With us having the very unfair advantage of hindsight, what would have been the major problems encountered with SERV had it been selected for development?
But I prefer the VTOL SSTO that the late Ed Gomersall conceived while at NASA Ames in the same time frame. It was called the MAD-OART. (Mission Analysis Division of NASA Ames. Don't know what OART stood for.)
Quote from: HMXHMX on 03/08/2009 11:55 pmBut I prefer the VTOL SSTO that the late Ed Gomersall conceived while at NASA Ames in the same time frame. It was called the MAD-OART. (Mission Analysis Division of NASA Ames. Don't know what OART stood for.) Office of Advanced Research and Technology?
Some more information here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtmlOh, what could have been...
Here's another thing I'm wondering about: how do you land after an intact abort? GLOW is 6 Mlb, so the turbojets are not going to be able to handle the vehicle's weight--unless you can dump lots of propellant very fast. Hence, it's got to be a rocket-powered landing. * Can you extend the landing gear while the aerospike is running?* Can the landing gear support the GLOW?* Or do you come down at sea?* Isn't the aerospike's thrust going to be strongly and rather suddenly decreased as the gaseous spike comes in contact with the ground?
Quote from: Proponent on 03/08/2009 06:53 pmWith us having the very unfair advantage of hindsight, what would have been the major problems encountered with SERV had it been selected for development?The same problem all SSTO's have: weight. I knew a couple of SERV guys and in fact have the entire original study. They did the best job anyone has to date in terms of a detailed analysis of VTOL SSTO, and showed that it works without a doubt, even penalized by their landing solution. That work was a big step forward, since forgotten or ignored, unfortunately.But I prefer the VTOL SSTO that the late Ed Gomersall conceived while at NASA Ames in the same time frame. It was called the MAD-OART. (Mission Analysis Division of NASA Ames. Don't know what OART stood for.) I don't know if there are any reports or web info on it; I still have the report he wrote for NASA HQ. Much lower risk and simpler than SERV by a long shot, which is why I used parts of his work in some of my later designs.