Author Topic: Faget Space Shuttle  (Read 6018 times)

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Faget Space Shuttle
« on: 07/27/2007 05:03 am »
I was inspired to start this thread after the Faget shuttle design was brought up in the "DIRECT 2.0" thread.  Max Faget's original concept is quite fascinating, but many astute observers have mentioned the reasons why it probably never would have worked.  The booster would need a higher cross-range for operational reasons; the giant flyback booster would have been terribly expensive and time-consuming to develop; the extreme thermal cycling on the tanks (cryogenic temps before launch, thousands of degrees on reentry) would have been a structural nightmare.

It is worth noting that the Faget shuttle concept is the first patent mentioned on a Google patent search for "space shuttle."  Faget was truly a pioneer, and his design was one of the first realistic ones for a reusable spacecraft.  Then again, guys like Philip Bono and Max Hunter also deserve credit for the idea of a reusable spacecraft; early studies like ROMBUS, MUSTARD, Starclipper, and Astrorocket offer plenty of fodder for review in the mind of a would-be RLV designer.

One concern of mine with the Faget shuttle is the recovery of the booster.  The staging event was to occur around Mach 10.  At this point, how far downrange would the booster be?  There becomes a certain point where the mass of the fuel required to fly the booster back to base becomes prohibitive.

It would seem that the re-entry approach favored by Max Faget is the orbital equivalent to the SpaceShipOne "feather" maneuver.  Perhaps Burt Rutan will look back to Faget if he goes ahead with a "Tier III" orbital system.  Than again, many of the experts disagreed with Faget, thought that his wings would burn off, and thought that the orbiter would spin at hypersonic speeds.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
RE: Faget Space Shuttle
« Reply #1 on: 07/29/2007 12:01 am »
Quote
CFE - 26/7/2007  12:03 AM

I was inspired to start this thread after the Faget shuttle design was brought up in the "DIRECT 2.0" thread.  Max Faget's original concept is quite fascinating, but many astute observers have mentioned the reasons why it probably never would have worked.  The booster would need a higher cross-range for operational reasons; the giant flyback booster would have been terribly expensive and time-consuming to develop; the extreme thermal cycling on the tanks (cryogenic temps before launch, thousands of degrees on reentry) would have been a structural nightmare.

It is worth noting that the Faget shuttle concept is the first patent mentioned on a Google patent search for "space shuttle."  Faget was truly a pioneer, and his design was one of the first realistic ones for a reusable spacecraft.  Then again, guys like Philip Bono and Max Hunter also deserve credit for the idea of a reusable spacecraft; early studies like ROMBUS, MUSTARD, Starclipper, and Astrorocket offer plenty of fodder for review in the mind of a would-be RLV designer.

One concern of mine with the Faget shuttle is the recovery of the booster.  The staging event was to occur around Mach 10.  At this point, how far downrange would the booster be?  There becomes a certain point where the mass of the fuel required to fly the booster back to base becomes prohibitive.

It would seem that the re-entry approach favored by Max Faget is the orbital equivalent to the SpaceShipOne "feather" maneuver.  Perhaps Burt Rutan will look back to Faget if he goes ahead with a "Tier III" orbital system.  Than again, many of the experts disagreed with Faget, thought that his wings would burn off, and thought that the orbiter would spin at hypersonic speeds.

According to Jenkins "Space Shuttle", the straight-wing orbiter/booster MSC-001 design of 1969-70, largely influenced by Faget and also known as the "DC-3", would have had the booster recovered down range and flown back to the launch site later.  This design had an 8 by 30 foot payload bay capable of carrying up to 15,000 lbs into a reference 310 mile orbit inclined 55 degrees to the equator.

Yes, Faget's orbiter would have had low cross range - only 230 miles.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what the cross range of Orion, NASA's next crewed vehicle, is going to be?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Faget Space Shuttle
« Reply #2 on: 07/29/2007 12:54 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 28/7/2007  8:01 PM

Yes, Faget's orbiter would have had low cross range - only 230 miles.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what the cross range of Orion, NASA's next crewed vehicle, is going to be?

 - Ed Kyle

Crossrange is not a required ability since runways aren't required

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
RE: Faget Space Shuttle
« Reply #3 on: 07/29/2007 03:42 am »
Quote
Jim - 28/7/2007  7:54 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 28/7/2007  8:01 PM

Yes, Faget's orbiter would have had low cross range - only 230 miles.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what the cross range of Orion, NASA's next crewed vehicle, is going to be?

 - Ed Kyle

Crossrange is not a required ability since runways aren't required

If Orion does a ground landing, it still has to hit a landing zone.  That surely requires some crossrange, though not as much crossrange as a runway landing.  I think that the ESAS report talked about something like a 100 mile crossrange.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Faget Space Shuttle
« Reply #4 on: 07/29/2007 06:02 pm »
Downrange recovery for the booster makes more sense than flying it back, at least from the perspective of technical feasibility.  Then again, the ferry problem becomes an issue which hampers your ability to have airliner-style operations.  IIRC, Faget and his team wanted a removable propulsion system to ferry the booster and orbiter.  While this would require pre-positioning of the propulsion module, I could see it shaving some time off the ferry process, compared with the time required to ferry the shuttle via 747.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Faget Space Shuttle
« Reply #5 on: 08/10/2007 07:25 pm »
Sadly Faget died not long ago.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1