I was thinking more of a reusable US (Falcon 9?) with crew compartment in the same stage, with the whole stage having a single TPS.
Quote from: tnphysics on 12/05/2012 01:46 amI was thinking more of a reusable US (Falcon 9?) with crew compartment in the same stage, with the whole stage having a single TPS.Kistler K-1That would have been their crewed version of the K-1 US.
Shuttle II.
The problem with ejection seats is that they only work for a very small portion of the flight profile. REALLY small portion.The "Shuttle-II" comment was less directed at the vehicle having "wings" I think that the "command/passenger" section being a separable/seperate vehicle for abort purposes. Randy
Quote from: RanulfC on 12/05/2012 07:34 pmThe problem with ejection seats is that they only work for a very small portion of the flight profile. REALLY small portion.The "Shuttle-II" comment was less directed at the vehicle having "wings" I think that the "command/passenger" section being a separable/seperate vehicle for abort purposes. Ohh yes, I remember reading about that shortly after the Challenger desaster!
The problem with ejection seats is that they only work for a very small portion of the flight profile. REALLY small portion.The "Shuttle-II" comment was less directed at the vehicle having "wings" I think that the "command/passenger" section being a separable/seperate vehicle for abort purposes.
A similar concept I like is a reusable flyback booster, possibly VTVL, with a cheap expendable second stage, then a reusable spacecraft with integrated third stage/SM. The spacecraft would provide the final ascent burn and have all the expensive avionics, etc, to control the launch. It could come in crewed and uncrewed cargo carrier versions.
The article http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/09/orbital-access-methodologies-part-vi-air-launched-glideforward-tsto/ brought up the concept of integrating the reusable upper stage and the manned spacecraft payload.
The downside is, once in orbit, the spacecraft has to carry around a very large engine and large, almost empty tanks.A similar concept I like is a reusable flyback booster, possibly VTVL, with a cheap expendable second stage, then a reusable spacecraft with integrated third stage/SM. The spacecraft would provide the final ascent burn and have all the expensive avionics, etc, to control the launch. It could come in crewed and uncrewed cargo carrier versions.
Quote from: kkattula on 12/06/2012 06:16 amA similar concept I like is a reusable flyback booster, possibly VTVL, with a cheap expendable second stage, then a reusable spacecraft with integrated third stage/SM. The spacecraft would provide the final ascent burn and have all the expensive avionics, etc, to control the launch. It could come in crewed and uncrewed cargo carrier versions.You are describing Falcon with reusable first stage plus Dragon.
The only thing you need to add would be an extended trunk with fuel tanks plus probably one expendable Super Draco with big vacuum nozzle for optimized vacuum ISP.
You could evaluate if the Dragon avionics and RCS can control the second stage. But it would be worth the effort only if there is a need for very many Dragon flights, manned or unmanned.
The expendable second stage would then be just tank plus one Merlin engine. The cost should not be too high if produced in larger numbers.
I don't know what would be involved to modify a first stage Merlin to a second stage one . If it is easy you could convert 9 first stage engines after 9 flights to expendable second stage engines.
You're still throwing away a Merlin every flight though. Why would that be needed vs. having the Merlin and its tankage on the spacecraft?