Author Topic: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing  (Read 15619 times)

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Everyone knows ISRU propellant can't help you launch from Earth to LEO.  Or can it?

The idea behind "skyhitch" is for a suborbital launch vehicle (LV) to hitch a ride with an orbital tow vehicle (skyhitch).  The skyhitch meets the LV halfway by aerobraking, and then it carries the LV back to orbit.  The sequence of events is:

1) skyhitch de-orbits from LEO
2) LV launches into a 3km/s hypersonic hop (costs 5km/s)
3) skyhitch S-turns down to 3km/s, aeromaneuvering to match LV
4) skyhitch and LV ascend from atmosphere in parallel
5) skyhitch uses thrusters to rendezvous with LV
6) skyhitch latches onto LV
7) skyhitch boosts back to orbital speed (costs 5km/s)

With a specific impulse of around 450s, the mass ratio required for 5km/s is only about 3:1.  Multiple stages are not required.

The skyhitch and LV may share a common airframe, but the LV engine is optimized for low altitudes while the skyhitch engine is optimized for vacuum.  Also, the LV engine might use denser fuels so it has more room for cargo, while the skyhitch uses its entire volume for fuel.

This hypersonic skyhitch system shares some features with the hypersonic skyhook concept.  But a hypersonic skyhook requires development of tether technology and presents problems with other satellites.

Hypersonic skyhitch uses existing technology, and it plays nice with other spacecraft.  In particular, the skyhitch may be based on the ISS.  It can undock, pick up an LV, and return all while keeping the same ground track as the ISS.  This isn't an option for a hypersonic skyhook.

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #1 on: 01/24/2013 10:24 pm »
 Great minds think alike - good to see you posting here - seems like a while since you were describing your idea for using collision to transfer momentum from a spacecraft perihelion thrust to an orbiting vehicle.
 I actually submitted a similar idea to NASA in an RFI solicitation and discussed it here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21530.90.
 As I developed the idea I proposed using small rugged vehicles based on kinetic kill type ABM vehicles carrying tethers from each vehicle that could home in on each other, slow down and latch to each other. The tow vehicle would then slowly take up the slack and tow the payload or entire launch vehicle into orbit.
 
Steve Mickler

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #2 on: 01/24/2013 10:37 pm »
 Here's an excerpt from the RFI:

The obvious question is: how can space based activities aid launching payloads to orbit? Production of propellants  and space based spacecraft servicing servicing  are nothing new, at least conceptually, but what is new in this proposal is the means to have a space based vehicle capture a suborbital payload launched from the ground and accelerate it to orbital velocity. This vehicle, call it the boost vehicle, will remain in LEO and be serviced in an inflated hangar, perhaps attached to or near the ISS. This supports the large inflatable space structures part of the new technology development plans and turns the ISS into a true space station and a vital link in the space transportation infrastructure.
   The proposal also hinges on solar powered and propelled vehicles to mine asteroid regolith and act as OTV’s to resupply the boost vehicle’s propellant which supports the FTD-1 and beyond parts of the new plan, particularly SEP and AR&D. The need for large amounts of propellant to be produced from NEO regolith creates a situation quite unlike that imagined for proposed propellant depots. These depots  would be so infrequently used that keeping the propellants cold and stationkeeping become major problems. In contrast, this proposal imagines telerobotic based ISRU systems in GEO where the speed of light delay between operator command and robot response is constant unlike LEO. Large amounts of NEO regolith could be returned by the robotic mining vehicles for refining at GEO provided recently discovered asteroids with very low dV prove suitable. Demand would be so high that long term propellant storage would not be a factor and surplus would be available for stationkeeping. 
   The space based space transportation concept  also leverages the burgeoning suborbital launch market to provide launch services.
Advantages : To understand the advantages of a space based space transportation system, it is first necessary io explain how the space based space transpotation system might work.
The launch sequence would be as follows:
- The boost vehicle(BV) uses retro fire to de-orbit from LEO
- BV uses a combination of lift and drag to “skip” onto a suborbital trajectory
- BV repeats the process untill its velocity and trajectory match the launch vehicle’s
-The launch vehicle(LV) would have acheived a suborbital trajectory such that it remains in space  for several minutes at a minimum.
-  LV and BV rendezvous in space and use a capture mechanism to exchange payload-
capture system could take many forms but one possibility is that each vehicle would send out small, rugged tethered capture vehicles that would quickly home in on each other and mechanically connect their attached tether cables. The payload module (or even the entire LV) could be then towed to orbit or winched into a payload bay in the BV
- LV seperates and re- enters for landing
- BV LH2-O2 main engine(s) ignitie and boost BV to LEO
- BV rendezvous and docking at ISS/hangar for servicing and “refueling” and payload drop-off. Alternately, the BV could be met by a solar OTV carrying propellent to keep flight rate higher that would then transfer the payload module to the ISS
- Robotic Solar OTV’s support mining, refining and transportation of NEO derived hydrogen and oxygen propellant
    Obviusly the challenging part is payload exchange on a suborbital trajectory. This will require new speacialized guidance and capture technology that at first examination may seem unacheivable in the near term, given that on-orbit rendezvous and docking requires hours after days of manuvers today. There is however the possibility of repeated flight tests with unmanned subscalevehicles and an example from aviation’s past that give reason to be optimistic. In-flight refueling was once considered a daredevil stunt and yet today it is routine and essential. Indeed, in-flight re-fueling is the inspiration for the previously noted possible capture mechanism similar in some ways to the probe and drouge type in-flight refueling used by the Navy.
   A positive feedback establishes as more launches are required first to build up the required infrastructure and then maintain it. With higher flight rates come lower costs which in turn brings explorers, tourists, and perhaps even GEO based telerobotic industrial parks. High flight rate will bring rapid amortization of the initial investment and as robotic mining of  NEO’s develops to satisfy the large propellant demands; the cost of raw materials in space will plummet leading to increased industrial production in GEO raising the possibility that after a decade or so it will become less expensive to telerobotically produce consumer goods there than in any factory on Earth. It’s the 21st century, shouldn’t our space technology reflect that fact?



Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #3 on: 01/24/2013 11:12 pm »
 I even made a crude pic of the idea:



Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #4 on: 01/24/2013 11:14 pm »
Great minds think alike - good to see you posting here - seems like a while since you were describing your idea for using collision to transfer momentum from a spacecraft perihelion thrust to an orbiting vehicle.
 I actually submitted a similar idea to NASA in an RFI solicitation and discussed it here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21530.90.
Interesting!  The idea as you originally describe it sounds essentially identical to what I was thinking.  Obviously there are a few details which are different, such as the suggested ISRU fuels, but it's essentially the same.

The tone of the ensuing discussion is a bit depressing and unfortunately typical, I think.  There is a lack of comprehension and vision.

As I see it, the main advantages are reducing operational costs.  The launch vehicle only needs 5km/s, so it can avoid LH2 ground infrastructure and multistage integration costs.  The reduced mass ratio means it can have one small engine rather than ten (like Falcon 9), reducing costs.  The reduced mass ratio also eliminates the really tall first stage.  This further simplifies integration and reduces time/costs.

LV return might involve gliding landing like the Space Shuttle, or it could use a parachute.  The former costs more mass, but can speed up throughput.  The end result can be aircraft-like operations.
Quote
As I developed the idea I proposed using small rugged vehicles based on kinetic kill type ABM vehicles carrying tethers from each vehicle that could home in on each other, slow down and latch to each other. The tow vehicle would then slowly take up the slack and tow the payload or entire launch vehicle into orbit.
This seems complex and not necessary, I think.  What's wrong with using clamps?

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
  • Liked: 1079
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #5 on: 01/25/2013 01:39 am »
If you want two tethers/booms working together to hook up, maybe the Sticky Boom guys (Altius Space Machines) might be good.

I have this strange urge to call this a reverse bomber or an unbomber.

The payload hookup/transfer, or wholesale grabbing of a suborbital RLV (sRLV) seems like a solvable problem considering automated UAV refueling work and extending back to the Harrier Skyhook concepts for the Royal Navy.

Speaking of skyhooks, what are the defining advantages of skyhitch over a rotovator hypersonic skyhook? It seems like they cover many of the same areas.

1. exoatmospheric rendezvous at "hypersonic" suborbital speeds
2. orbital energy of the upper half is ISRU restored (PROFAC fuel for skyhitch, solar electric something for a skyhook rotovator MX station)
3. Lower gross weight of sRLV compared to SSTO/TSTO, making takeoff from conventional airports more reasonable. Cuts down on ground infrastructure/ops requirements. Think stuff like XCOR Lynx.

Both suffer from the problem of where the active portion of the hookup is designated, and how dumb the receiver side design of the connection is.

Skyhitch may have some interesting points in it's favor though;

1. Since the skyhitch is essentially a skip glide vehicle, it is also capable of aeroassist plane changes in theory. This allows redeployment into other orbits, compared to the orbital energy investment you make in a skyhook due to the much larger mass of the rotovator MX station.
2. Arguably better spatial/temporal flexibility for the rendezvous. A rotovator skyhook has much tighter docking requirements in terms of the docking window. The dispatchable timing aspect for skyhitch is on demand for the window as well, compared to the fixed schedule of skyhook. A bit of a truck vs train issue here?
3. Easier to do a heavy launch campaign quickly, provided there is sufficient available ISRU fuel (at the ISRU propellant depot). A skyhook would likely be electric in the nature of it's orbital energy recovery, thus a recharge downtime is imposed once it has reached it's momentum exchange limit (or risk deorbiting), though the downtime can be shortened with external power receivers of some kind (or a heavy nuke as a MX counterweight, but we know how people will react to that...)

Skyhitch also has some bad aspects;

1. If the skyhitch has a propulsive problem during the lift, you ditch (no landing gear) or abort to ground, along with a heavyweight landing of the sRLV after disconnecting, which means your system is down until a replacement skyhitch can be launched. Skyhook focuses on a tether break during lift, but even then the skyhook facility should be still okay, and a tether replacement would make it operational again in short order.
2. Skyhitch consumes PROFAC ISRU fuel, which has potentially higher market value as fuel for exclusively orbital assets. Rotovators recovering orbital energy via electric thrusters and/or electrodynamic tether thrust (likely via solar) arguably do better in this regard.


Total system cost, and specific orbital energy spot price value ($ / Joules per kilogram / inclination) might be interesting parameters to play with. With ISRU, you are essentially banking solar energy (if solar powered PROFAC or solar electric skyhook). What is the market valuation of that orbital energy, if it can be provided as a service from above rather than hauled from below?

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #6 on: 01/25/2013 04:35 pm »
 @IssacKuo: I just want to add that the S-turn idea to slow the tow vehicle down you propose offers advantages over the purely Sanger "skip bomber" inspired idea I proposed and I like the name "Skyhitch" better than "Space Based Space Transportation System".
 The tether grappling vehicle idea may indeed be too complex but abort might be easier and the risk of the two main vehicles colliding might be reduced.
@Asteroza What a great evaluation of the ideas especially the suggestion of "sticky boom's" releveance and the orbit plane change capability that dipping into the atmosphere for lift affords. I hadn't thought of thaat.

Offline Archer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #7 on: 01/25/2013 06:27 pm »
You have stolen my idea) :)

Though I was thinking that "skyhitch" should be just an external fuel tank with TPS and some guiding.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2013 06:30 pm by Archer »
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering. (c) R. A. Heinlein

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #8 on: 01/25/2013 07:14 pm »
Woah!  I hadn't really thought about the significance of plane changes.  I described using "S" turns, but if you just keep turning in the same direction, you can do a "C" turn and maybe even a "U" turn.

Slowing down from 7.8km/s down to the 3km/s rendezvous speed bleeds away 85% of your kinetic energy.  This gives you the ability to turn a lot even with a mediocre lift/drag ratio.

This means that skyhitch can be used to launch into just about any inclination.  That is huge.  You can use it for everything from equatorial to sun synch to retrograde to everything in between.

Of course, this depends on the details of how the skyhitch is refueled.  Assuming you want the skyhitch tow vehicle to be reusable, you'd rather have a resupply depot waiting in the destination inclination.

@Archer - an knat-pord is an interesting idea, but I see two problems.  The first is that you need to hook up cross-feed lines, which adds to the technological challenge and risk.  The second is that the LV engine needs to compromise between atmospheric and vacuum performance.  It also needs to be restartable, of course.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2013 07:48 pm by IsaacKuo »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #9 on: 01/25/2013 09:10 pm »
IsaacKuo:
Why not just exchange a cargo pod rather than tow the whole sRLV into orbit? That will save a "ton" of mass and allow the sRLV to have a faster turn around won't it?

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 IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #10 on: 01/25/2013 11:48 pm »
IsaacKuo:
Why not just exchange a cargo pod rather than tow the whole sRLV into orbit? That will save a "ton" of mass and allow the sRLV to have a faster turn around won't it?

Well, if I have to chose one or the other, I prefer the LV to go all the way to orbit, because:

1) If you launch from KSC, the LV's path goes out into the Atlantic Ocean...so landing the LV after a suborbital hop would be a problem.

and

2) My hope is airplane-like operations for space tourism.  This means the people need to get back down somehow...makes sense to keep everything single stage to orbit and back rather than try to cram a return capsule in a cargo module.

That said, one size need not fit all.  I like the idea of nose-to-tail latching.  The LV has twin rockets to the sides so the central region can have a conical docking port in the rear.  The skyhitch has a conical nose tip which latches to the docking ring.

With this configuration, you can also have cargo LVs which eject the cargo module rearward so the LV can return by itself.  The LV also acts as an aeroshell for the cargo module.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #11 on: 01/26/2013 01:18 am »
I think this concept was the basis of a long argument between Jim and a Paul Klinkman on space.com when it still had a forum.

Im a bit unclear because I remember zany catches on tethers being included, but im sure the case of the orbital element also decelerating part way was also discussed.

At the time I was more interested in the concept of using an orbital atmosphere collector to get the propellant in orbit in the first place.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30104.0
« Last Edit: 01/26/2013 01:20 am by KelvinZero »

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #12 on: 01/27/2013 12:59 am »
 I believe on an earlier discussion the idea of the tow vehicle collecting air as it decelerated was discussed. The tow vehicle could perhaps collect air as it made a series of skips off the upper atmosphere Sanger style and cool and liquefy it and perhaps separate the N and exhaust it, between skips. The extra drag collection requires is not a problem if you are trying to slow down anyway.
 If the ground launched (or air launched I suppose) launch vehicle was to use LH2 as fuel and this could be transferred to the tow vehicle after mating as needed, then for the price of a larger LH2 tank the single stage launch vehicle could drop its LOX tank/engine part for recovery while the payload and stretched LH2 tank was connected either directly or by a tether that contains a fuel transfer line perhaps. 
 The tow vehicle would never need other refueling and the launch vehicle, while having to carry enough LH2 to loft both itself (or at least the payload and LH2 tank part) and the tow vehicle to orbit, would not have to supply the LOX and as a result, should realize a significant payload mass fraction increase vs. having a conventional second stage.
 Regarding this, it might be desirable to design the tow vehicle engines to burn very oxygen rich since you might have a surplus of it to increase thrust to perhaps reduce the amount of LH2 the launch vehicle must carry and thereby increase its payload mass fraction.   

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #13 on: 01/27/2013 05:50 am »
I believe on an earlier discussion the idea of the tow vehicle collecting air as it decelerated was discussed. The tow vehicle could perhaps collect air as it made a series of skips off the upper atmosphere Sanger style and cool and liquefy it and perhaps separate the N and exhaust it, between skips. The extra drag collection requires is not a problem if you are trying to slow down anyway.

These skips won't last very long unless you have a really good lift/drag ratio.

My gut feeling is that the only way you could liquefy the oxygen quickly enough is if you were doing something like LACE, where you sacrifice LH2 to liquefy oxygen.  But where would you get all this hydrogen from?  Hmm...doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, maybe it could work with liquid nitrogen?  Atmospheric scooping could provide plenty of nitrogen.

I don't know...the entire idea seems doomed to failure due to compression heating.  It's one thing for LACE to operate at relatively low speeds, but this will be scooping up air at near orbital speeds.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #14 on: 01/27/2013 07:00 am »
I think this concept was the basis of a long argument between Jim and a Paul Klinkman on space.com when it still had a forum.

Im a bit unclear because I remember zany catches on tethers being included, but im sure the case of the orbital element also decelerating part way was also discussed.

I think it's best to keep things simple and practical, rather than include a lot of fancy technologies.

Quote
At the time I was more interested in the concept of using an orbital atmosphere collector to get the propellant in orbit in the first place.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30104.0

I have a lot of interest in atmospheric scooping.  I wish I had a better understanding of the technology and engineering required.  In particular, I wonder if it would be easier to scoop CO2 from Venus or Mars, since it wouldn't require such low temperatures.

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #15 on: 01/27/2013 11:19 pm »
I believe on an earlier discussion the idea of the tow vehicle collecting air as it decelerated was discussed. The tow vehicle could perhaps collect air as it made a series of skips off the upper atmosphere Sanger style and cool and liquefy it and perhaps separate the N and exhaust it, between skips. The extra drag collection requires is not a problem if you are trying to slow down anyway.

These skips won't last very long unless you have a really good lift/drag ratio.

My gut feeling is that the only way you could liquefy the oxygen quickly enough is if you were doing something like LACE, where you sacrifice LH2 to liquefy oxygen.  But where would you get all this hydrogen from?  Hmm...doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, maybe it could work with liquid nitrogen?  Atmospheric scooping could provide plenty of nitrogen.

I don't know...the entire idea seems doomed to failure due to compression heating.  It's one thing for LACE to operate at relatively low speeds, but this will be scooping up air at near orbital speeds.

 Now that I think about it, another problem is that the tow vehicle would be unable to abort to orbit as it would if all the propellant was loaded at the ISS or other facility in LEO.
 I started thinking about this in the first place because it occurred to me that given the relatively low Dv required to bring some NEO's back to Earth orbit or the EML points, a successful asteroid mining operation might have a huge amount of water once the metals were extracted and could benefit by having a market for it. There might be few opportunities to fuel BEO vehicles ay first and so I saw taking over the job now performed by upper stages as a potential market to help jump  start asteroid mining.
 BTW - As I remember now, the reason for the grappling vehicles was that an objection was raised in previous discussion that the window for docking was too short to safely bring the two vehicles together but that depends i guess on how you do it.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #16 on: 01/28/2013 12:53 am »
I started thinking about this in the first place because it occurred to me that given the relatively low Dv required to bring some NEO's back to Earth orbit or the EML points, a successful asteroid mining operation might have a huge amount of water once the metals were extracted and could benefit by having a market for it. There might be few opportunities to fuel BEO vehicles ay first and so I saw taking over the job now performed by upper stages as a potential market to help jump  start asteroid mining.

I agree that the potential BEO market is not promising.  Doing something to reduce launch costs to LEO, on the other hand, could be a big deal.

Quote
BTW - As I remember now, the reason for the grappling vehicles was that an objection was raised in previous discussion that the window for docking was too short to safely bring the two vehicles together but that depends i guess on how you do it.

I imagine the two vehicles leaving the atmosphere close to each other, on an ascending trajectory around 3km/s.  While in the atmosphere, the skyhitch can use aerodynamic maneuvers along with its plentiful spare speed to maneuver into a close tail chase.  So, the vehicles will be ascending at perhaps a 30 degree trajectory close to each other.

This implies an upward velocity component of 1500m/s, or about 5 minutes until gravity pulls them back down to the upper atmosphere.

I don't see how these tethers would help the situation.  It would take extra time to deploy the tethers.

I think maybe a tether might make sense if you designed around rendezvous in mid-air.  That way, the LV could stay comfortably outside the shock cones of the skyhitch, and drag could keep the tether taut and trailing.  However, I propose using pure rocket propulsion, so neither vehicle is airbreathing.  I think it would be better to get out of the atmosphere.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #17 on: 01/29/2013 08:52 pm »
BTW - As I remember now, the reason for the grappling vehicles was that an objection was raised in previous discussion that the window for docking was too short to safely bring the two vehicles together but that depends i guess on how you do it.

I imagine the two vehicles leaving the atmosphere close to each other, on an ascending trajectory around 3km/s.  While in the atmosphere, the skyhitch can use aerodynamic maneuvers along with its plentiful spare speed to maneuver into a close tail chase.  So, the vehicles will be ascending at perhaps a 30 degree trajectory close to each other.

This implies an upward velocity component of 1500m/s, or about 5 minutes until gravity pulls them back down to the upper atmosphere.
This is probably correct but the "reason" behind the tethers was your actual "window" is going to be about half or less of that and "slamming" a couple of vehicles together at high speed with little time is not seen as a "feature" :)

Actually you can probably "extend" the timing by fireing the vehicle engines at the "top" of the arc to compensate for gravity (should be around 0.5 or so at that point due to velocity) but then you have engines firing in close proximity while you're trying to "latch-on" to each other.
Quote
I don't see how these tethers would help the situation.  It would take extra time to deploy the tethers.

I think maybe a tether might make sense if you designed around rendezvous in mid-air.  That way, the LV could stay comfortably outside the shock cones of the skyhitch, and drag could keep the tether taut and trailing.  However, I propose using pure rocket propulsion, so neither vehicle is airbreathing.  I think it would be better to get out of the atmosphere.
Actually the reverse, you can't use tethers while in the atmosphere because they couldn't stand up to being hit by the shock waves. (They would in fact "lay" on the shock wave and melt away if you tried)

Outside the atmosphere they don't have to worry about drag or aerodynamics. The "reasoning" behind the idea is you could have one vehicle with a "target" and have the other fire a tether and grapple that would attach to the target and allow the vehicles to be hauled together similar to mid-air-refueling. Once attached the "tow" vehicle reels in the tether until the two vehicles "latch" together rather than having to rely on (and be subject too) close use of active RCS.

The key here is to get a fast, accurate rendevous between two seperate moving objects on similar but not the SAME trajectory in as short a time as possible.

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 hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #18 on: 01/31/2013 05:38 am »
The trajectories seem too different for this.

They could reach same position and same speed, but with different velocity vector

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: "Hypersonic Skyhitch" - Partial Reentry Suborbital Towing
« Reply #19 on: 01/31/2013 10:07 am »
I think it goes without saying that they have to achieve the same trajectory for this to work...

...unless you can figure out a way to build your vehicle out of this stuff ;)

Tags:
 

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