I have a question that at first seemed, well dumb to me until I thought more upon it. Would it be feasible to configure a stacked multi-stage rocket where each stage is congigured as an independant lifting body, once staging is complete for that stage? I'm not talking piggy-backing on one another, but more along the lines of one lifting body stacked on top of the nose of the next one below it, using a disposable "stand off" rig and fairing to support it above the next one in line? I imagine that it would require special reinforcement on the tankage within the bodies of each stage, but if so, could these stages then be flown back, either remotely or through the automated use of same sort of avionics systems currently used in some of our newer UAV's? The idea, at least for the lower stages, would not be a runway landing, but a sort of Seaplane style landing with tugs to tow them back into port. Obviouly not something that could be quickly manrated, but it COULD lower the costs for cargo launches.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 12/12/2009 10:18 pmI have a question that at first seemed, well dumb to me until I thought more upon it. Would it be feasible to configure a stacked multi-stage rocket where each stage is congigured as an independant lifting body, once staging is complete for that stage? I'm not talking piggy-backing on one another, but more along the lines of one lifting body stacked on top of the nose of the next one below it, using a disposable "stand off" rig and fairing to support it above the next one in line? I imagine that it would require special reinforcement on the tankage within the bodies of each stage, but if so, could these stages then be flown ba1ck, either remotely or through the automated use of same sort of avionics systems currently used in some of our newer UAV's? The idea, at least for the lower stages, would not be a runway landing, but a sort of Seaplane style landing with tugs to tow them back into port. Obviouly not something that could be quickly manrated, but it COULD lower the costs for cargo launches.[\quote]QuoteIt would increase costs at current flight rates.Ok, are we talking development costs, launch costs, personel costs, or what? If you could explain the costs you're talking about, I'd appreciate it. That way, I could approach the subject from a different direction that might work.QuoteThe stage structural mass would be greater reducing performance.The interstage sections? Specifically the "stand off" rig and faring? Or are we talking about the different shaping of the tankage itself? Maybe there is a solution I hadn't thought about yet. Or maybe you might have a suggestion that might make it work? Maybe carbon composits? I'm open to suggestions.QuoteAerosurfaces would be require for control, increasing weight and complexityHmm... Good point. Could the use of some form of memory metals, like nicromium, (nickle-cromium alloy) be use to bend the edges of the trailing edges of the stage, inplace of the normal pistons, hinges, etc? I know it's a biton the weak side, but properly positioned AS a hinge, could it be used to make the needed steering changes to flyback? Or would the dynamic pressures be too great for such a solution? (I kinda cribbed that one from the Wright brothers.. Sorry).QuoteMore avionics would be required increasing complexity and costs[uote]Don't each of the stages have a certain amount of avionics already? What if you were to add the equivilant of a Netbook with a solidstate drive, (about $400 each) a GPS location unit, (about $200 each) a laser-ring gyroscope, (kind of iffy on this cost, say about $500 each) a radar navigation rig, (again, kinda iffy here, but if I remember right about $1000 for a good one with a radar altimiter built in, for a civilian aircraft) a radio control reciever with extended range for the lower stages, (about $350) Programmming for this rig, (say about $5000 for all the bells and whistles) and shock and G mounting for all of this gear, (about $2500 worth of containers, (shock proof containers from Best Buy) Shock mountings, (about $500) a total of about $10,000 plus or minus, per stage, could that work?QuoteRetrieval crews would increase the labor poolHmm.. Another good point. Could commercial Tugs be used? How about the current tugs used for the SRB's? These stages should sit high enoughin the water that they should be fairly easy to control. I figure two standard tugs each should be able to tow them into port. Or one sea-going tug to retrieve it and one standard to help bring each of them into their drydocks. Oh, right, The dock workers and engineers. Yeah there would be an increase in the labor pool. But not too much beyond the current labor pool for the shuttle I imagine. This is a point that I have to say, I think you're right on this. Dang. Jason
I have a question that at first seemed, well dumb to me until I thought more upon it. Would it be feasible to configure a stacked multi-stage rocket where each stage is congigured as an independant lifting body, once staging is complete for that stage? I'm not talking piggy-backing on one another, but more along the lines of one lifting body stacked on top of the nose of the next one below it, using a disposable "stand off" rig and fairing to support it above the next one in line? I imagine that it would require special reinforcement on the tankage within the bodies of each stage, but if so, could these stages then be flown ba1ck, either remotely or through the automated use of same sort of avionics systems currently used in some of our newer UAV's? The idea, at least for the lower stages, would not be a runway landing, but a sort of Seaplane style landing with tugs to tow them back into port. Obviouly not something that could be quickly manrated, but it COULD lower the costs for cargo launches.[\quote]QuoteIt would increase costs at current flight rates.Ok, are we talking development costs, launch costs, personel costs, or what? If you could explain the costs you're talking about, I'd appreciate it. That way, I could approach the subject from a different direction that might work.QuoteThe stage structural mass would be greater reducing performance.The interstage sections? Specifically the "stand off" rig and faring? Or are we talking about the different shaping of the tankage itself? Maybe there is a solution I hadn't thought about yet. Or maybe you might have a suggestion that might make it work? Maybe carbon composits? I'm open to suggestions.QuoteAerosurfaces would be require for control, increasing weight and complexityHmm... Good point. Could the use of some form of memory metals, like nicromium, (nickle-cromium alloy) be use to bend the edges of the trailing edges of the stage, inplace of the normal pistons, hinges, etc? I know it's a biton the weak side, but properly positioned AS a hinge, could it be used to make the needed steering changes to flyback? Or would the dynamic pressures be too great for such a solution? (I kinda cribbed that one from the Wright brothers.. Sorry).QuoteMore avionics would be required increasing complexity and costs[uote]Don't each of the stages have a certain amount of avionics already? What if you were to add the equivilant of a Netbook with a solidstate drive, (about $400 each) a GPS location unit, (about $200 each) a laser-ring gyroscope, (kind of iffy on this cost, say about $500 each) a radar navigation rig, (again, kinda iffy here, but if I remember right about $1000 for a good one with a radar altimiter built in, for a civilian aircraft) a radio control reciever with extended range for the lower stages, (about $350) Programmming for this rig, (say about $5000 for all the bells and whistles) and shock and G mounting for all of this gear, (about $2500 worth of containers, (shock proof containers from Best Buy) Shock mountings, (about $500) a total of about $10,000 plus or minus, per stage, could that work?QuoteRetrieval crews would increase the labor poolHmm.. Another good point. Could commercial Tugs be used? How about the current tugs used for the SRB's? These stages should sit high enoughin the water that they should be fairly easy to control. I figure two standard tugs each should be able to tow them into port. Or one sea-going tug to retrieve it and one standard to help bring each of them into their drydocks. Oh, right, The dock workers and engineers. Yeah there would be an increase in the labor pool. But not too much beyond the current labor pool for the shuttle I imagine. This is a point that I have to say, I think you're right on this. Dang. Jason
It would increase costs at current flight rates.
The stage structural mass would be greater reducing performance.
Aerosurfaces would be require for control, increasing weight and complexity
More avionics would be required increasing complexity and costs[uote]Don't each of the stages have a certain amount of avionics already? What if you were to add the equivilant of a Netbook with a solidstate drive, (about $400 each) a GPS location unit, (about $200 each) a laser-ring gyroscope, (kind of iffy on this cost, say about $500 each) a radar navigation rig, (again, kinda iffy here, but if I remember right about $1000 for a good one with a radar altimiter built in, for a civilian aircraft) a radio control reciever with extended range for the lower stages, (about $350) Programmming for this rig, (say about $5000 for all the bells and whistles) and shock and G mounting for all of this gear, (about $2500 worth of containers, (shock proof containers from Best Buy) Shock mountings, (about $500) a total of about $10,000 plus or minus, per stage, could that work?QuoteRetrieval crews would increase the labor poolHmm.. Another good point. Could commercial Tugs be used? How about the current tugs used for the SRB's? These stages should sit high enoughin the water that they should be fairly easy to control. I figure two standard tugs each should be able to tow them into port. Or one sea-going tug to retrieve it and one standard to help bring each of them into their drydocks. Oh, right, The dock workers and engineers. Yeah there would be an increase in the labor pool. But not too much beyond the current labor pool for the shuttle I imagine. This is a point that I have to say, I think you're right on this. Dang. Jason
Retrieval crews would increase the labor pool
Jim was really kind in his response. He could have given merely one word:"Parachutes."The space launch community understands parachute recovery of expended stages pretty darn well. Obviously Shuttle Program does it for the SRBs every launch. Arianespace does it for Ariane 5 SRBs whenever they feel the need.The parachute technology is not broken, so ... why fix it?Now maybe you were thinking specifically about recovery of high altitude stages? Maybe the engines on those are really valuable? What the Shuttle Orbiter does is gently recover the high value assets used during the main stage of propulsion, letting the relatively low value tankage find its own way down. But the vehicle with the engines is then side-mounted, and as experience has shown, you're potentially in a world of pain if the tank sheds debris.The upper stage is almost in orbit, i.e. has almost orbital velocity. Bringing something safely home from there is just too difficult (read, "expensive").
The parachute technology is not broken, so ... why fix it?
But as you stated, it would be more the upper stage, the one boosting out of the atmosphere that would require the lifting body style system the most.
Jason noted, " But as you stated, it would be more the upper stage, the one boosting out of the atmosphere that would require the lifting body style system the most."After your Buck Rogers/lifting body/X-37 style upper stage is in orbit, unload its payload. Then, hook up with a proper orbital fuel depot to refuel your upper stage's tanks with liquid oxygen and hydrogen. Then leave the depot, fire your engines on the upper stage to kill 80% of its orbital velocity. Your upper stage enters the thin upper atmosphere at a velocity of around 3,600 miles per hour. That is a velocity that can be dealt with a system that is cheaper and easier to reuse than what we currently use on the Space Shuttle. Orbital refueling and a massive retro burn of your engines should allow your Buck Rogers/lifting body/X-37 syle rocket to do horizontal or even vertical landings at a spaceport. Weekly reuse of that upper stage may even become possible. Ah, but where does the orbital fuel depot get its endless supply of relatively cheap fuel? An old idea quickly comes to mind. See:Scooping atmospheric air (PROFAC revisited).11http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17984.0Cheers!
but has anyone considered construction of the entire exterior skin of each stage with carbon composits?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 12/14/2009 08:27 pmbut has anyone considered construction of the entire exterior skin of each stage with carbon composits? In general, there is no distinct "exterior skin", except for a non structural layer of insulation/TPS in some cases. The tank walls form the interior, exterior, and structure. Composite tanks have definitely been considered and even built, with varying degrees of success (see X-33)As with many other things in the space launch business, paper specs are often misleading: The details make a huge difference. The Atlas balloon tanks had very impressive mass ratios, and they were made of stainless steel. ISTR that Al-Li gains significant strength at cryogenic temps, which makes it more competitive than it would be otherwise.
Can you draw a picture?
Interesting... Could a Carbon Fiber wound tank, either; A) Use an aluminimum or other metal alloy electro-platting technique in place of the normal resins? Or.. B) Could a Wound Carbon Fiber tank use a thin layer electro-plating technique inside of the tank to provide the cryogenic containment needed, increased structural strength and low mass?
MUSTARD:http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/bac_mustard.phphttp://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mustard.htmMultiple "lifting-body" (in this case the HL-10 type) multiple units of which are built to reduce overall costs by using a single mold-line style.A similar approach was offered by General Dynamics called the "Triamese" which had much narrower lines and is probably closer to similar with your proposal.http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/triamese.htmNote the extendable wings for low speed landing and the deployed jet engines. Neither would be specific for the vehicle as a wing-chute would work just as well for the design and unmanned it would probably not need the self ferry or air breathing recovery.Randy
Quote from: Jim on 12/12/2009 10:32 pmIt would increase costs at current flight rates.Ok, are we talking development costs, launch costs, personel costs, or what? If you could explain the costs you're talking about, I'd appreciate it. That way, I could approach the subject from a different direction that might work.
JasonW3 wrote:Hmmm, Not exactly what I had in mind Randy. I was more considering a larger, wider first stage with a somewhat smaller second stage stacked on the nose of the first stage, with a third even smaller third stage mounted on top of the stack.
The first stage would only need TPS materials on its' nose, as it wouldn't quite leave the atmosphere, but could get hit with the flame wash of the second stage. The second and third stages would, of course need TPS protection, but probably not quite the same as the Orion capsule would.
Would it be feasible to configure a stacked multi-stage rocket where each stage is congigured as an independant lifting body, once staging is complete for that stage? I'm not talking piggy-backing on one another, but more along the lines of one lifting body stacked on top of the nose of the next one below it, using a disposable "stand off" rig and fairing to support it above the next one in line?
Don't each of the stages have a certain amount of avionics already? What if you were to add the equivilant of a Netbook with a solidstate drive, (about $400 each) a GPS location unit, (about $200 each) a laser-ring gyroscope, (kind of iffy on this cost, say about $500 each) a radar navigation rig, (again, kinda iffy here, but if I remember right about $1000 for a good one with a radar altimiter built in, for a civilian aircraft) a radio control reciever with extended range for the lower stages, (about $350) Programmming for this rig, (say about $5000 for all the bells and whistles) and shock and G mounting for all of this gear, (about $2500 worth of containers, (shock proof containers from Best Buy) Shock mountings, (about $500) a total of about $10,000 plus or minus, per stage, could that work?
I know the Air Force / Boeing once looked at a two stage two orbit launch vehicle concept with both stages made of lifting vehicles (or at least an upper stage lifting vehicle and a lower stage winged body vehicle). This was a rare case where the large first stage had a conformal cutout on its underside for the second stage to nest in, and they spent significant time looking at separation. The concept started as an in-house conceptual design as an response to not believing the SSTO NASP hype, which was the darling program at the time. The attempt was to try to come up with a somewhat more pragmatic design than NASP.Oh, and as was pointed out, a water landing would be a bad thing. This had runway recovery of both stages.Not sure how much ended up in the open literature but I know there was at least one AIAA paper on the concept: Gord et al., “Revisiting the Air Force Project Beta Two-Stage Reusable Space Launch Concept: Configuration Description; Performance Potential; Aerodynamic Assessment,” AIAA Paper 94-0627, 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 1994.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 12/12/2009 10:18 pm Would it be feasible to configure a stacked multi-stage rocket where each stage is congigured as an independant lifting body, once staging is complete for that stage? I'm not talking piggy-backing on one another, but more along the lines of one lifting body stacked on top of the nose of the next one below it, using a disposable "stand off" rig and fairing to support it above the next one in line?How about this concept?