If a Challenger type scenario unfolds (eg booster explodes) what escape options will there be for the crew?
Wow! That's awesome antriksh. That looks very similar to what NASA was looking at for the cancelled Space Launch Initiative.
I read the update about a new manufacturing route for the nose cap CC laminates, but any news on the TPS testing? Actually, any details of the TPS at all? How re-usable is it intended to be?The flight profile of the TSTO is also intriguing.1) Why is the 1st stage the winged booster, and the upper stage the grasshopper? Why not vice versa? Some benefit of the aerodynamic lift to the curvilinear trajectory followed in ascent?2) Why is there a different flyback mechanism for the upper stage, and the lower stage booster in any case? As it is, the diagram shows the first stage reaching altitudes+velocities where thermal protection becomes necessary for re-entry (unlike the recoverable, and reusable shuttle SRBs). Why not add a smaller version of the first stage on top of it instead of a grasshopper? I would think that two different technologies leads to increased design and development (if not operational also) costs. Among those two, I'm biased to winged flyback over a vertical landing: cross range ability, possibly cheaper (propellant wise) control during ascent, and... well, they look the part of flying machines too
Its nothing to do with looks.
I read the update about a new manufacturing route for the nose cap CC laminates, but any news on the TPS testing? Actually, any details of the TPS at all? How re-usable is it intended to be?The flight profile of the TSTO is also intriguing.1) Why is the 1st stage the winged booster, and the upper stage the grasshopper? Why not vice versa? Some benefit of the aerodynamic lift to the curvilinear trajectory followed in ascent?
2) Why is there a different flyback mechanism for the upper stage, and the lower stage booster in any case? As it is, the diagram shows the first stage reaching altitudes+velocities where thermal protection becomes necessary for re-entry (unlike the recoverable, and reusable shuttle SRBs). Why not add a smaller version of the first stage on top of it instead of a grasshopper? I would think that two different technologies leads to increased design and development (if not operational also) costs.
Among those two, I'm biased to winged flyback over a vertical landing: cross range ability, possibly cheaper (propellant wise) control during ascent, and... well, they look the part of flying machines too