Suborbital refuelling

Steelpillow, while, as you say, apparently no comparative analysis exists as yet, Archibald should have no problem at all to adapt his spreadsheet to create one. [b[I wholly concur with you that for a launch vehicle turbofans are more of a necessary(?) evil (e.g. for winged RTLS boosters with high staging Mach numbers,[/b] but even there Musk has demonstrated that rocket tossback works like a charm in practice) than an advantage.

Martin, could I suggest there actually IS some "bias" on Steelpillow's and your part? I mean it's litterally right there in bold above, you "assume" that turbofans would be a 'neccessary-evil' for a winged RTLS booster, but fail to grasp the original intent and concept of using them to takeoff from a runway and fly to a point, return from orbit and fly right back to that runway INCLUDING operational things like stacking in a holding pattern and taxing off the runway after landing to the hanger. Please don't take offense over the suggestion but I've seen it quite often in the cases where people DO have bias' (and we all do of course) but fail to grasp that theirs might be having a larger effect than the think they do.

I'm going to have to download the spreadsheets at home but let's keep in mind that we all have assumptions and bias' that color our outlooks and we need to keep calm and acknowledge them while also compesnating for them to arrive at a better understanding.

Randy
Randy,

I simply don't see a real need or demand to be able to achieve orbit from any airstrip in the world. As an analogy, wouldn't it be nice to board a jet airliner and fly straight to the beach of a dreamy Pacific island instead of having to land at some dreary airport and then perhaps take a taxi, ferry, and/or bus to your actual destination first? Both the Martin Seamaster as well as the Beriev Altair have clearly demonstrated that we have the technology, but yet both Airbus and Boeing (as well as everybody else in the airliner business) strangely and stubbornly confine themselves to designing aircraft that can only take off from and land on long strips of concrete rather than making use of the over 70% of the Earth's surface covered with water (and yes, there have been designs for both VTVL and HTHL water-going RLVs). But, as you concede above, perhaps there's some bias towards trying to force a system to use the current air traffic infrastructure for some reason on your side as well ;).

Martin
 
Last edited:
FLOC is an acronym standing for Fleet Launch(ed) Orbital Craft - and a play on words with a *flock* of birds.
It entails 8 to 64 rocketplanes docking and undocking repeatedly in suborbital flight. Basically cutting delta-v to orbit into 1000 - 1500 m/s chunks. Goff rocketplanes had low PMF of 0.70 and were as big as 747s.

Clapp "speculative idea" involved only 2 rocketplanes, not docking but briefly refueling. black horse was to be no bigger than a F-16.

My concept hits right between the two - nt only in size (Tu-22M) but also - one step further than Clapp (2 > 3 > 4 > 8) and stops at FLOC lower bound of 8. No docking, only brief refueling(s).

If I were Paul Allen or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Richard Branson - If I had ten billion dollars in my pocket to risk in a space venture (scoop: I'm not !) then here is how I would pitch that thing to investors.

The Mk.1 keroxide bird would be targeted at the U.S military - payload matter less than absolutely flexibility; runway to orbit and back.
"First buy two vehicles, get 1000 to 12 000 pounds to orbit. Then buy two other vehicles, try 3-FLOC and 4-FLOC missions and watch payload double or tripple."
Alternate sale pitch "it is a SR-71 to orbit. Particularly if you recycle Itek KA-80A camera, also used on the U-2R / TR-1".

The Mk.2 hydrolox sale pitch would be very different. More to space agencies "a small LOX transfer, gets you a big payload to orbit, thanks to LH2 very high specific impulse. Interested ?" Operational flexibility, with the deep cryogens, would take a big hit, but that would be balanced by a much larger payload to orbit. Payload of a 3-FLOC hydrolox system is really impressive. Not need to get to 4-FLOC or even 8-FLOC.
For space agencies, large payloads to LEO / polar orbit / GTO / GEO are all that matter. Interplanetary escape, too. That was what the Shuttle planned to achieve.
 
Last edited:
I simply don't see a real need or demand to be able to achieve orbit from any airstrip in the world.

The U.S military respectfully disagree with that point of view. As I said earlier, it is their absolute holy grail / mantra since 1958 and Aerospaceplane & DynaSoar. Sorry, I meant, 1968 and ISINGLASS. No, maybe 1980 and RASV / TAV / ASLV. Or 1986 and X-30. Or 2000's and RASCAL, FALCON, ALASA and a boatload of others "responsive space" programs - oops, XS-1, another one. AFRL Sabre-powered-TSTO, bingo, another one.

See my post above - I can tell you I imagined the Mk.1 keroxide bird with all the above studies stuck in my mind. Well, Clapp reasoned the same when pitching Black Horse / Black Colt to them in 1993-96. TAV = Trans-Atmospheric-Vehicle. They coined the term in 1978, and I was pretty surprised to see it used in documents well into the 2000's.

Plus aerial transfer ? it is their baby, since 1951 when the first of 800+ Boeing KC-97 entered service.

The bottom line is really "USAF would kill to gets their hands on a runaway-to-orbit-and-back vehicle with decent operational flexibility."
 
Last edited:
Two (2) vehicles launch one with payload and one with propellant and fly to a sub-orbital, exo-atmospheric rendezvous, where they transfer propellant and one flies home while the other goes to orbit with the payload.

Yes, I am tempted to call this the basic scenario for suborbital refuelling or SOR. One might call it the SOR-LEO scenario.

My main suggestion has been that for most purposes a single launch of a multi-stage vehicle makes better economic and technical sense. The wire analogy is intended to disprove the claim made earlier that SOR is somehow more efficient than multi-stage.
 
And then there's what's now known as "Water Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling"

bouncing off this...

Marti Sarigul-Klinj nicely quantified delta-v gain from an optimal air-launch. Altitude: 45000 ft. Angle of attack: 30 degrees.

Well among other as Kirk Sorensen and Joseph Bonometti also wrote a good paper on air launch: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070002822.pdf

-Speed at launch/ignition
-AoA to the local horizon on launch/ignition
-Altitude above mean Sea Level at launch/ignition

I thought he (along with others who formed AirLaunch) had figured the optimum angle of attack was between 30 degrees and 70 degrees which the latter being closer to the prefered initial AoA shallowing out over time?

Then there is the mothership / carrier aircraft own speed and the delta-v boost it provides
- Mach 0.95 brings a benefit of 1100 m/s
- Mach 2 carrier aircraft, 1600 m/s
- Mach 3 carrier aircraft, 2000 m/s
So one can see the boost is somewhat non-linear.

I used Zubrin's figures from the Blackhorse article but pretty much the same.

I personally decided Mach 0.95 and 1100 m/s was good enough, hence CFM56, LEAP, big, quiet turbofans for my rocketplane.

Yes, one point I was bringing up in the lost emails was how does that work though? The CFM56 LEAP is almost 9ft in diameter and over 14ft long and we need to fit it into a vehicle that has a wingspan of about 40ft and a length of only 58ft or so. You have issues fitting medium-to-low bypass turbofan's into an aircraft the "size of an F16" so a high-bypass is a lot more questionable I'd think? You can probably cram it in but where then do you move the systems and structure it replaces? Takeoff weight is almost 200,000lbs due to the full fuel load so both the wings and landing gear need to be beefed up substantially and I'm not sure 32,160lbs of thrust is going to be enough to get it off the ground?

YET
toying with my spreadsheets I ALSO realized that a delta-v gain of 500 m/s and 900 m/s was useful, too. So, another path of evolution for that rocketplane might be to swap the subsonic turbofans (stopping at mach 0.95) for high-speed engines. Thanks to RanulfC and a decade spent at Nasaspaceflight.com, three engines come to mind
- MIPCC
- J-58
- SERJ (Supercharged Ejector Ramjet)
The goal being to delay ignition of the rocket from Mach 0.95 to Mach 3 (MIPCC & J-58) or even Mach 4.5 (SERJ). And reap the benefits of airbreathing (to you, Skylon !) WITHOUT renouncing to suborbital refueling, of course.

Couple of notes: MIPCC is NOT an "engine" but a bolt-on added system to enhance medium to low bypass turbojet operation. The engine would be any applicable medium-to-low bypass turbofan which usually means some sort of ex-military enginge such as the F100, F110, or F135. J58s are rare and expensive beasts and are designed to use a propriatory jet fuel (JP7) which iin and of itself is highly expensive and hard to work with. SERJ has an H2O2/kerosene flight model built but never flown if you can get ahold of the design and specifications...

Unfortunately going past Mach 2.5 opens the usual *hypersonic* can of worms -"kinetic heating needs something better than light alloys. Titanium, Carbon fiber, Rene 41 superalloy" - the usual enchillada known since 1955 at least.

Slight correction, "high supersonic" as you don't hit hypersonic till after Mach-5. You can get away with the heating as long as you maintain a climb angle of around 30 degrees so that your entering less dense air through the whole trajectory. The J58 starts to lose thrust badly above 70,000ft, MIPCC with lox injection can get you up to around 80,000ft and SERJ can, using a fan in the front of the duct, supercharge the ramjet so it still accelertes between 75,000 and 85,000ft and you'd switch over to rocket mode before 90,000ft though you can still (in theory) air-breath through 100,000ft according to the reports.

Mach 2 is also an option and there there are plenty of excellent, powerful engines, all the way from Olympus 593 to F119 including NK25 and NK32 from the Tupolev bombers.

What matter is thrust, as in liftoff T/W ratio. Below 0.15 it becomes difficult to get a supersonic heavy aircraft off the ground.

The Concorde and bomber engines are huge the fighter ones would likely fit better but there goes any chance of being 'quite' :) And keep in mind augmenting the thrust won't help much in the noise department but will greatly enhance the installed engine power.

Which bring us to another fascinating aspect of that rocketplane: the many ways of improving the system
- change the propellants to get a better specific impulse
OR
- add one or two rocketplanes into the FLOC
OR
- change the rocket ignition speed from Mach 0.95 to Mach 3 or even Mach 4.5 by swapping the engines
OR
- use an expendable upper stage OR KST Astroliner towing-by-a-747 OR Black Colt subsonic-refueling OR Andrew Space Gryphon air distillation plant into LOX

There are so many clever ideas that coalesce around that rocketplane, it is mind-boggling.

It is that flexibility and growth potential I like so much.

Great but lets start with the basics shall we :)

Randy
 
Yes, one point I was bringing up in the lost emails was how does that work though? The CFM56 LEAP is almost 9ft in diameter and over 14ft long and we need to fit it into a vehicle that has a wingspan of about 40ft and a length of only 58ft or so. You have issues fitting medium-to-low bypass turbofan's into an aircraft the "size of an F16" so a high-bypass is a lot more questionable I'd think? You can probably cram it in but where then do you move the systems and structure it replaces? Takeoff weight is almost 200,000lbs due to the full fuel load so both the wings and landing gear need to be beefed up substantially and I'm not sure 32,160lbs of thrust is going to be enough to get it off the ground?

Nope. AFAIK my rocketplane is the size of a Buran / Shuttle orbiter. F-16 is waaaaaaay too small. There is question about that. I also draw inspiration from the never-dying Chuck Lauer / George French rocketplane - YES, it is STILL NOT DEAD, the website is still there !

Also Eclipse Astroliner - not completely dead, too !

http://www.kellyspace.com/launchvehicle2/

Basically I compared every iteration of Black Horse / Black Colt / Pathfinder over the last 25 years, plus KST / Eclipse Astroliner, to try and get the optimal size. Also Goff vague description of the FLOC rocketplanes
(by some interesting coincidence, Astroliner and FLOC vehicles are nearly twins - if only Alan Goff had heard of Kelly Space back in 2004...!! Imagine, astroliner going into orbit the FLOC way, how awesome that would be !)

At the beginning I started from a single GE90 pushed to max thrust of 50 mt. Extrapolating from an Airbus A330, MTOW would be around 250 mt. The GE90 would be in the tailcone and fed by a Tristar-like duct.
Then I realized it was stupid. Such a huge machine needed an enormous oxidizer transfer, 150 000 pounds or more. So I ran the spreadsheet(s) with smaller vehicles, cutting the mass in half, and bingo ! 120 mt, the sweet spot. No need to go bigger, what matters is the Propellant Mass Fraction (PMF).
The system needs a PMF of 0.85 and from 120 mt MTOW, meant 18 mt empty.
Then I found Dan Delong paper - the 1988 spaceplane and its extremely detailed weight breakdown. And this one is core to the rocketplane concept discussed here.
It really boils down to
- scrap Delong hydrolox, RL10, SSME
- get keroxide, one 100 mt rocket engine, and a pair of turbofans in place of that
 

Attachments

  • Dandelong_presentation.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Frankly, with a launch vehicle I would absolutely *NOT* want to be married to the current ATC/ATM system - as an aside, I honestly think it is near a breaking point.

From my corner I highly agree with you BUT it does tend to be an end goal of many advocates. On the other hand it also allows interfacing with an already existing set of rules and regulations that offer significant economic and operational benifits that can't be overlooked. On the Gripping Hand as I say spacecraft are not aircraft and vice-versa so the main question of course can it be worth it to do so? Let me shake up the aerospace eye-bot/ball and the answer is... "The Answer Is Unclear" Gee, thanks :)

On a more serious note I think the system is improving, again, and will become more managable in the furture but while it is a 'plus' for some things my basic take is like the idea of this being more useful to the military even in a civilian form I highly suspect it will be used only in limited areas fully. Now that's not to say the abilty to interface isn't itself useful because self-ferry, ability to use and be serviced in existing facilities with little change is highly significant by itself.

I can easily envision an alternative future system where in order to be certified any aerospacecraft needs to have some kind of AI onboard that continuously coordinates with all other aircraft in a local area to avoid collisions. Heck, if small feathered animals that quite literally only have bird brains consistently manage to avoid collisions while zigzagging in three dimensions in tight swarm formations, don't try to tell me that technology can't hack that soon. I dream of a world where the job of an air traffic controller has about the same professional prospects as a buggy whip manufacturer (well, not quite, since from NYC Central Park to Amish country there actually still are buggies around, but you get the point).

While those small feathered animals can often manage to avoid collisions with themselves, man made structurtes are a whole different matter and that's part of the problem. See no matter how 'connceted' your aerospacecraft is with the local traffic the bottom line is that for safety and operational reasons if it's coming into YOUR airspace ALL other activity gives way and is put on hold. Hence the reason they avoid any interaction if they possibly can.

Looking at the track record of the Space Shuttle, I am perfectly comfortable with a gliding return from space.

Sure but power can be nice to have and in fact is vital to ineract with existing traffic and control systems.

I also continue to believe that trying to make a launcher look like an aircraft just to use existing infrastructure is not the best overall compromise, and I really don't see a need to go to orbit from say an airstrip at Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Airport near Winslow, AZ (I've been there for a brief flight test campaign of a small black helicopter [fun!], since it has an average of only about four aircraft coming in or departing on any given day).

I remember finding out that when the song was written in fact Winslow did NOT have a corner on which one could stand :) And I agree since there is a prepondance of attempts to make "spacecraft" fit "aircraft" standards on the assumption that will make things 'easier' to regulate and inherit current aircraft safety statistics in some way by 'being more like aircraft' than spacecraft. It is likely a paradigm that will remain since there is a social link that seems to be unbreakable by this point. Not that I'm not going to keep trying :)

As far as I understand it, steelpillow's whole point of the wire thought experiment was to show that it really *doesn't* notably encumber any two or more vehicle concept - at least that was my takeaway.

Wireless man, it's the 21st Century after all! No, I got that but in truth it does since any multi-stage vehicle has to also include the connections and be designed to handle the stress of the connected as well as its own structures through the entire flight envelope till stage seperation. Mind you I don't think it's all that bad but it does exist and has to be taken into account.

YMMV, of course. Personally, I vastly prefer some small mass "inefficiency" of a staged system over adding a significant risk event like free fall rendezvous, docking, and propellant transfer. Once again, I take it you hold a different view, but I don't see any advantage in "only" coming together for that, since it means now you have to ensure the temporary connection is established safe and secure during a very limited period of time in flight instead of being able to check it out without time pressure and under easy accessibility on the ground. To tie in with your military background, how complicated and time consuming is it these days to mate a missile to a fighter (oooh, two separate yet mated air vehicles - mind blown!)? Are we talking days and hundreds of man hours here? I hazard to guess we really have two *very* different visions of aerospace transportation.

Hmmm, so you prefer the fact that all trans-atlantic flights are composite aircraft that have to be stacked and launched together with all that implies? Interesting opinion...

How complicated and time consuming is mating a missile to an aircraft today? Odd question since mating two stage of a launch vehicle is not at all similar but we'll go with it. From the "lift" command it's about 60 to 90 seconds till the missile is on the rail and the cannon plug is being connected. Oddly enough it usually takes longer to attach the launcher rail and set it up. Oh you DID know aircraft have to have launcher rails attached before it can carry weapons right? And those had to be carefully designed and buit to withstand the stress' of manuver and flight? That they mass some amount which counts against the 'hard point' total mass capcity? That the hard points themselves have to be designed and engineered to handle the loads and stress of externally mounting those loads and the aerodynamics and hydraluic stress since some of them can alos carry large propellant tanks? They have to be robust enough to handle and launch multiple missiles and are usally only used a couple of flights before they have to be demounted and returned to the shop for maintenance? It's not like they cost or weigh "much" but oddly enough without them the aircraft can not in fact carry anything. Odd that.

How long did it take to achieve this? About 50 years, millions of man-hours and several man-decades of simulation and resaearch computer time.

And the A2A refueling point is engineered into the fuselage and is 90% passive and masses less than the launch racks for the missiles, again that's pretty odd right?

Getting two vehicles in known and monitored sub-orbital flight with fine RCS control to rendezvous and dock from a few hundred feet away and transfering propellant in a few seconds? Pretty damn easy overall with an active sensor system and automated procedures. (As a point an robotic loader prototype could load a missile in under 15 seconds, including hooking up the cannon plug) I get that you have a preconcieved and preferential idea that standard 'staged' vehicles are more efficent but that's probably not the case if you look at it from the maintenance and operations perspective of having to design and built the two 'stages' as not only seperate but also joined vehicles and all the spots along the trajectory and varied stress' that are applied to both. And then add the time and effort to stack, integrate and checkout the combined vehicles. Like I said above while the SSTO advocates tend to be wrong in a lot of their assumptions not ALL of them are wrong :) A near-SSTO will have better margins than an actual SSTO just like a TSTO has better margins whether or not that translates to easier maintenance and faster turn around, well history tends towards saying yes

I also think your remark above about airbreathing engines giving a launch vehicle "unlimited (*really*?) range and endurance" is based on a fundamental misconception - the job of a reusable launch vehicle is to get to orbit (and back) as quickly and efficiently as possible, not to dawdle in the atmosphere. Like any other vehicle in history (cars/trucks, boats/ships, airplanes... the list goes on) any RLV, including any TSTO (or SSTO, if you can get one working) can be scaled to any payload, be it 10 klbs, 100 klbs, or (at least in case of vertical take off launch vehicles, hehe :D) 1000 klbs, so I guess maybe you emphasize smaller payloads because HTHL vehicles have some inherent growth limitations there.

Blackhorse baselined at around 1,000lbs but could go up to around 10,000lbs pretty straight forward. If you really want to payloads over well over 100,000lbs are possible as can be seen with vehicles like Skylon. Personally I don't see that there is a need for the larger payloads since the RLVs will be flying more often in any case but if you 'must' have a large payload in a single, rather expensive launch there are options out there. The idea doesn't 'dawdle' in the atmosphere but use the atmosphere to perform plane change an inclination adjustments to reach a specfic target, you know all that stuff a 'standard' rocket has to wait days till the target actually flies overhead and then STILL has to have margin built in to fully achieve after launch? You seem to have a misconception that the 'job' of an RLV is to deliver as much payload as possible per flight rather than the more logical job of delivering payload to orbit economically in packages that make sense. Again this may only make sense from a military persepctive but even 1,000lbs of payload delivered to orbit every other day makes a lot more sense than 100,000lbs delivered once every four months. Maybe you emphisise larger payloads because your preference is for larger payloads delivered less often but keep in mind that the original idea is a space station light logistics vehicle that can delivery cargo or a few passengers very often, economically and reliably and to do so even on short or little notice missions.

Edit: And now I'm more aware of the type and size of the vehicle we're talking about I'm better informed :)

Randy
 
Of course interstage structures need to be designed. The thing is though they have successfully been for decades, and the state of the art is still being advanced by systems like the Falcon Heavy. I'd rather have some mostly passive (save for the separation points) connective structure than having to put up with an additional in flight maneuver that has a nonnegligible risk of (potentially even catastrophic) failure, even though you handwavingly try to pass it off as "pretty damn easy". As an educational exercise, I'd recommend to go through an associated FMECA for your proposal. Please show *any* evidence or analysis to support your assertion that refueling equipment masses are less than for missile launch racks. If you *truly* design both vehicles to be 100% identical, the refueling equipment may be 90% passive (however you measure that) during transfer on one vehicle, but 90% active on the other - one of them has got to do the lion's share of the actual propellant transfer work. Since there is clearly no need to perform transatlantic flights with composite aircraft that have to be stacked and launched together, I'm sure you don't mind if I set your strawman on fire. At a launch mass of 717 klbs, Skylon has a projected maximum payload of 37 klbs, which is *notably* less than the "well over" 100 klbs as you claim above, and as a HTHL design, it seems highly doubtful, to put it mildly, that the concept could be scaled up to that performance. I never advocated for an RLV to deliver as much payload as possible per flight, but there are payloads that are nondivisible (people come to mind, for example, and once you fly even one of those pesky passengers, now you need an ECLSS with associated masses as well). I may have missed it, but I don't think it was ever explicitly stated that the original idea was exclusively for a space station light logistics vehicle that can deliver cargo or a few passengers very often, economically and reliably and to do so even on short or little notice missions, but even then other architectures are perfectly viable and in my view technically and operationally preferable.
 
Last edited:
Two (2) vehicles launch one with payload and one with propellant and fly to a sub-orbital, exo-atmospheric rendezvous, where they transfer propellant and one flies home while the other goes to orbit with the payload.

Yes, I am tempted to call this the basic scenario for suborbital refuelling or SOR. One might call it the SOR-LEO scenario.

My main suggestion has been that for most purposes a single launch of a multi-stage vehicle makes better economic and technical sense. The wire analogy is intended to disprove the claim made earlier that SOR is somehow more efficient than multi-stage.

SOR is the acronym I use too.

About that claim - there was a misunderstanding.
Optimal number of stages to reach LEO is not one SSTO or two SSTO but actually three. So 3- FLOC is like a three stage rocket with a different staging.
Basically the 3 stages are not piled up ontop of each others BUT identical, flown separately, linked briefly for refueling
Pros
- you can add more stages 4, 8 or FLOC craziness of up to 64. More stages more payload to orbit. That's the FLOC effect I mentionned, see the spreadsheets.
- the stages being rocketplanes, flown separately, are easier to recover than dumb rocket tin cans
- and can be flown out of air bases air strips a bit like airliners.
Cons
- manoeuver is riskier than classic staging
- lot of dead weight
- as said Martin " flying to orbit from a runway why the need " aircraft and rockets are different animals

It is a different staging multistage rocket with its pros and cons.
 
Yeah, despite the difficulties that thread with Steelpillow and Martin Bayer has been a good experience. I'm not saying that hypocritically.
They grasped the basic concept I have in my mind - but are not convinced. Ok, I'm not a fanatic, I'm not going to burn them at the stake for that o_O

other architectures are perfectly viable and in my view technically and operationally preferable.

I simply don't see a real need or demand to be able to achieve orbit from any airstrip in the world

Fair enough with this. Could pick more, including from Steelpillow. But you got the point with these two.

The bottom line is - it is a different way of staging, with its pros and cons. And with a specific goal - let's call that "an airliner to space" or "runaway to orbit".
Let's put the record straight
- just like Elon Musk BFR/BFS or even Falcon 9R, it won't send classic rockets to the graveyard
- it is rather a niche vehicle for a specific mission - BFR/BFS > colonize Mars, mine > airliner to orbit.

Here is how I would present it (added to my documents this morning)

The concept presented here is essentially a different way of rocket staging.

In a classic rocket the stages are of different size and weight and shape; of fixed number; piled up on top of each others; and expendable. The concept described here essentially launch identical stages separately. Then they hookup in suborbital flight for a brief oxidizer transfer between them. Doing staging this way allows for the following things. First, the number of stages is no longer fixed to 2 or 3 – more of them can be added, boosting payload to orbit. Secondly, these rocket stages have an "aircraft" wrapped around them – turbofan, cockpit, wings, landing gear – the goal being not only to recover them more easily, but also to achieve the dream of an "airliner to space". That is, flying into orbit from an ordinary airport, air base, or airstrip - pick your choice. Because the stages are identical they can be produced in large numbers (think of an A320 to orbit) to lower the unit cost but also to fly many different missions. The more flights, the lower the cost, too.
This different way of staging can be seen as controversial, to say the least, and the author is definitively not claiming it will send classic rocketry to the graveyard. It targets specific niche missions / markets with a specific objective - let's call it "an airliner to space" or "flying into orbit from a standard runaway / airstrip"
 
Nope. AFAIK my rocketplane is the size of a Buran / Shuttle orbiter. F-16 is waaaaaaay too small. There is question about that. I also draw inspiration from the never-dying Chuck Lauer / George French rocketplane - YES, it is STILL NOT DEAD, the website is still there !

Keep in mind that bigger in aerospace is always going to be more expensive to build. (Hence one reason Rocketplane is so small) I've always felt it's better to build small and affordable and work your way up.

Also Eclipse Astroliner - not completely dead, too !

http://www.kellyspace.com/launchvehicle2/

Not going anywhere either for similar reasons. If it takes a full power 747 to get it towed into the air you're looking at installing the same power on the vehicle to get itself into the air.

Basically I compared every iteration of Black Horse / Black Colt / Pathfinder over the last 25 years, plus KST / Eclipse Astroliner, to try and get the optimal size. Also Goff vague description of the FLOC rocketplanes
(by some interesting coincidence, Astroliner and FLOC vehicles are nearly twins - if only Alan Goff had heard of Kelly Space back in 2004...!! Imagine, astroliner going into orbit the FLOC way, how awesome that would be!)

Goff knew of Kelly Space I don't think he considered that since his initial concept was specifically a 'bimese' VTHL vehicle and the problem with FLOC is you DO have to dock and make a solid connection because BOTH vehicles then begin thrusting towards orbit. The suborbital propellant transfer is vastly simpler to do.

At the beginning I started from a single GE90 pushed to max thrust of 50 mt. Extrapolating from an Airbus A330, MTOW would be around 250 mt. The GE90 would be in the tailcone and fed by a Tristar-like duct.

More likely you'll have to fit in two for that size vehicle, keep in mind the wings are bigger, (and heavier) and the landing gear is heavier for two examples. So that's two 13ft diameter ducts and exhausts, (which BTW actually decrease the efficeincy of a high bypass engine which is why we tend to mount them externally in pods) plus about 40,000lbs of engine (around 20,000lbs each) and support systems to add on. Also note that while you could do some type of 'duct' burning (burning fuel in the bypass duct of the engine to increase thrust, NASA and the Air Force studied this extensivly as a method to increase the thrust on a carrier aircraft) thrust augmentation, most other system would be ineffective with a high bypass turbofans. Duct drag on intake and exhaust air is an issue with high-bypass engines.

Then I realized it was stupid. Such a huge machine needed an enormous oxidizer transfer, 150 000 pounds or more. So I ran the spreadsheet(s) with smaller vehicles, cutting the mass in half, and bingo ! 120 mt, the sweet spot. No need to go bigger, what matters is the Propellant Mass Fraction (PMF).
The system needs a PMF of 0.85 and from 120 mt MTOW, meant 18 mt empty.
Then I found Dan Delong paper - the 1988 spaceplane and its extremely detailed weight breakdown. And this one is core to the rocketplane concept discussed here.
It really boils down to
- scrap Delong hydrolox, RL10, SSME
- get keroxide, one 100 mt rocket engine, and a pair of turbofans in place of that

It's going to be a lot of oxidizer anyway no matter what and the changes for switching propellant isn't trivial. Denser propellant is going to need more structural margin for example while the tanks themselves and hence the overall vehicle size will go down while the mass goes up. Landing gear mass will be similar to a similar size aircraft's at full takeof weight bearing. The engine would have to be a pump fed, reusable variant of the BA810 (http://www.astronautix.com/b/ba-810.html) engine (809,300lbf, or around 350Mtf)

Overall mass and size would be similar to the Tu-22M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M) with beefier landing gear and such to handle the higher mass and a rocket engine in the tail, (think I remember an anime that had something like that) and of course a bigger diameter fuselage and optional with the variable sweep wing.

Sound about right?

Randy
 
Pretty right.
At nasaspaceflight.com our beloved JS19 (the Skylon zealot) heavily insisted that I should watch for undercarriage mass. So I checked numbers for Skylon, Shuttle orbiter, Delong spaceplane, Clapp Black Horse and Black Colt. What really puzzles me is how light is Skylon undercarriage, barely 4000 pounds for a 325 mt vehicle - when the Shuttle orbiter had a 7700 pound undercarriage for a mass of 109 mt ! There is something wrong there. Whatever, the rule of thumb for undercarriages is "3%, average, of the MTOW". For 120 mt, 1% would be 1.2 mt so 3% should be 3.6 mt. That's a big chunk of 18 mt, admittedly. On the other hand, undercarriage mass for Black Horse and Black Colt was very insignificant, some hundreds of pounds. In the end I have to recognize, I'm a little lost on that point.

An interesting reference for rocket tankage is the Titan II stage 1 and its all-time PMF record of 0.962: 10 000 pounds empty, 260 000 pounds with full tanks. Not even SpaceX can beat that 60 years later ! Then, 18 mt is 40 000 pounds, so the crux of the matter is whether the "aircraft side" can be wrapped around the (Titan) rocket stage and into 40 000 - 10 000 = 30 000 pounds. Surely enough, it is gonna be a tight fit.

An interesting alternative to the big bypass turbofan is the plain old JT-8D. There was a supersonic bizjet (Aerion) that prefered those because of their low bypass.

Playing with the spreadsheets is fascinating. For example, the lower the "refueling speed" the larger the refueling needed to reach orbit. So you have to lower one parameter while rising another.
Lower bound is 4 km/s, upper bound is, well, just below the max delta-v without refueling, for the Mk.1 6.2 km/s. Raising to 6.6 km/s for kerolox and 7 km/s for methalox and near-orbital speed of 8.6 km/s for hydrolox, thanks to the superior specific impulse.
The volume of oxidizer varies accordingly, between 30 000 and 160 000 pounds (beyond that payload no longer rise, no matter what) Personally I don't like going past 80 000 to 100 000 pounds.
The according variation in payload is surprising, it ranges from 1000 to 20 000 pounds.
The neat thing is that confidence grows from experience: fine-tune the trajectory, loiter time, oxidizer flow rate, and the like.

About propellant mass fractions: non-LH2 SSTOs need at least 0.95 to reach orbit. LH2 lower that to 0.88 but low density essentially negates that gain (drag losses, gravity losses...)
For 2-FLOC SOR (1 tanker, 1 orbiter) the PMF numbers seems to be: no lower than 0.83 for non-LH2 rocketplane, and no lower than 0.77 for a hydrolox vehicle.
FLOC vehicles were 0.71, Astroliner is 0.73, Pathfinder and Black Colt 0.75 and thus for them to reach orbit would take at least a 3-FLOC or 4-FLOC.

Somewhat ironically, X-33 PMF would have been 0.79 and thus a brief LOX transfer between two of them might have rescued the program... without a VentureStar. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/x33.html :p
Pushing the provocation further, a little LOX transfer between two Skylons would help raising that payload above 37 000 pounds. :p

Wherever this go into the future, it had been a funny trip since 2012, when the idea popped in my head during a train travel (to you, J.K Rowling. Trains are imagination boosters).
 
Last edited:
Of course interstage structures need to be designed. The thing is though they have successfully been for decades, and the state of the art is still being advanced by systems like the Falcon Heavy.

So is the state-of-the-art for A2A refueling and doing so in a free-fall ballistic arc is in fact easier in a more benign environment.

I'd rather have some mostly passive (save for the separation points) connective structure than having to put up with an additional in flight maneuver that has a non-negligible risk of (potentially even catastrophic) failure, even though you handwavingly try to pass it off as "pretty damn easy". As an educational exercise, I'd recommend to go through an associated FMECA for your proposal.

Let's see, failure of the pyrotechnic system, vehicle and mission loss. Failure of upper stage engine to ignite, vehicle and mission loss. Fairing separation failure, vehicle and mission loss. I can go on.

SOR mission profile:
Vehicles ascend into space with a trajectory to bring them together at 1km or less separation at engine cut off. They flip so that their upper surfaces are towards each other. (This is where he sensor and booms are located) They then use active sensors, RCS, maneuver engines and a cooperative rendezvous system to approach to 15m or less of each other. They then use 'cold gas' thrusters to maneuver to less than 10m and activate the automatic refueling booms which are equipped with a beacon and sensor tuned to the same frequency which are used along with built in boom articulation to connect and seal the transfer pipe. A test 'slug' of propellant is sent through the system at high pressure and bleed off into vacuum through the purge valve to ensure connection, and check for leaks and contamination in the lines as well as to clear the for propellant transfer. Propellant is then transferred till completion at which point the vehicles separate and maneuver away from each other.

Sub-orbital vehicle approach risks:
1km to 50m: RCS or maneuver engine failure on one or both vehicles. Mission abort, vehicle and payload saved. Approach and docking systems failure, execture missed approach and abort mission, vehicle and payload saved.
50m to 15m: RCS failure on one vehicle, abort mission. If the vehicle with the failed RCS can still maneuver then mission is aborted and both vehicles (and payload) are saved. If the failure is total then the failed vehicle is unlikely to land safely so mission is aborted and the crew may EVA to the nearby operational vehicle or use an escape system to return to Earth. Non-failure vehicle aborts back to Earth. Possible loss of payload depending on vehicle that fails, possible loss of one vehicle.

15m to Rendezvous: Probes booms deploy at 5m to 10m and use active connection, (they are articulated to a degree and can extend/retract) systems to find and connect with each other. Once the booms are connected the receiver and feed nozzles connect, verify and propellant flow begins. As note the booms can adjust for slight variations and active RCS on the vehicles keep them stabilized within a +/- 1m distance during the process.

Risks at this stage are:
-Booms unable to connect or active connection systems failure. Mission is aborted and vehicles and payload recover to Earth. This includes only one boom failing or failure of the nozzles to connect or propellant to transfer.
-Propellant or other contamination cause detonation in propellant booms, nozzles or connections. As the systems are cleaned and inspected on Earth this should be a low probability but it has a high chance of significant danger so it is addressed. Depending on where the incident occurs in the system and what secondary damage there is determines the risk factor of this type of incident. In the main anything short of the main propellant lines in either the target or transfer vehicle is survivable with minimum risk since there is little power in this 'test' slug and since the system between the main propellant lines of the vehicles and the transfer system at this point is isolated. Failure points apply to both vehicles.
--"Failure" at the entry point to the transfer vehicle boom arm would damage the boom and likely joint assembly, Kevlar lining the boom bay should protect the vehicle from any damage and the boom will be able to be disconnected and jettisoned if needed.
--Failure is along the transfer vehicle boom length, in which case there may be some shrapnel damage or external damage to the upper side of the vehicle. Since the explosion would be of low order any shrapnel generated should have low velocity/energy so extensive damage is unlikely. As this is 'leeward' side of the vehicle during reentry danger should be minimum a even if there is significant surface damage. The boom would have to be jettisoned and the mission aborted but vehicle, payload and crew would be recoverable.
--Failure is at the boom-to-boom interface. Similar to the above but the more robust structure would absorb more of the blast energy. This would damage both booms and require they be jettisoned and the mission aborted. Both vehicles would abort and recovery intact to Earth.
-Failure of the propellant transfer system during operation would mean aborting the mission unless sufficient propellant had been transferred before system loss. Both vehicles return to Earth intact.
-The last 'failure' mode is that the booms do not disconnect after propellant transfer is completed. In this case the "orbital" vehicle with payload detaches its boom and moves away to fire its engines and proceed to orbit. Once clear the transfer vehicle detaches its boom and proceeds to return to Earth. If the automatic detach system fails then the booms joints are locked and RCS is used to provide force enough to 'shear' the base connector joint at designed points with vectors having the vehicles, (and any debris generated) moving away from both vehicles. If that does not work then the last ditch explosive decoupling system will be used to detach the booms. This risks some damage to the upper surface of the vehicles but as these are directed and controlled explosions the risk is low.

Finally there is some risk during separation of collision between the vehicles. This could happen because of momentary confusion of the pilots, automatic system failure or malfunctions of the guidance and control system of the vehicle. Collision damage will be low due to the distance and relative energy of the vehicles but it is possible that significant or catastrophic damage to one or both vehicles could occur. If such damage DID occur at any point while this would mean loss of the vehicle(s) and payload I would recommend the crew have the means to escape using a system similar to the B-58/B-70 "escape capsule" designs using a parashield (https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/publications/2010/SpaceOps2010ParaShieldx.pdf) reentry system so at least the crew is saved.

Please show *any* evidence or analysis to support your assertion that refueling equipment masses are less than for missile launch racks.

The standard LAU-128 (http://marvineng.com/product/lau-128/) launch adapter rail weighs 87lbs and is a two man lift while the refueling receptacle (https://www.vacco.com/images/uploads/pdfs/2710942_aerial_refuel_receptacle.pdf) weighs a bit over 28lbs and needs only one person to lift out and move. I have done both operations :)
(This is the point where you should probably go back and read what I wrote previously AND what you wrote in response before you reply. As you were being a bit more than a little condescending in trying to compare the relatively straight forward attachment of a missile to a guide rail/launcher to the integration and stacking of a Two-Stage-To-Orbit vehicle as a "strawman" for how 'easy' that is compared to how 'difficult' something like A2A refueling is I'm hoping you don't mind ME burning yours as much as you 'burned' mine :) )

If you *truly* design both vehicles to be 100% identical, the refueling equipment may be 90% passive (however you measure that) during transfer on one vehicle, but 90% active on the other - one of them has got to do the lion's share of the actual propellant transfer work.

It's not that difficult really considering how A2A works, and how the workload is shared between Tanker and receiver aircraft. 90% "passive" on the receiver aircraft part is defined as they move into position and 90% of the work of hookup is by the Tanker boom operator, followed by 95% 'active' in pumping and flow regulation also by the Tanker boom operator with the 5% on the receiver pilots part being weight and balance management and keeping the his aircraft steady. The SOR concept would regulate many of the 'active' station keeping operations to systems on both vehicles and within the booms as much as possible with as few thruster events as possible. Meanwhile both vehicles would use pumps to expedite the propellant flow rate and they would both HAVE all the necessary systems already installed since either can function as a tanker as needed.

Since there is clearly no need to perform transatlantic flights with composite aircraft that have to be stacked and launched together, I'm sure you don't mind if I set your strawman on fire.

Well, yours is burning nicely so it could use the company I suppose... But may I make a pertinent point? Going back to your original assertion that "To tie in with your military background, how complicated and time consuming is it these days to mate a missile to a fighter (oooh, two separate yet mated air vehicles - mind blown!)?" You seem to be missing the fact that MY example is actually applicable even if the system is not used in current trans-Atlantic travel the principle and operation are more similar to actual operations and systems than your "strawman" example. While you can 'burn' the idea of it being applicable to Trans-Atlantic flight you have to face the very real and quite sold 'core' that integrating and stacking a composite aircraft IS directly applicable in comparison to integrating and stacking a Two or more Staged Orbital vehicle. Vastly more so than locking a rail to a hard point and then sliding an all up missile onto that rail.

At a launch mass of 717 klbs, Skylon has a projected maximum payload of 37 klbs, which is *notably* less than the "well over" 100 klbs as you claim above, and as a HTHL design, it seems highly doubtful, to put it mildly, that the concept could be scaled up to that performance.

And that is what I get for doing a 'quick-reference' (http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylon.html) AND not only misplacing a comma but reading the wrong number/mass category (What's the biggie between 120,000 and 12,000 anyway ) You're mostly correct sir and I stand/sit corrected. However I'll point out that there are references to the sub-orbital capability of Skylon being about twice what it's 'given' orbital capacity was and I also recall that the 'orbital' mass included an orbital transfer vehicle for GEO payloads? Anyway you're right on that point :)

I never advocated for an RLV to deliver as much payload as possible per flight, but there are payloads that are non-divisible (people come to mind, for example, and once you fly even one of those pesky passengers, now you need an ECLSS with associated masses as well). I may have missed it, but I don't think it was ever explicitly stated that the original idea was exclusively for a space station light logistics vehicle that can deliver cargo or a few passengers very often, economically and reliably and to do so even on short or little notice missions, but even then other architectures are perfectly viable and in my view technically and operationally preferable.

While some payloads are not recommended to be divided, (like people ) it's really not as much of a worry as you'd think till you get DOWN below 500lbs to orbit. (And that's not fixed as NASA did an ISS support study where they proposed using a Scout {https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Scout.html} that's 385lbs mind you, to launch one person to the ISS in a fully recoverable capsule design. And keep in mind that the "NASA standard astronaut" of 200lbs with space suit was most of that mass! NASA, you gotta love em ) Once you're up to around 1,000lbs of payload you can start thinking of people hauling as well. (Four 'standard astronauts' with minimum comfort but it was one basic idea for Blackhorse)

I don't think I said the concept was exclusively for space station logistics support but it was a clear suggestion from the beginning since it had a low initial payload mass. The "main" use, beings it was a suggestion initially for the military, was small-recon-sats and 'pop-up' intelligence gathering satellites as well as a possible global sub-orbital/orbital strike weapons platform. Once Zubrin got involved he was more vocal about the commercial small-sat market and less about tourism or space station support though I, like Archibald think he was generally aiming towards something that could be used to prove/support his hypersonic skyhook concept.

That there are other systems that could do the job is a given, whether they are technically and/or operationally preferable is part of what we're discussing

Randy
(Edited to fix spelling errors, grammer errors, and general artifacts in the post generated by doing my spellchecking in an email :) )
 
Last edited:
Jon Goff suggested to use the rocket engine turbopump as the "force motrice" for propellant transfer. Since those things are specially build to sip propellants from a low-pressure tank to a high pressure combustion chamber. Throttle down, iddle, 10%, then pump from one tank to another at similar pressure, using a "derivation" away from the combustion chamber.

SOR mission profile:
Vehicles ascend into space with a trajectory to bring them together at 1km or less seperation at engine cut off. They flip so that their upper surfaces are towards each other. (This is where he sensor and booms are located) They they use active sensors, RCS, manuver engines and a cooperative rendzvous system to approach to 15m or less of each other. They then use 'cold gas' thrusters to manuver to less than 10m and activate the automatic refueling booms which are equipped with a beacon and sensor tuned to the same frequency which are used along with built in boom articulation to connect and seal the transfer pipe. A test 'slug' of propellant is sent through the system at high pressure and bleed off into vacuum through the purge valve to ensure connection, and check for leaks and contamintion in the lines as well as to clear the for propellant transfer. Propellant is then transfered till completion at which point the vehicles seperate and manuever away from each other.

Sub-orbital vehicle approach risks:
1km to 50m: RCS or manuver engine failure on one or both vehicles. Mission abort, vehicle and payload saved. Approach and docking systems failure, execture missed approach and abort mission, vehicle and payload saved.
50m to 15m: RCS failure on one vehicle, abort mission. If the vehicle with the failed RCS can still manuver then mission is aborted and both vehicles (and payload) are saved. If the failure is total then the failed vehicle is unlikely to land safetly so mission is aborted and the crew may EVA to the nearby operational vehicle or use an escape system to return to Earth. Non-failure vehicle aborts back to Earth. Possible loss of payload depending on vehicle that fails, possible loss of one vehicle.

15m to Rendzvous: Probes booms deploy at 5m to 10m and use active connection, (they are articulated to a degree and can extend/retract) systems to find and connect with each other. Once the booms are connected the receiver and feed nozzles connect, varify and propellant flow begins. As note the booms can adjust for slight variations and active RCS on the vehicles keep them stabilized within a +/- 1m distance during the process.

Risks at this stage are:
-Booms unable to connect or active connection systems failure. Mission is aborted and vehicles and payload recover to Earth. This includes only one boom failing or failure of the nozzles to connect or propellant to transfer.
-Propellant or other contamination cause detonation in propellant booms, nozzels or connections. As the systems are cleaned and inspected on Earth this should be a low probability but it has a high chance of significant danger so it is addressed. Depending on where the incident occurs in the system and what secondary damage there is determines the risk factor of this type of incident. In the main anything short of the main propellant lines in either the target or transfer vehicle is survivable with minimum risk since there is little power in this 'test' slug and since the system between the main propellant lines of the vehicles and the transfer system at this point is isolated. Failure points apply to both vehicles.
--"Failure" at the entry point to the transfer vehicle boom arm would damage the boom and likely joint assembly, kevlar lining the boom bay should protect the vehicle from any damage and the boom will be able to be disconnected and jettisioned if needed.
--Failure is along the transfer vehicle boom length, in which case there may be some shrapnel damage or external damage to the upper side of the vehicle. Since the explosion would be of low order any shrapnel generated should have low velocity/energy so extensive damage is unlikely. As this is 'leeward' side of the vehicle during reentry danger should be minimum a even if there is significant surface damage. The boom would have to be jettsioned and the mission aborted but vehicle, payload and crew would be recoverable.
--Failure is at the boom-to-boom interface. Similar to the above but the more robust structure would absorb more of the blast energy. This would damage both booms and require they be jettisioned and the mission aborted. Both vehicles would abort and recovery intact to Earth.
-Failure of the propellant transfer system during operation would mean aborting the mission unless sufficent propellant had been transfered before system loss. Both vehicles return to Earth intact.
-The last 'failure' mode is that the booms do not disconnect after propellant transfer is completed. In this case the "orbital" vehicle with payload detaches its boom and moves away to fire its engines and proceed to orbit. Once clear the transfer vehicle detaches its boom and proceeds to return to Earth. If the automatic detach system fails then the booms joints are locked and RCS is used to provide force enough to 'shear' the base connector joint at designed points with vectors having the vehicles, (and any debris generated) moving away from both vehicles. If that does not work then the last ditch explosive decoupling system will be used to detach the booms. This risks some damage to the upper surface of the vehicles but as these are directed and controlled explosions the risk is low.

Finally there is some risk during seperation of collision between the vehicles. This could happen because of momentary confusion of the pilots, automatic system failure or malfunctions of the guidance and control system of the vehicle. Collision damage will be low due to the distance and relatvie energy of the vehicles but it is possible that signifcant or catastrophic damage to one or both vehicles could occur. If such damage DID occur at any point while this would mean loss of the vehicle(s) and payload I would recommend the crew have the means to escape using a system similar to the B-58/B-70 "escape capsule" designs using a parashield (https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/publications/2010/SpaceOps2010ParaShieldx.pdf) reentry system so at least the crew is saved.

That's... excellent, really. Do you allow me to borrow that nugget for my AIAA / Space Review wanabee publications ?

As for the escape system, I thought about this, and the answer was straightforward - a pair of NPP Zvezda K-36, the russian wonder ejector seat - followed by intact aborts.
 
Last edited:
Randy,

no matter how often you try to make the claim, your approach is *not* the same as A2A refueling, and doing so in a free-fall ballistic arc (rather than in a stable orbit, where you are under no time pressure to execute the maneuver) has never done before, so I reserve judgment on how easy or hard it is until somebody actually goes ahead and successully (or not) does it.

Stage separation doesn't have to be pyrotechnic, which for two fully reusable stages would not be desirable anyway - do an online search for non-pyrotechnic separation. As repeatedly pointed out before, the TSTO would launch with all engines burning in parallel from the ground, so upper stage engine ignition and confirmation of nominal burn happens before the vehicle is released. Ditto, a fully reusable TSTO orbiter has no fairing to separate. I can go on, but please stop distorting the TSTO RLV concept by trying to turn it into a semi expendable caricature.

In your refueling equipment mass comparison, you only refer to the passive receiving end of the system, whereas you seem to suggest a fully two way capable connection with associated notable mass increase, since you postulate 100% identical vehicles, remember? The pumps you concede yourself are necessary *will* drive the mass and complexity up compared to a purely passive receiver.

I think Musk and Bezos will pretty soon change the conventional thinking on how hard and time consuming it really is to integrate fully reusable launch vehicle stages, We're not quite there yet in practice, but we're for sure farther along on that than with suborbital refueling.

Martin
 
I wanted to finish addressing this and forgot :)
Randy,

I simply don't see a real need or demand to be able to achieve orbit from any airstrip in the world.

Well I doubt it would "any" airstrip but do keep in mind that the ability to use more than one 'launch-pad' increases your access opportunities, makes reaching a ground track easier and allows fly-back to more abort sites.

As an analogy, wouldn't it be nice to board a jet airliner and fly straight to the beach of a dreamy Pacific island instead of having to land at some dreary airport and then perhaps take a taxi, ferry, and/or bus to your actual destination first? Both the Martin Seamaster as well as the Beriev Altair have clearly demonstrated that we have the technology, but yet both Airbus and Boeing (as well as everybody else in the airliner business) strangely and stubbornly confine themselves to designing aircraft that can only take off from and land on long strips of concrete rather than making use of the over 70% of the Earth's surface covered with water (and yes, there have been designs for both VTVL and HTHL water-going RLVs). But, as you concede above, perhaps there's some bias towards trying to force a system to use the current air traffic infrastructure for some reason on your side as well .

For the former keep in mind that WAS how long distance air travel was in fact done for quite a while :) And frankly you can learn to pilot a seaplane and buy one for a decent price so is the problem the system or one of motivation? ;)
But you can't really get very far from using a 'dreary' "port" of some type due to early maintenance and logistics issues. Space, so far, is actually more not less restrained with very few 'ports' and most of the usable infrastructure tied to those places. The idea IS actually tied to the air transport system and given who came up with it and to whom it was pitched that actually makes sense. And while "I" admit the idea has some inherent bias attached, keep in mind "I" loath the idea of tying into any one system of terrestrial transport and specifically trying to make "spacecraft" into "aircraft". (And let’s NOT get me started on the whole water-based RLV topic I'm FAR from loathing the idea and have enough of my own to float a battleship... or sink one :) )

Having said that...

There are real benefits as well as downsides to the concept and I can argue the benefits with a pretty clear conscience since they in fact make sense. I have problems as the concept gets bigger because as I note bigger is always more expensive and as the concept if essentially a really high performance aircraft, which themselves are expensive to operate which likely means the basic costs will be higher. (That it IS a very high performance aircraft that can get to orbit with some help rather than an actual spacecraft that has some airplane like qualities means it doesn't tweak my bias’s as much as other concepts do so there is that :) ) But those costs can be managed and there is a solid history of such vehicles in operation that points towards a high possibility that it can be robust enough and easy enough to turn around between flights that the flight rate itself can be higher than other systems. So the "airplane-like “operations and turn-around folks DO have some points though most are overblown and the analogies over-used.

Right here-and-now I'm more interested in defining the concept, getting those estimated numbers you wanted for comparison and exploring the ConOps for viability. As you may have noted already I've got some issues I want ot air over the concept and operations but I'm ok at this point pretty much assuming it "could" work and going from there with further definition and defense/justification being held off for a bit so I truly understand what I'm defending.

Randy
 
Jon Goff suggested to use the rocket engine turbopump as the "force motrice" for propellant transfer. Since those things are specially build to sip propellants from a low-pressure tank to a high pressure combustion chamber. Throttle down, iddle, 10%, then pump from one tank to another at similar pressure, using a "derivation" away from the combustion chamber.

I recall that and I think that may be where the high transfer number was from. It makes sense anyway.

That's... excellent, really. Do you allow me to borrow that nugget for my AIAA / Space Review wanabee publications ?

It's a start but it needs a LOT of work and I'm hoping for feedback on it but you can use pretty much anything I post here if you want. That's why I'm doing it here instead of email :)

As for the escape system, I thought about this, and the answer was straightforward - a pair of NPP Zvezda K-36, the russian wonder ejector seat - followed by intact aborts.

Not an ejection seat though, a whole capsule system because I'm going with the premise that at some point you will need to escape from orbit if not near orbit. It should be zero/zero like any modern ejection seat but it should be fully enclosable and both automatic and controlable with a means to survive reentry and preferably landing. The B-58 seat has issues with getting the crew member "all-in" before it went all out. (See: http://www.ejectionsite.com/eb58caps.htm) The XB-70 on the other hand could enclose the crewmember and they could still control the aircraft if need be, (see http://www.ejectionsite.com/xb70caps.htm) which is closer to what I'd want. There is a weight penalty but with modern materials and technology it's actually a lot lighter than one might think. (One of my 'minimization' concepts for air launch is a drone carrier aircraft that the 'pilot' in the capsule, {Dreamchaser actually} flies by a linked optical system from the capsule. After launch the drone flies the engines/wings/landing gear home to be mated with another LV. Rinse repeat several times a day :) )

The parashield is a key idea but you could use an inflatable decellerator/heat-shield. If it's not clear I'd see this used with passegers too though more likely you'd have to provide a larger "pod" in the payload bay due to the way it works.

Randy
 
I, like Archibald think he was generally aiming towards something that could be used to prove/support his hypersonic skyhook concept.

what is really interesting is that Zubrin Analog (1993) and JBIS (1995) Skyhook articles; Clapp first foray into Black Horse (1993-96); Kelly Space Astroliner (1993-96, too) all apeared at the same period of time.
This is truly fascinating because they are, somewhat, interchangeable between them.
The later HASTOL (1999-2002, drawing inspiration from Zubrin's early wokrk mention a (nebulous) Boeing DF-9 scramjet vehicle while in fact, Astroliner and Black Colt were fast enough, they could have caught the tether tip at 4 km/s.

Rocketplane + expendable upper stage
Rocketplane + tether
Rocketplane + suborbital refueling

They could work hand in hand.

There is also (incidentally) Preston H. Carter, Hypersoar, and ricochet trajectories. Once again - Hypersoar apeared in 1998.

So

Rocketplane + expendable upper stage
Rocketplane + tether
Rocketplane + suborbital refueling
Rocketplane + ricochet trajectories > P2P passengers transportation, military reconnaissance, ABM, X-15-like research platform...

This is another facet of that versatility I mentioned up thread. The bottom line is that, *even without suborbital refueling*, there are still many interesting missions / flight profiles a rocketplane could perform.

In fact there are a whole bunch of possible developments of that rocketplane in many, many different directions. Still exploring plenty of them.
 
Last edited:
Randy,

no matter how often you try to make the claim, your approach is *not* the same as A2A refueling, and doing so in a free-fall ballistic arc (rather than in a stable orbit, where you are under no time pressure to execute the maneuver) has never done before, so I reserve judgment on how easy or hard it is until somebody actually goes ahead and successfully (or not) does it.

It actually IS similar, (I didn't say the same but the equipment and methods are applicable if needing some modification) and doing so in a ballistic arc in a vacuum does in fact reduce the variables greatly. The time limit is the problem and this is a way to deal with it. As to no one having done it and how hard/easy it is, about that...

Stage separation doesn't have to be pyrotechnic, which for two fully reusable stages would not be desirable anyway - do an online search for non-pyrotechnic separation.

I'm well aware of non-pyro separation systems and I specifically chose the one that is rated a higher reliability to point out that no matter the system if it doesn't work you lose the vehicle, and payload.

As repeatedly pointed out before, the TSTO would launch with all engines burning in parallel from the ground, so upper stage engine ignition and confirmation of nominal burn happens before the vehicle is released. Ditto, a fully reusable TSTO orbiter has no fairing to separate. I can go on, but please stop distorting the TSTO RLV concept by trying to turn it into a semi expendable caricature.

Actually I'm not distorting anything but using current examples since the TSTO you describe has not flown or been proven as of yet. Catch that? The Shuttle and Buran were technically 1.5 STO's and were not full RLVs. Also even if I grant you the all engines starting on the launch pad in order to make this 'accurate' as a comparison shouldn't the orbiter then start at separation with a full propellant load? Can you point out to me the working examples of LV's with propellant cross-feed that will allow that? If not then I ask how you can insist on "reserve judgment" on one concept yet fully accept that another just as unproven concept is inevitable?

Look I understand you are looking at this from a particular point of view which does not include this concept as being viable, I get that. And I understand I'm asking you to move outside your comfort zone on this subject but let me point out that people JUST as knowledgeable and smart as you, (and no that does NOT include me :) ) believe this concept will work and have supported versions of it. Myself, I fully believe that a fully reusable TSTO is both possible and inevitable and am rather miffed that Musk is ignoring the possibilities of the Falcon 9 to move on to Starship/SH. HIs money, his company, his choice. I can do no more than voice my opinion. But I don't think that ends development and that it is the end-all-be-all of space launch and therefore would like to explore other ideas.

Let’s grant each other some slack here since trying to "simply" disprove the concept by pointing out "no one has done it so it can't be done" (which IS the argument here) gets us nowhere and opens the conversation to side-tracks I'd rather not get into.

In your refueling equipment mass comparison, you only refer to the passive receiving end of the system, whereas you seem to suggest a fully two way capable connection with associated notable mass increase, since you postulate 100% identical vehicles, remember? The pumps you concede yourself are necessary *will* drive the mass and complexity up compared to a purely passive receiver.

They are already on-board but even if they were not it's not THAT much of a stretch to include them. Yes I'm well aware they would add mass and complexity to the design, so does ANY cross-fed system and that's been accepted as a desirable thing for almost as long as reusability itself. A passive system has always been to low volume to work and that was from the initial inception since Blackhorse was noted to probably need a pump onboard to help the flow rate as it got larger. You also needed a boom system because drogue and probe is too limited so it made sense to make the boom as 'active' as a standard unit and this translated into the SOR concept as having an active boom on both vehicles. Modern cooperative "docking" (and that's the generic term for the process btw) is a well advanced and far spread industry for robotic warehousing and shipping. It is used in autonomous A2A refueling and takeoff and landing systems for drones. This is NOT some fantasy system that I'm making up statistics for.

I think Musk and Bezos will pretty soon change the conventional thinking on how hard and time consuming it really is to integrate fully reusable launch vehicle stages, We're not quite there yet in practice, but we're for sure farther along on that than with suborbital refueling.

I agree with the first part but will note that particular segment HAS been the major sticking point of the pre-launch operation so I'm not ready to assume they will suddenly 'solve' it in the near future. And oddly enough you "assume" that one is in fact so different than the other that there is no crossover or cross pollination. I'll point out that CURRENT stage 'stacking' uses commercial 'docking' systems as a basis and the only reason it's NOT currently done quicker is neither stage is designed for such a fast attachment sequence. I think your assumption that one is "further along" than the other is based on an incorrect chain of assumptions.

Randy
 
I, like Archibald think he was generally aiming towards something that could be used to prove/support his hypersonic skyhook concept.

what is really interesting is that Zubrin Analog (1993) and JBIS (1995) Skyhook articles; Clapp first foray into Black Horse (1993-96); Kelly Space Astroliner (1993-96, too) all apeared at the same period of time.

It was a period of another surge of interest in commercial space delivery coninciding with a military/DoD interest in "Reponsive" launch and small-recon-sats. Unfortunatly neither lasted very long, though the studies and effort started at least got enough to continue to a Phase 1 state. Thank the gods for die-hards right? :)

This is truly fascinating because they are, somewhat, interchangeable between them.

The funny thing is at the time that was not only not clear it was often seen as competative rather than cooperative :) I used to hear "There can only be one!" (said in a "Highlander" tone mind you) a lot and I think the general advocacy spent more time tearing down the ideas they didn't support than discussing the ones they did. Much like how the Mars Underground became the Mars Mafia for a while there. Is it something in our food or water I wonder? Alternate energy, Space Advocates, there are dozens of groups that SHOULD work together that spend way to much time undermining parts of themselves rather than working together...

The later HASTOL (1999-2002, drawing inspiration from Zubrin's early wokrk mention a (nebulous) Boeing DF-9 scramjet vehicle while in fact, Astroliner and Black Colt were fast enough, they could have caught the tether tip at 4 km/s.

Boeing paid for part of and partnered with Tethers Unlimited so there's kind of a reason for that :) I find it rather sad that the tether catch test videos seem to be gone now as IIRC there were at least a couple of tests of different catcher designs? I've heard a lot that it can't be done since there's no "proof" anyone has done it and miss being able to link those videos.

Rocketplane + expendable upper stage
Rocketplane + tether
Rocketplane + suborbital refueling
They could work hand in hand.

Really depends and is a bit 'down-the-road' for me.

There is also (incidentally) Preston H. Carter, Hypersoar, and ricochet trajectories. Once again - Hypersoar apeared in 1998.

While I like the Hypersoar concept it had some issues Carter wouldn't address since he was to busy pitching it. He's not my favorite researcher since his insistance on trying to make RASCAL an operational rather than a research program, (again refused to address some issues with the basic design) was what got it cancled before any flight tests. (Ok, insisting on a 'new build' airframe and expendable stage before it was even flight tested was another though I agree with the argument it HAS been tested since it was a standard 1950s jet augmentation scheme. Odd note, because why not, while digging through other "thrust" and jet augmentation work from that period I found an interesting NACA study which showed that intake material injection could be used instead of material shock-cones or intake systems! It didn't seem to work as well as the physical systems but the conclusion was it could augment or replace mechanically variable systems for short term use)

Randy
 
Randy,

I thought it was crystal clear that we were comparing one unbuilt fully reusable RLV concept with another. I never claimed that a fully reusable TSTO would emulate the Buran or Shuttle stack, so once again please stop twisting my statements. I simply believe the TSTO has a higher probability of success than your concept, even if it might be feasible in principle. Archibald had no problem accepting the FSSC-16 paper that was thrown in the mix - I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with that to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Of course the TSTO would launch with full propellant tanks, and they would be *kept* full right until separation, because the booster tanks would feed both the booster and orbiter engines via continuous crossfeed. Hence the Orbiter will separate with a full propellant load on board. Were you *really* not aware of that until now, or were you just pretending not to know? The STS performed propellant crossfeed from the ET to the orbiter, i.e. across two flight vehicle interfaces, without any problems - close enough for me, and at least closer than your idea of inflight mating. Let me note that while you appear to frown upon pointing out "no one has done it so it can't be done" you were seemingly engaging in the same very attitudes just a few paragraphs above with respect to randomly limiting TSTO designs to the Shuttle and Buran (neither of which had an expendable payload fairing either BTW), while subsequently also claiming you believe in fully reusable TSTO concepts; perhaps you may understand my confusion on where you stand. I'm simply assuming hardware staging is farther along than suborbital refueling because one has a decades long track record in relevant flight environments and the other one hasn't. To me the elimination of the initially planned crossfeed concept on the Falcon Heavy is a major missed opportunity.

Martin
 
Last edited:
Randy,

I thought it was crystal clear that we were comparing one unbuilt fully reusable RLV concept with another.

Actually we're not since we have yet to discus the actual concepts and continue to go around-and-around on why it can't work, why it hasn't been done and why it won't work if it hasn't been done. As I noted people who have knowledge of the matter don't consider sub-obital rendezvous and propellent transfer as impossible as you seem to. Fine but then shouldn't we continue on to discuss the actual concept and not remain stuck on a single point?

I never claimed that a fully reusable TSTO would emulate the Bruan or Shuttle stack.

You do exactly that a little bit below this. "It worked for X so I assume it will work for Y" never mind there are/were major differences. And yet you won't allow the possiblity that same applies to this concept.

Archibald had no problem accepting the FSSC-16 paper that was thrown in the mix - I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with that to avoid looking like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

This one, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30547.0;attach=536078, "Description of the FESTIP VTHL-TSTO System Concept Studies") and accept the concepts are plausible. (I love the turbojet instillation I might add, Neat way to do it) Oddly enough you specifically state in the paper, (bottom of page 14) "The identical shape of booster and orbiter reduces the number of aerodynamic configurations, which have to be qualified and controlled, from the typical value of three for a TSTO (booster, orbiter and compound) to two, with the one of the compound being aerodynamically symmetrical." which was exactly a point I made you do not have to do with seperate launches. And I made THAT statement based on that sentence...

[quoite]Of course the TSTO would start with full propellant tanks, and they would be *kept* full right until separation, because the booster would feed both the booster and orbiter engines via continuous crossfeed. Hence the Orbiter will separate with a full propellant load on board. You *really* weren't aware of that until now??? The STS performed propellant crossfeed from the ET to the orbiter without any problems - close enough for me, and at least closer than your idea.[/quote]

Actually the STS didn't have 'cross-feed' and that was a specific point of the design and why it is so difficult to achieve. (And why Falcon Heavy doesn't have it despite it being a major design feature initially) It isn't 'close enough' as there are major complexity and technical issues with propellant cross feed from TWO active powered vehicles. A2A is actually 'closer' since both vehicles are under constant power with varying surges, accelerations and vector changes on the micro and macro level which is where most of the issues with cross-feed are found. You note (page 7) that NASA found "no major potential problems for the viability of this solution, even in the context of three propellant components" which btw has been a constant finding in studes on the concept of cross-feeding but the actual engineering and exicution DO find issues and problems. Funny that.

Let me note that while you appear to frown upon pointing out "no one has done it so it can't be done" while seemingly engaging in the same very attitudes just a few paragraphs above with respect limiting TSTO designs to the Shuttle and Buran (neither of which had an expendable payload fairing BTW). I'm simply assuming hardware staging is farther along than suborbital refueling because one has a decades long track record in relevant flight environments and the other one hasn't.

No you are assuming that something that has not been 'done' is further along and more possible than something that hasn't been done. I'm sure you don't see the problem. I will also point out that if you found me 'limiting' a resuable TSTO design to "Shuttle/Buran" configurations you need to re-read what I wrote, (And yes I realize that might be a bit tedious, sorry about that) I threw in Falcon-9 as a "fully reusable" design and several other concepts as well because they are currently the closest things we have. (And yes in fact a 'fully reusable" TSTO design MAY have a fairing since there does not appear to be any rush to return to the limitations of a 'payload' bay vehicle. It's something people like Musk and Bezos are taking into consideration)

Note that I don't argue that hardware staging has a deeper history than suborbital refueling, it would be silly to argue anything else because it hasn't been done or demonstarted but so have concepts you take for granted, like propellant cross-feed, so I would ask for a similar consideration on the part of suborbital refueling as a courtisy at the very least.

Randy
 
Archibald, can I get some rough numbers for your sizing and mass since I can't open the database it seems? (My home computer is having issues and the one at work won't download or open it)

Randy
 
Ranulf,

first off, for some reason unbeknownst to me (although I think I might be able to take a fairly educated guess as to your ulterior motives as well) you continue to completely distort my statements - I *never* characterized "sub-orbital rendezvous and propellent [sic] transfer as impossible". As a matter of fact, in a post *right above here* in this thread I *explicitly* stated that it may well be feasible, but I simply think there are notably superior RLV concepts in terms of risk, cost, and performance out there across *all* mission and payload mass classes.

Taking individual working features from the Shuttle and applying them to a fully reusable concept is clearly very different from emulating the whole concept. Or would you try to claim about any fully reusable concept with cryogenic rocket propulsion that "Hah! It's a carbon copy of the Shuttle!", because the SSMEs used cryogenic propellants? By that measure, your concept is a copy of the Shuttle too, because it lands using wings and wheels, just like the orbiter, so there!

I *never* contradicted your point on more aerodynamic configurations :), because it's true, but looking at typical drag losses, I really don't think it's a big deal for a VTHL system :). You seem to have some experience though with loading external weapon systems onto high performance combat aircraft, so what's the highest number of different external loadouts (and, ahem, associated *different aerodynamic configurations*) of a supersonic military airplane you ever encountered? And how long did it take to certify all of those? I think I smell yet another afterburning strawman...

I'd be curious though where you consider "true" crossfeed has been tried in practice and failed or found lacking - any literature pointers at all? I sure can see some potential issues - I just see them *way* more on your side with on the fly coupling than on mine :).

As of now, Falcon Heavy is quite clearly only *partly* reusable, since the upper stage is still lost - "closest" in your meddled diction with respect to reusability *really* doesn't cut it when it comes to *truly* full reusability, because there is a *fundamental* difference between actual full reusability and still throwing some/any stuff away, so what am I to make of the fundamental logical inaccuracy of your line of reasoning? When I say "fully reusable" I really *mean* fully reusable, including retractable, non disposable stage connector struts and propellant connectors (just like on the F-18 or the Shuttle Orbiter, or, for that matter, the statically unstabilized propellant connectors on your concept, you know :)). I assume your inflight pipelaying propellant transfer connection is meant to be also fully reusable, no?

Note also that the Falcon payload fairings *are* reusable, so I absolutely include *any* payload accommodation in full reusability, because my very ultimate future vision for LEO space transportation is as close as possible to that of present day air travel in terms of *not* discarding expendable bits and pieces along the way. But a payload bay is the way to go if you want to bring stuff down as well as up - I assume that after all you want astronauts to return on your design as well as just going up, no? Or do you perhaps prefer to just call that a "payload compartment" or some other such cutesy euphemism just to be able to score a rhetorical point? We still seem to be a loooooong way from using and agreeing on a truly consistent set of design assumptions, mission requirements, ground rules, terminology definitions, and technology levels across both concepts for a true objective comparison. I for one (still) look forward to reaching that point - I still hope you feel that way too.

Martin
 
Last edited:
Archibald, can I get some rough numbers for your sizing and mass since I can't open the database it seems? (My home computer is having issues and the one at work won't download or open it)

Randy

18 mt with the tanks empty.
102 mt of keroxide, O/F ratio of 7
120 mt with full tanks.
Payload varies considerably.
 
Archibald had no problem accepting the FSSC-16 paper that was thrown in the mix

Because fundamentally mine concept has NOT to outclass all the others launch systems. I don't care about them, about killing them outright or not. I would say, rather "let the invisible hand of the market decides which one will survive, or not."
It is not as if I was saying / believing "I found the key to reach orbit from a stock runway, and then it will steamroll any existing and future booster". Nope, there are limits to the system.
My point of view is rather "runaway to orbit is attractive enough, plus there are enough niches in the launch market, should work."

Just for the fun of it, let's try a rough comparison with the varied present and future space vehicles in development
I would say
- New Shepard / SS2: totally outclassed as far as passenger numbers and delta-v goes (I mean for suborbital tourism)
- Falcon 9R / New Glenn: maybe, depends, 3-FLOC hydrolox can compete with them, they are completely different beasts. 3-FLOC is fully reusable but piloted and more risky, plus fractionable payloads...
- small ELVs, Rocketlab Electron (there are 100 of them in development): dead and buried. An automated Mk.1 with keroxide and an expendable upper stage can beat them. Suborbital refueling crush them in payload numbers even with peroxide.
- medium / heavy ELVs, Proton and Ariane: already partly killed by Falcon 9R, 2-FLOC hydrolox and 3-FLOC hydrolox should be able to finish them
- BFR/BFS: untouchable. Mars, huge payload: wins hands down. Probably the same for New Armstrong, although that one is only partially reusable.

Fundamentally, the satellite market is presently fueled by two mass phenomenas: 1) cubesats and 2) satellites constellations. A quick check of OneWeb shows the satellites masses less than 400 pound. And Cubesats are even lighter. In both case, this is completely within a Mk.1 payload envelope, with tons of margin.
Now Parabolic Arc Doug Messier did the additions, and found that all the constellation projects amounts to 23 000 satellites to be launched within the next 10 years. No idea about Cubesats, but if you add them...
See my point ? if the Mk.1 enters the Cubesat / Constellation market and takes only a fraction of it, we are winners. We don't even need the hydrolox mk.2 for that job. Plus the military satellites. Plus the suborbital market.
 
Last edited:
Archibald,

apart from the inherent scaleability of a large variety of different reusable launch systems (which, at least for VTVL systems, *vastly* exceeds that of any other category), I really have to ask, do you still actually believe in nineteen eighties voodoo economics crap like the "invisible hand"???

Very sincerely,

Martin
 
Last edited:
Ha ha hell no, I'm french, it is well known we lean toward the socialist part of the political spectrum, so screw the Chicago bad boys and Milton the Fried man with a fried brain. It was rather a "convenient metaphora".
What I was trying to say (with a brain wired definitively for latin languages and not english) is more akin to "bring it and they will come". When facing a Rocketlab Electron dumb ELV, the advantages of the Mk.1 in payload, operational flexibility, reusability, are so evident, a *disruption* may happen, probably even more brutal and radical than *F9R vs Ariane 5* as presently happening since 2013.
 
Last edited:
Even tho I have a clear bias for anything winged over a plain rocket thing, I see some problems with that system. Archibald, just see it as my habit of "chercher la petite bête" in things that interest me, plus I don't get half of the tech things posted here, So please correct me.

Wouldn't there be a big development cost and complexity disadvantage with this solution over something like SpaceX ?
Once it's done, I can understand the advantages of being able to takeoff and land almost anywhere , but the investment needed for getting a vehicle that works both in atmosphere and in orbit is… big. I mean , that was one of the problem with the Shuttle, and even though it was just a glider, this one would also have to be able to fly by itself, so again adding complexity to a known complex and expensive to develop thing.
Have to think of the landing gear, the complex aerodynamics , the flight control systems, the refueling system, the reentry …ect...
plus this time an autonomous atmospheric propulsion, and it makes a very BIG and expensive program.

The advantage I see in plain rockets or thing like SpaceX is that it can do with almost no airframe. it just stacks engine/fuel/payload. I know it's more complex than that, but you see what I mean. You do without the complexity and investment of designing a complicated airframe.

If done, I think it would be for the military, first cause it would be so expensive to develop that the only $$ source could be a US gov order for the military, second they would do it for the advantage of having something easy to deploy and use in short time compare to a rocket.

That said, seeing this thing fly and refuel would be fantastic.
 
Last edited:
I am going to add my 2 cents with regards to in-flight refueling:
- Fuel moving between two vehicles has a momentum of its own. If vehicles are not docked, RCS will need to fire continuously to compensate.
- What is the fastest that anybody has ever docked in free-fall? The best I can find is Apollo, about 7 minutes from CM disconnecting from the upper stage, until it docked with LM. And docking part was more than half of that IIRC.
 
The more in the debate, the merrier ! Galgot, you hit the nail in the head. Not much to answer / contest.

That said, seeing this thing fly and refuel would be fantastic.

You shouldn't have say that ! (just kidding) I have been an avid reader of Le Fana since 1997, and I saw your work for them back in the day. It blew my mind. Plus your SST work here, geez.
This to say I'm looking for a talented CGI designer / cartoonist (damn, how do you say DESSINATEUR in english ??!) because this thread is only the tip of a larger iceberg - in fiction. Alas I'm a writer but not a dessinateur (screw english) by any mean. I admire those CGI geniuses like Hazegrayart (try Youtube, Hazegrayart - and enjoy the show !)

- Fuel moving between two vehicles has a momentum of its own. If vehicles are not docked, RCS will need to fire continuously to compensate.

Bingo, you have a point. Back in 1994 Mitchell Burnside Clapp actually discussed that major issue. He explicitely mentionned exactly what you say - for cryogen like LOX, indeed, RCS need to shoot like Apollo ullage rockets that shook the S-II and S-IVB to set those pesky cryogens into motion, and into the turbopumps. Somewhat strangely, he said this would not be necessary for room-temperature H2O2 / hydrogen peroxide.
I'm all too aware that 80 000 freakkin' pounds is a huge number so I deliberately calibrated my spreadsheets for a) minimal transfer mass, that is 30 000 pounds - and b) payload to orbit. Sacrificing the later for the former.
Note that I'm lucky on one point: cubesats and constellation satellites are extremely light, less than 1000 pounds - and in LEO. And those very recent markets (Cubesats : 1999, and Constellation 2.0 - Oneweb, 2013) are growing at the speed of light. By contrast, if the market was only 12 000 pound monsters comsats in GEO, life would be harder.

- What is the fastest that anybody has ever docked in free-fall?

Re-bingo, another leap into the unknown, admittedly. Some posts up thread, RanulfC got a good shot at what would the closing manoeuver would look like.

I can tell you I looked into tech papers archives like crazy for years without much success. The one and only, closest analogy I could find was Zubrin Skyhook / HASTOL SSTO-to-tether system. Where the ascending rocketplane run after the tether tip coming from above. When they get close, open the payload bay doors, sprout a hook upwards, and pray for the tether tip to be at the right place at the right moment to snap the payload upwards.
They assumed the entire enchillada could be done between 30 seconds and 1 minute. Boom rendez-vous may help - it is the bastard child of Soyuz docking and KC-135 refueling boom, with a touch of the USN refueling system.
 
Last edited:
Upgraded variant of The Space Review wannabee publication. Integrating elements and learnings from this very discussion.

Feedback welcome, as usual.
 

Attachments

  • TSR SOR.pdf
    415.3 KB · Views: 8
Two rocketplanes, PMF 0.85 (= 1-18/120) - H2O2/kerosene, specific impulse 327 seconds. 5000 pound payload with the following parameters: 80 000 pounds of H2O2 oxidizer transfered at 5.7 km/s.

Quick question:
Where is 80,000 pounds of oxidizer coming from?
The figure shows the "fuel lifter" down to 5675 pounds at the refueling point.
 
and we have a winner. No intellectual dishonesty: I screwed up. Busted the limits. Dang. Doesn't help credibility.
Will think about that. Kudos to you !
 
Reposting the spreadsheet because screenshot only, suck.

Also adding another, older spreadsheet that will please M. Bayer: it includes a comparison with a FSSC-16 like TSTO. In fact it is "a speculative idea" failed Black Horse mentionned by Clapp in the document, calculated in an Excel spreadsheet.

I won't take any gloves... I have two major FEARS and ISSUES.

First, I'm not good enough with Excel and I fear to ruin the spreadsheets when making even minor modifications. This is really a major PITA. Well, Excel can do great things, when you master the way it works.
Secondly, despite learning a lot about the basics of the rocket equation, I fear some parts of its slips through my fingers and once again, get out of control and ruin the party.

Basically I'm trapped between a roc (Excel) and a hard place (the rocket equation slippery slope - a minor mistake can go out of control very fast).

That's why a) I'm extremely cautious and b) I need people to pick whatever gapping hole they see - just like aam641 did. I don't want to become a fluke, I've seen ttoo many of them at NASAspaceflight.com (plus that huge troll, RGClark, it is my worst nightmare...)
 

Attachments

  • failed black horse.xls
    13.5 KB · Views: 5
  • Speculative idea.pdf
    64 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
I am attaching a spreadsheet with my calculations. Here are my assumptions:
- Empty weight of 40,000 lbs. (I am skeptical of this, but we need to start somewhere).
- Propellant capacity of 230,000 lbs, and both fuel and oxidizer are transferred during refueling (this simplifies calculations for now, and transferring only oxidizer will further reduce performance).
- Maximum take-off weight of 270,000 lbs. This I treat as a hard limit on take-off, the same as on any aircraft. Any payload will reduce the amount of fuel carried. During refueling I do not apply this limit and full fuel load is allowed.

Results:
- One spacecraft has delta-V limit of 6,100 m/s.
- Two spacecraft have delta-V limit of 7,900 m/s.
- Four spacecraft have delta-V limit of 9,000 m/s with 9,000 pound payload.
 

Attachments

  • Suborbital refueling.xlsx
    14.5 KB · Views: 12

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom