Author Topic: Lifting Body Staging  (Read 9229 times)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Lifting Body Staging
« on: 12/12/2009 10:18 pm »
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.

     Just a thought.


Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #1 on: 12/12/2009 10:32 pm »
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.

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
Retrieval crews would increase the labor pool


Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #2 on: 12/12/2009 11:19 pm »
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]

Quote
It 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.


Quote
The 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.

Quote
Aerosurfaces would be require for control, increasing weight and complexity

Hmm...  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).


Quote
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?

Quote
Retrieval crews would increase the labor pool


Hmm..  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
« Last Edit: 12/13/2009 02:51 am by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #3 on: 12/13/2009 01:04 am »
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").
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #4 on: 12/13/2009 04:09 am »
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").

     Actually, I was being serious in my questions to his response.  I'm hoping to better understand what it is that makes certain designs not work, while others do work.  I sincerely want tounderstand what the flaws with my ideas are, see what could be done to correct them, and ask if the solutions might work.  If not, then maybe other options exist.
     At this                                                                                  unless I ask quetsions, and ask for clarification for answers that I don't have enough data to understand why it won't work, or is simply wrong, I can't learn what WILL work.
     Yes, I know, there are some things that you and Jimmay know that to you, are simply common sense. But to me, without the same experience, without the same frame of reference, the short answers make no sense.
     Parachutes usually are good enough, until the shroud lines get fouled or one of the chutes fail to open, like with the Ares X-I or with Apollo 15.  A lifting body would avoid this issue.  Adding the mass of a steering system, additional avionics, and  structural changes appears to be too much of a change though.

     Ok, I accept that the in atmosphere stages could use parachutes or maybe an aerofoil for a water landing could work, and using the same retrieval crews and equipment for the SRBs could work, but would a stage that is 11unmodified, other than the parachute being added, survive even a l1ow speed impact without modification?  If not, could it be pressurised to act as reinforcement to the base structure for the impact, or would an airbag type system work better?

     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
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #5 on: 12/13/2009 04:24 am »
The parachute technology is not broken, so ... why fix it?
Large parachutes definitely have downsides.

Regarding the OP, a lifting body (or anything that actually flies) to water landing seems like a bad way to go.  If you are going to build something that flies, land it on a runway. Seaplanes, all else being equal, need to be more robust than regular planes, and a saltwater bath is just adding more hassle on top of that. SRBs handle splashdown OK, but they are big hunks of steel, which you couldn't realistically use for a useful lifting body.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #6 on: 12/13/2009 11:00 am »
If you've got one or more rocket motors that gimbal on the bottom of your rocket stage; a little extra fuel left in the spent stage, a restart capability, and some lightweight legs will let you land vertically.

You might have to build the stage 10% bigger than a disposable equivalent. And you need a relatively stable surface to land it on.

Or, (to out Goff Jon), have the stage hover while it's aerial refueled, then fly a ballistic path back to the launch site. :)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #7 on: 12/13/2009 01:30 pm »

   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).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17984.0

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 06/09/2010 02:06 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #8 on: 12/14/2009 07:06 am »
It would increase costs at current flight rates.

You can of course say this of pretty much every reusable launcher scheme so it is technically absolutely true.

This probably isnt what the OP really meant though. I imagine very few space enthusiasts want to reduce the cost of launches just so we can do the merely same things we are doing now but paying less in salaries.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #9 on: 12/14/2009 08:27 pm »
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).
11
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17984.0

Cheers!


Ok, well, that's true if you're in a hurry to get the upper stage back down, but if you were to use a small amount of fuel to lower the orbit into an orbit grazing the upper atmosphere, which over a couple of days, weeks or months, (depending on how soon you want the stage back) it will slow down on its' own and, you shoud be able to guide it pretty much where you want to land it.  (Of course, splashing it down in an ocean allows for mo1re cross range issues, and, since this is a REALLY big glider, you don't have to worry abo1ut missing the runway and having to go around again for landing.1
     While this requires changing the materials for construction for both the water landings and the impact stresses, use of non metalics, such as Carbon Composits should reduce both weight and increase durability.

     BTW; I know that we're now usingcarbon composits in major parts of Aircraft construction, (Including at least one aircraft completely made of carbon fiber) but has anyone considered construction of the entire exterior skin of each stage with carbon composits?  I know that Scaled Composits made Space Ships One and Two that way, I just wonder if it can be done with liquid fueled rockets?

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #10 on: 12/14/2009 08:33 pm »
Can you draw a picture?

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #11 on: 12/14/2009 08:36 pm »
Some solids use carbon windings, they benefit from the increased strength to weight ratio since they have to be very strong because of the large internal pressure. Though I don't really know if they're any lighter at the end, the peacekeeper first stage seems to have pretty much the same mass ratio as a GEM, both being similar in size.

Beal was working on liquid pressure fed rockets made of composites.

Current rockets have composites in interstage structures at least. They might have temperature problems with cryogenics.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #12 on: 12/14/2009 11:30 pm »
but 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.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #13 on: 12/15/2009 10:10 am »
but 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.

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?

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #14 on: 12/15/2009 10:21 am »
Can you draw a picture?

Of the whole conceptor some part of it?

     Bear in mind that I will be traveling over the next few days, moving from Virginia to Oklahoma, and will not have internet access until I get to the other end.  One I have an idea what you're looking for, (either the original concept of multiple lifting body stages or the semi-standard stages for in atmosphere recovery with the upper, exoatmospheric stages being lifting bodies?  For example that is).
     I can provide some crude, "napkin sketches" of the design and some important design elements, but it might take the better part of a week or more due to the move.  (I'm driving there and it should take about 3 days, give or take).

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #15 on: 12/15/2009 09:31 pm »
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?
Differing thermal expansion rates make mixing materials difficult. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it adds another constraint.

Tank mass is one of the critical factors in LV performance. It has been studied aggressively by everyone rocket business from day one. It's not as if the people building LVs haven't heard of composites: They use them extensively for things like fairings, inter-stages etc. People in the same organizations basically invented the field. Most of the high tech materials and manufacturing techniques we take for granted today have at least some roots in the aerospace industry.

It would be quite surprising if there is any low hanging fruit that hasn't been studied, although risk aversion and lack of funding may have prevented some promising techniques from being tried.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #16 on: 12/15/2009 09:57 pm »
Essentially the discussion is about flyback boosters, no ? Something along these lines
http://www.starbooster.com/

Replacing the "conventional" finned/winged booster with a lifting body may perhaps help with the shifting center of mass issues. Or not.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #17 on: 12/16/2009 01:14 pm »
MUSTARD:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/bac_mustard.php
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mustard.htm

Multiple "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.htm

Note 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
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JasonW3

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #18 on: 01/21/2010 08:39 pm »
MUSTARD:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/bac_mustard.php
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mustard.htm

Multiple "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.htm

Note 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


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.

Jason

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #19 on: 01/21/2010 10:14 pm »
It 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.

All of the above. The problem is that an RLV has higher fixed costs than an ELV. A multistaged vehicle where every stage is a flyable RLV in itself, is going to have even higher fixed costs. The tradeoff is that marginal costs per launch are lower. To recoup those costs (that is, to make the vehicle cheaper per launch than a competing ELV), you need a high enough launch frequency so that the marginal cost dominates the fixed cost.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #20 on: 01/21/2010 10:15 pm »

MUSTARD:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/bac_mustard.php
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mustard.htm

Multiple "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.htm

Note 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

Mustard is so crazy it looks like it just might have worked.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2010 10:16 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #21 on: 01/21/2010 10:26 pm »
I'm still hoping Lockheed Martin is going to do something amazing with their embryonic flyback booster research...
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #22 on: 01/25/2010 07:51 pm »
Quote
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.
Hrumph... Well WHY didn't you SAY so? :)

Seriously it sounds something like this concept:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc52ani.gif

(Space Document #52 "Manned Reusable Flyback Atlas")
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspaceother.htm#spacedoc52

With another stage on the nose. Which brings me to the "problem" I see with it: Stacking.
One reason for the MUSTARD concept was to reduce the need for vertical stacking equipment and space in favor of more 'on-the-ground' square footage and a supposed easier intagration process.
Quote
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.
The TPS would be driven by the seperation speed and altitude and the entry profile. Chances are with a 3-stage design your booster would need something like the Spaceship-One ablative paint while the second would need actual TPS material and the 3rd an actual reentry TPS system

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Musquacook

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #23 on: 02/04/2010 10:44 pm »
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #24 on: 02/05/2010 12:50 am »
     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?


Offline sb

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #25 on: 02/08/2010 10:22 pm »
Quote
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 think you are misunderstanding the complexity involved in the avionics necessary to provide precision ascent guidance and control under harsh environmental conditions, as well as the cost of development of non-mass-produced software in general.  Look at armadillo aerospace.  They've got a fairly low performance (compared to an orbital launcher stage) VTVL vehicle and I'd be surprised if they've spend signficantly under $10,000 so far on avionics - and they're not paying themselves salaries.  Your "$5000" for software costs not only doesn't get you "all the bells and whistles" - it probably doesn't get you a working e-commerce site which is vastly less complex, specialist, and reliable than launch vehicle software *needs* to be.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2010 10:23 pm by sb »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #26 on: 02/09/2010 09:08 pm »
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.
I'll have to find my links now... Funny thing was I found a couple of nifty items on this very concept! The Air Force/Boeing final version was the Beta-III with a hypersonic seperation of the pure rocket orbiter and the ramjet/ATF-engine (8 I think) booster.
Boeing has a patent on the concept that pretty much shows the Beta-II concept with both booster and orbiter having a single SSME each and the booster having 4-ATF engine derived turbojets in an "over-under" arrangment with the ramjets.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JasonW3

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lifting Body Staging
« Reply #27 on: 02/14/2010 03:29 am »
     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?



Hmmm... the early orginal space Shuttle design...  Not quite what I had in mind, but essentially on the right track.

Jason

Tags:
 

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