Author Topic: Why was there lots of research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit  (Read 35938 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
A lot of that "heat" was my fault.

HMXHMX, what are you up to? BTW, do you have a nice summary document of DC-Y/DC-X or any of the other high-mass-fraction vehicles you worked on?

Unfortunately, as usual, I can't comment on my current work except to say it isn't SSTO.  Close, though.  But in response to the document request, I can only offer up an ancient paper:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Note especially the appendix:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

I probably should finish up the book draft I started around 1992 (Single Stage: The 30 Year Quest for the Reusable Spaceship).  It's only half done since I put it on the shelf about 1993 or so, and I have no idea if I'll ever re-write it, since now it needs to be renamed "...The 60 Year Quest..."  :)


You never stopped since, what, the late 60's ? I wish you publish that book someday.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
  • Liked: 2181
  • Likes Given: 659
A lot of that "heat" was my fault.

HMXHMX, what are you up to? BTW, do you have a nice summary document of DC-Y/DC-X or any of the other high-mass-fraction vehicles you worked on?

Unfortunately, as usual, I can't comment on my current work except to say it isn't SSTO.  Close, though.  But in response to the document request, I can only offer up an ancient paper:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Note especially the appendix:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

I probably should finish up the book draft I started around 1992 (Single Stage: The 30 Year Quest for the Reusable Spaceship).  It's only half done since I put it on the shelf about 1993 or so, and I have no idea if I'll ever re-write it, since now it needs to be renamed "...The 60 Year Quest..."  :)


You never stopped since, what, the late 60's ? I wish you publish that book someday.

Since 1969, yes.

Thanks for the vote, along with the four other people who want to read it, that makes five.  Now if I could just find 50,000 more.  :)

Someday.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Single stage to orbit, or single stage to orbit AND back down again ? The latter is much harder.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
One thing that is rather striking about beamed propulsion SSTO's is how ridiculously low their initial mass is for a given payload. This is particularly noticeable when considering launch assist options.

For example, the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft can only carry a rocket capable of putting 6 tonnes into orbit when restricted to solid fuel Pegasus variants. With an 800 Isp spacecraft, the possible payloads with the initial masses that the carrier craft can carry easily go up to 20+ tonnes. Popup stages get a similar size reduction.

EDIT: while I'm at it...
Since 1969, yes.

Thanks for the vote, along with the four other people who want to read it, that makes five. 
Make that 6 :)
...and 7.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2015 11:21 pm by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1061
Since 1969, yes.

Thanks for the vote, along with the four other people who want to read it, that makes five. 
Make that 6 :)


Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
  • Liked: 1079
  • Likes Given: 32
Fund an SSTO book through Patreon? I think you can rig it by number of participants rather than a deadline...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
As John Goff said

Quote
I think the case of exoatmospheric suborbital refueling will likewise be one of those crazy things that we wonder how we ever lived without.
;D

I'm not entirely sure how serious I was when I wrote that comment. There may have been some tongue-in-cheekage going on. Not that the idea is 100% stupid, just a bit crazy.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
A lot of that "heat" was my fault.

HMXHMX, what are you up to? BTW, do you have a nice summary document of DC-Y/DC-X or any of the other high-mass-fraction vehicles you worked on?

Unfortunately, as usual, I can't comment on my current work except to say it isn't SSTO.  Close, though.  But in response to the document request, I can only offer up an ancient paper:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Note especially the appendix:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

I probably should finish up the book draft I started around 1992 (Single Stage: The 30 Year Quest for the Reusable Spaceship).  It's only half done since I put it on the shelf about 1993 or so, and I have no idea if I'll ever re-write it, since now it needs to be renamed "...The 60 Year Quest..."  :)


You never stopped since, what, the late 60's ? I wish you publish that book someday.

Since 1969, yes.

Thanks for the vote, along with the four other people who want to read it, that makes five.  Now if I could just find 50,000 more.  :)

Someday.

Add me to the list, if I wasn't already one of the original four...  :-)

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
I personally think the conventional wisdom against SSTO RLVs is oversold. Technically speaking I think they're completely feasible, the tech necessary is high-enough TRL to be believable. We just haven't proven markets that need flight rates high enough for them to shine compared to expendable TSTOs yet.

~Jon

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
I personally think the conventional wisdom against SSTO RLVs is oversold. Technically speaking I think they're completely feasible, the tech necessary is high-enough TRL to be believable. We just haven't proven markets that need flight rates high enough for them to shine compared to expendable TSTOs yet.

~Jon
As people observed the pressure stabilized tank versions of Atlas were close and a launch of one of those with when they re-engined with a Russian engine as an an SSTO could have settled this a decade ago.

However the real problem with SSTO is that historically your payload goes down from about 3% of GTOW to 1% or less for the same GTOW.

When commercial investors plug those numbers into their cost models they immediately say "Build a TSTO instead."

So far only SABRESkylon has proposed an engine and vehicle architecture that can deliver the same payload fraction as a TSTO.

The thread title packs quite a lot in. I don't think the XCOR Lynx will qualify as SSTO but it's certainly a space plane.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
As John Goff said

Quote
I think the case of exoatmospheric suborbital refueling will likewise be one of those crazy things that we wonder how we ever lived without.
;D

I'm not entirely sure how serious I was when I wrote that comment. There may have been some tongue-in-cheekage going on. Not that the idea is 100% stupid, just a bit crazy.

~Jon

Sorry, didn't wanted to embarass you in any way
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline spacetech

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • San Francisco
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 6
I personally think the conventional wisdom against SSTO RLVs is oversold. Technically speaking I think they're completely feasible, the tech necessary is high-enough TRL to be believable. We just haven't proven markets that need flight rates high enough for them to shine compared to expendable TSTOs yet.

~Jon
IMHO You might be half right... half "wrong" on this one.

SSTO RLV seems like the holy grail of affordable spaceflight.. but isn't over 50% of the cost of most rockets is in the first stage? If SpaceX (or ULA) can get the first stage back, and reuse it, then the launch cost is reduced significantly.

What about a 1.5 stage-to-orbit spaceplane with boom refueling after take-off? SR-71 style... take off with half-tank, then refuel. Not exoatmospheric, but has benefits.

I asked an astronaut a related question;
Quote
Do you think there is a launch rate that makes spaceplanes (HTOL) more efficient than a F9/Dragon rocket and capsule? Not sure SpaceX could cycle SLC-39A in less than 24 hours.
And Dan Tani replied
Quote
To, me, it's not a launch rate function, but rather a cost to orbit function. Once the cost is right, the market will take care of the rate.
He's probably right... 

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
I asked an astronaut a related question;
Quote
Do you think there is a launch rate that makes spaceplanes (HTOL) more efficient than a F9/Dragon rocket and capsule? Not sure SpaceX could cycle SLC-39A in less than 24 hours.
And Dan Tani replied
Quote
To, me, it's not a launch rate function, but rather a cost to orbit function. Once the cost is right, the market will take care of the rate.
He's probably right...
In marketing terms that's "price elasticity" Historically the  demand has been very inelastic to price and the supplier prices have gone up, basically because governments have a need to launch payloads and that's not going to to away.

SX think once they get a reusable 1st stage their lowered costs will allow them to offer a capability Vs price that enough people will want that the market will grow despite the loss of capability IE You get say 50% of the expendable version for less than 50% of the expendable cost then your cost per lb has gone down. Otherwise you just bought 1/2 a payload for 1/2 the price, which is no improvement on pricing.

Time will tell the market is elastic at the price SX want to offer the F9SR, when it becomes available. Given the next F9 launch is currently showing an NET of December and FH NET than April 2016 this may be a while.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807

What about a 1.5 stage-to-orbit spaceplane with boom refueling after take-off? SR-71 style... take off with half-tank, then refuel. Not exoatmospheric, but has benefits.

How about that?

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/analog.html

;)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Until someone can come up with a near nuclear level, compact, safe, self contained, low mass, power supply that can provide enough power to make a significant change to the mass ration to orbit, (higher than 10% of total mass) it is very unlikely that we will see any true SSTO or lifting body designs in any viable use.

With current technology, it SHOULD be possible to make a SSTO design, so long as you are trying for Low Earth Orbit and NOT trying to reuse the rocket.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
 I was enthusiastic for SSTO in the 90's, especially Delta Clipper. But I also remember some who said it wouldn't work back then. In the light of subsequent history I've (reluctantly) changed  my opinion and now think that TSTO is the way to go.

I think JasonAW3's post is spot on.

EDIT Slight clarification.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2015 03:40 pm by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1061
I was enthusiastic for SSTO in the 90's, especially Delta Clipper. But I also remember some who said it wouldn't work back then. In the light of subsequent history I've (reluctantly) changed  my opinion and now think that TSTO is the way to go.
What subsequent history? Delta Clipper was cancelled for political reasons, not technical reasons.

I personally think the conventional wisdom against SSTO RLVs is oversold. Technically speaking I think they're completely feasible, the tech necessary is high-enough TRL to be believable. We just haven't proven markets that need flight rates high enough for them to shine compared to expendable TSTOs yet.
I agree with that. Of course any government could artificially create the market, if they really wanted to. For a country like the US it would be peanuts compared to other expenses.
I am wondering whether TSTO RLVs are needed as an intermediate step so the market has time to gradually grow and adjust to the lower prices. Then we can move on to SSTOs in an attempt to lower launch costs even further.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
I find it kind of interesting that the DARPA Reusable rocket concept has just quietly disappeared.  I haven't heard anything about it in about a year now.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I am wondering whether TSTO RLVs are needed as an intermediate step so the market has time to gradually grow and adjust to the lower prices. Then we can move on to SSTOs in an attempt to lower launch costs even further.

As previously mentioned, currently TSTO vehicles are cheaper than SSTO. It's not a matter of the market, it's technology.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Until someone can come up with a near nuclear level, compact, safe, self contained, low mass, power supply that can provide enough power to make a significant change to the mass ration to orbit, (higher than 10% of total mass) it is very unlikely that we will see any true SSTO or lifting body designs in any viable use.

With current technology, it SHOULD be possible to make a SSTO design, so long as you are trying for Low Earth Orbit and NOT trying to reuse the rocket.
Do you know NERVA's T/W was designed to be 5.3:1 for an Isp of 825 secs.according to the 4th edition of  Sutton? All applications were for upper stages outside the atmosphere.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Tags:
 

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