money for a big RLV, once a small RLV has demonstrated regular operations and retired most of the technical risk.

In an oblique sort of way that was one of the unstated goals of the X-Plane program, specifically the X-15 and its intended successors.

I remember one of the pilots (I don't remember which one) gave a talk at my high school in 1963 and he said that someday people would fly into space and back on planes that were designed by things we learn from the X-15.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #485 on: 12/26/2008 12:35 pm »
Drag losses are much worst with small vehicles.

Depends on how you do it.  As it is, drag losses are roundoff errors on typical launch vehicles (I think I was hearing ~200m/s for a typical EELV).  There are options like air launch or other things that can help deal with that.  Or you can just bite the bullet and deal with it.  Admittedly if you get *too* small, drag losses get truly heinous, but I'm not talking about a 5kg to orbit vehicle, a 1000kg to orbit vehicle is still a respectable sized craft, but small enough to keep the development cost cheap enough to be feasible.

Quote
A small RLV is even more difficult.

But it's easier on the one dimension that matters most--the financial one.  Raising hundreds of millions or billions of dollars for a bigger RLV is a lot harder than raising a smaller sum for a vehicle that is a lot smaller.  There still are technological challenges with small RLVs (especially if you try to go too small), but if you don't overcome the financial challenge, you don't get to even try on the technical side.  And quite frankly, I have higher confidence in being able to solve the technical issues than the financial ones.

~Jon

Many of the questions about small RLVs would have been answered by K-1, including viability of RTLS recovery and wings v. no wings. When people talk RLVs, it's usually winged rocketships no that different from Von Braun (or Tom Swift, Jr., for that matter), or maybe a DCX-like VTOL. Parachutes and airbags sometimes seems like a cheat, because you can't gas and go (like DCX) or restack, gas, and go (like a winged TSTO), but it still would have been an RLV is the general sense of the phrase.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #486 on: 12/26/2008 03:41 pm »
People generally confuse RLV with SSTO.  A vehicle can be both, either or neither.
Both is the most difficult.

The big issues for SSTO are:

1)  High mass fraction
2)  Altitude compensation for nozzles.
3)  Thrust reduction (throttling) late in flight.

Going RLV helps with none of these, in fact it hurts 1 & likely 2 & 3.

Typically, staging is the solution for all three, at the cost of discarded hardware.
RLV first (& maybe second) stage has the potential to overcome that disadvantage.

In summary, IMO:

- RLV makes SSTO much harder & maybe a little cheaper.
- RLV makes TSTO much cheaper & maybe a little harder.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #487 on: 12/28/2008 01:13 pm »
3)  Thrust reduction (throttling)

Only if it is manned. People also see SSTO, RLV, and assume manned.

The best first step RLV X program would be one that is designed to demonstrate reuse, rapid turn arround, and low man hours between flights.

Once that is done you can think about a follow on program with payloads.

The problem is someone would have to pay for something that has "zero" chance of "directly"  making money. It would be gen 2 or gen 3 before you "may" have a commercial vehicle.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #488 on: 01/03/2009 04:11 pm »
What about borane fuels? They were supposed to offer the performance of hydrogen at the density of kerosene, but I believe that their was a problem.

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #489 on: 01/03/2009 04:24 pm »
The key to a gas-and-go SSTO RLV IMO is airbreathing engines-somewhat like the Forerunner V business jet proposed somewhere on the forum (afterburning ultra-high-bypass turbofan to Mach 8, then LNG scramjet to Mach 15, then switch to LH2 to Mach 20), with a small rocket added for EOI.  A metallic TPS should be used.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2009 04:26 pm by tnphysics »

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #490 on: 01/03/2009 04:38 pm »
The key to a gas-and-go SSTO RLV IMO is airbreathing engines-somewhat like the Forerunner V business jet proposed somewhere on the forum (afterburning ultra-high-bypass turbofan to Mach 8, then LNG scramjet to Mach 15, then switch to LH2 to Mach 20), with a small rocket added for EOI.  A metallic TPS should be used.


That is really too complex.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #491 on: 01/03/2009 04:49 pm »
What about borane fuels? They were supposed to offer the performance of hydrogen at the density of kerosene, but I believe that their was a problem.

Boranes combustion products tend to be thick sticky/solid boron compounds which are generally impossible to remove from engine surfaces and make turbopumps impossible to use.

Kerosene/boron powder slurries offer similar performance without as much coking issues but still should only be used with pressure fed or piston pumps fed engines. If SpaceX used such a mix on, say, the Kestrel pressure fed engine, the Falcon 1 payload performance might be significantly increased.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #492 on: 01/03/2009 04:53 pm »
The key to a gas-and-go SSTO RLV IMO is airbreathing engines-somewhat like the Forerunner V business jet proposed somewhere on the forum (afterburning ultra-high-bypass turbofan to Mach 8, then LNG scramjet to Mach 15, then switch to LH2 to Mach 20), with a small rocket added for EOI.  A metallic TPS should be used.


That is really too complex.

Agreed. The GTX RBCC launcher (which would have launched by 2006 but was cancelled) would have demonstrated stage and a half air breathing rocket based combined cycle RLV technologies.

Personally I'd like to see a more basic POGO-like ram/rocket RLV, though IMHO provided polywell fusion moves along as expected, we'll be seeing fusion SSTO RLVs within a decade.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #493 on: 01/03/2009 05:28 pm »
The key to a gas-and-go SSTO RLV IMO is airbreathing engines-somewhat like the Forerunner V business jet proposed somewhere on the forum (afterburning ultra-high-bypass turbofan to Mach 8, then LNG scramjet to Mach 15, then switch to LH2 to Mach 20), with a small rocket added for EOI.

The gravity and air resistance losses would be much greater than for a standard rocket trajectory. But those are known weaknesses. Perversely, using the rocket to accelerate the vehicle to viable scramjet speeds may be better than adding a turbofan. It still means that a majority (as above) of your delta v comes from the scramjet. And you are carrying fewer systems as a result.
Karl Hallowell

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #494 on: 01/04/2009 01:28 am »
The key to a gas-and-go SSTO RLV IMO is airbreathing engines-somewhat like the Forerunner V business jet proposed somewhere on the forum (afterburning ultra-high-bypass turbofan to Mach 8, then LNG scramjet to Mach 15, then switch to LH2 to Mach 20), with a small rocket added for EOI.

The gravity and air resistance losses would be much greater than for a standard rocket trajectory. But those are known weaknesses. Perversely, using the rocket to accelerate the vehicle to viable scramjet speeds may be better than adding a turbofan. It still means that a majority (as above) of your delta v comes from the scramjet. And you are carrying fewer systems as a result.


Good point. Also note that air resistance losses are greatly mitigated by use of sharp design. Using SHARP materials for leading edges (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride as is used in IRV steering fins) allows for mach 7 flight at sea level, mach 11 flight at 100k feet and minimal hypersonic plasma issues.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #495 on: 01/07/2009 12:43 am »
3)  Thrust reduction (throttling)

Only if it is manned. People also see SSTO, RLV, and assume manned.

......


Even for an unmanned launch, high g forces require a more robust, heavy and expensive structure. 

Expecially if you have an high mass ratio you can reach 7-8 g and more when the veichle has lost most of his mass but the thrust is the same. Very difficult to build something light that can bear these forces.

Also, I think insertion in orbit is slightly less efficient if you can't reduce thrust after coasting phase.

The optimal thrust to maximize payload is not full throttle at any time of the launch.  Thrust gently at the end is better.

But there's a very simple and easy way to solve this. 

Asymmetrical dual or multi engines.

You take off with two (or more) non thrustable engines on, one big and the other small, and you circularize the orbit using the small one only (the  "sustain engine").   

Note that this is a SSTO not a TSTO because both the engines are taken to orbit, nothing is jettisoned.

I think that just cut of some engines is a much more simple, cheap and efficient way than having thrustable engines like SSME, because the required thrust range (SSME allows just 60% reduction, not enough if you renounce boosters) and the many possible optimizations.

I still wonder why the designers of the Shuttle did't just cut off one of the three main engines at a certain point of the launch instead of require a 66% thrustability that is equivalent.....  I probably miss something.

Thrust reduction is not the worst problem to design a SSTO, anyway.
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline LTABS

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RE: SSTO Thread
« Reply #496 on: 01/07/2009 09:40 am »
What you need to do is change the equation.  i.e. Create a launch vehicle or booster system that weighs nothing and has flyback capability for reuse. 

Impossible say's you?

see the "Airlaunch Using Hybrid Air Vehicles" post under Advanced Concepts.

As far as the dream of having a fully reusable SSTO that enables aircraft like opperation I think that is likley 50 years out, the rocket equation is a harsh mistress and as long as you are married to it it almost totally preclude a realistic SSTO RLV....



« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 10:30 am by LTABS »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: RE: SSTO Thread
« Reply #497 on: 01/08/2009 02:27 am »
What you need to do is change the equation.  i.e. Create a launch vehicle or booster system that weighs nothing and has flyback capability for reuse. 

Impossible say's you?

see the "Airlaunch Using Hybrid Air Vehicles" post under Advanced Concepts.

As far as the dream of having a fully reusable SSTO that enables aircraft like opperation I think that is likley 50 years out, the rocket equation is a harsh mistress and as long as you are married to it it almost totally preclude a realistic SSTO RLV....




Actually, there are tradeoffs. LH2 is too low a density for feasible SSTO RLV, it mandates too much vehicle mass and volume. Tripropellant systems like MAKS are feasible. Air breathing vs only rockets is another tradeoff issue: breathing air reduces LOX mass and tankage significantly but increases vehicle mass and TPS complexity.

The airlaunch for hybrid air vehicles post is about a two stage vehicle.

Achieving SSTO and RLV is indeed a very difficult problem with chemical engines. My current hopes are that polywell fusion is the holy grail.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #498 on: 01/08/2009 03:05 am »
3)  Thrust reduction (throttling)

Only if it is manned. People also see SSTO, RLV, and assume manned.

......


I still wonder why the designers of the Shuttle did't just cut off one of the three main engines at a certain point of the launch instead of require a 66% thrustability that is equivalent.....  I probably miss something.

Thrust reduction is not the worst problem to design a SSTO, anyway.
They would loose engine out capability the shuttle can loose an engine and throttle the remaining two back up this happened on STS 51-F.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: SSTO Thread
« Reply #499 on: 01/08/2009 03:12 am »
This might have made a good mark I RLV vs the huge jump they made with the shuttle.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm
A plug nozzle engine of sufficient thrust was built and test fired back in the 60s as shown on the link.

Such a vehicle could be built today using a single SSME modified in the same manner the J2 was for the XRS-2000 or use the J2X from Ares/Direct.

An interesting note even though it's an RLV it also could be used to replace the S-IVB on the Saturn IB and would increase the IB's payload by 7938 to 9979Kg depending on whether the SASSTO was reused putting the vehicle into the EELV heavy class.

It might be a good idea to resurrect the concept since it has a lot of commonality with hardware used to return to the moon.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2009 03:20 am by Patchouli »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0