H.I.L.L.S. SPACE PLANE

RGClark said:
RanulfC said:
...

A LOT depends on what the assumptions and requirements are for any one design "trade" study. I'd suggest taking in as many various previous works as possible so you can evaluate the varius pros and cons along with the assumptions and requirements of those studies.
Unfortunatly a LOT of them, and most of the really good ones, were/are on the NASA Technical Report Server which is currently off-line for an unknown duration.
(This includes one of the "best," which if you can't find any other way let me know and I'll try and post my copy from NRTS here, is the "CROSSBOW Air Launch Trade Space" study. It is mentioned in passing in this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/commercial-shows-reignited-interest-air-launch-system/ )

I can point to some sites for your information though,
A good basic referrence paper is this one; "A Study of Air Launch Methods for RLVs"
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/aiaa2001-4619.pdf

AirLaunch LLc though they used a rather "normal" rocket dropped from the back of a C17 has some good papers on Air Launch and their studies here:
http://airlaunchllc.com/TechPapers.html

Searching the "Responsive Space" website for past conference papers is also helpful:
http://www.responsivespace.com/

...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the very informative post on air launch. This study found by using a supersonic carrier aircraft you could double the payload of the Falcon 1:

Conceptual Design of a Supersonic Air-launch System.
43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit
8 - 11 July 2007, Cincinnati, OH
http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/pubs/ClarkeEtal-2007-AIAA-2007-5841-AirLaunch.pdf

Bob Clark
Click to expand...
Specifically they "doubled" the payload by off-loading propellant from the Falcon-1 that would have been used to get it up to the listed launch speed. It's a nice idea but it DOES point out how expensive designing, building and operating a specialized supersonic aircraft would be.

Randy
 
No question the cost is real, as the Skylon project shows. Their hardware is still on the ground now, but they are landing some ESA investment to keep things moving. So many reusable ventures have died along the way it looks discouraging. We are witnessing a few bold investors who are getting in the game, which can produce markets. As these grow there aren't many other growth markets that offer this much excitement. Once investors see signs of market growth they may be looking for new solutions. It could be fun to keep an eye on new methods that are maturing and consider which ones might fit the mission. The technology may not be the barrier as much as funding, and that is opening up a bit. Even government funded projects are being motivated by results like what Spacex is producing. There are still opportunities on the way; the golden age of aviation came during the great depression.
 
The cost is real but so is the interest from investors. You guys are the best critics out there so contribute articles pro and con to our horizontal launch advocacy site. Good engineering should hear the problems and the advantages of a system to sort out trade studies. We are an association of hardware builders gathering momentum and investments towards the reality. Send us your input!

WINGS TO SPACE: THE WRIGHT STUFF http://horizontalspace.wordpress.com/

DAVID I LUTHER diluther@starband.net
 
David,

I am afraid you craft isn't going to go higher than 50 km altitude.

rgds,

juke
 
Gentlepersons:

WE DON'T NEED MONEY, WE NEED MOTIVATED MINDS!
I have three patents, a unique concept and a team of builders and designers. I can’t find good partners to

help incorporate and manage a space venture. I can’t pay yet while we are in the sweat equity phase but we

have some real potential. How do we find adventurers?

I feel like Robert E. Lee looking for JEB Stuart...where are the partners who will research opportunities and

help us to organize the campaign? Partners with fire are the hardest part of business. There are vendor

teams available to us who want to make money and we have the openings to use this technology to meet

their needs. We have their NDAs and interest from the FAA and spaceports. We all want to retire with some

comfort and this is an open door. It depends on two way communications and generated output. We will be

more than partners in this company, we are also vendors for airframes, propulsion, avionics, lawyers,

investors, and several spaceports. There is an army in need of intel on the customers. Is anyone ready to

boldly go?

Here are direct openings, along with many other suborbital and unmanned applications:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/march/nasa-seeks-suborbital-flight-services-proposals-for-technology-

demonstrations/#.VRcHR_nF_pX

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-innovative-advanced-concept-program-seeks-phase-ii-

proposals/#.VRcHUvnF_pV

And this is our vision:

David Luther
307-331-6448
Exodus Aerospace

http://exospace.wordpress.com
https://exospace.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/why-in-line-staging/
https://exospace.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/new-horizons/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hillsspace/hills-space-plane?ref=live
https://www.facebook.com/groups/110821682303324/
 
diluther said:
How do we find adventurers?
Click to expand...


By building and flying something with some degree of success. *Then* your "adventurers" will show up. Until then you need to provide a good business case why your complex system is better than simpler systems like the SpaceX Falcon, which already exist.

I feel like Robert E. Lee looking for JEB Stuart...
Click to expand...

One of histories greatest losers looking for another of histories greatest losers, while on the road to not only utter defeat but historical villain status? Perhaps you should rethink your metaphor.

The late 1990's burned out a lot of the potential investors for "cool" reusable space launch systems. A whole lot of them were designed, a whole lot of money was spent, and none flew.Genius designs at Pioneer and Kelly and others barely got off the drawing board. Entire launch vehicles were nearly finished at Kistler, and have been abandoned for nearly a generation. LockMart spent a bajillion dollars building part of a suborbital demonstrator, and then gave up. And yet... a *simple* design has flown paying cargo to space, and is getting close to flying a reusable booster.

So. How are you going to *prove* that your design and business plan are superior to all those that fell utterly flat?
 
Well the answers belong to serious applicants who deliver the non-disclosure agreement. But it's good to be back with my favorite critics. Engineers should examine the flaws, and the good ones will help to overcome them. Our suppliers have seen the direction, and we have our support without pleasing any critics. We really aren't taking a giant leap to orbit for now so the prototypes will be pretty simple. In fact the aerodynamic analysis will probably yield a rather different profile, even as the Xcor Lynx has changed from early publicity images. I don't need to be a master if I get to participate in the process to profit. In any case my patents were quoted by Boeing on their in-line staged system so many of the issues can be overcome.
 
Spacex IS doing great strides towards recovering a booster, and they will succeed. It does continue to be challenging, as the number of operations increase the statistical chances of trouble. Landing a tall booster on a narrow base is hard in perfect conditions. Even saving part of the fleet will help costs though. Manned capsule recovery is another great potential with some greater risks when lives are involved. Still the only reusable orbiters to date have been the shuttle and the now operational X-37, so wings still have value for recovery.

I expect vertical launch to be the best heavy lifter, but HTOL may offer a few more comforts and abort possibilities for manned flights. Perhaps it will be a bit like fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, each having a place in the market. Fixed wing launch systems also have uses in the atmosphere that vertical can't deliver. This system really isn't all that complicated.
 
diluther said:
Well the answers belong to serious applicants who deliver the non-disclosure agreement.
Click to expand...

Meh. Maybe you have detailed analysis including finite element stress analysis of the design, weight statements including sourced components for contractors and a full performance simulation via POST3D or something better. All I see are pretty pictures.


Engineers should examine the flaws, and the good ones will help to overcome them.
Click to expand...

Depends on the flaws. Good engineers will often examine a design, close the folder, stand up, say "Nope" and leave the room. Good engineers want to see their work come to fruition. If your concpet is jsut a gigantic ill-conceived mess... sure, *maybe* it can be fixed... but if there's a better concept two doors over and they're hiring...

In any case my patents were quoted by Boeing on their in-line staged system ...
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean much. If you are proposing a series-staged winged vehicle, and Boeing comes up with a series-staged winged vehicle patent of their own... they *gotta* reference yours, whether yours is the greatest idea since sliced bread, or the worst idea since sliced water. I've seen major aerospace corproation patents that reference *toy* patents.
 
diluther said:
This system really isn't all that complicated.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is. Falcon is a cone on a tube on a tube. Staging takes place at very high altitude, going in a nice straight line with minimal AoA. Your design is about as far from a cylinder as you can get, would presumably stage lower at higher dynamic pressure, at a substantial AoA and while traveling in a direction distinctly non-straight-up. You have a booster you *don't* want to trash, but you have to fire your upper stage engines very soon after separation. The connections holding the upper to the lower stages have to take relatively *vast* pitch loads (including liftoff and emergency landing loads) yet be reasonably lightweight and release quickly and cleanly. If the upper stages engines burp on startup, will it crash into the booster?

Your vehicle aerodynamics are complex. And then they utterly change while at high velocity and high dynamic pressure. This is non-trivial, and has essentially not been done before. Separation of lifting vehicles at supersonic speeds *laterally* such as the D-21/M-21 has proven traumatic enough. Have you shown that vortices and shockwaves and whatnot shed from the forward vehicles wings won't wash over the aft vehicles wings after separation and cause the aft vehicle to lose control?

As a lifting vehicle with a lot of related subsystems, the craft would weigh a *lot* more than an equivalent conventional rocket, even one like F9 with simple recovery gear. Weight = complexity = cost.

Sure, probably all solvable. But... why bother? What analysis - and more importantly, what test data - is there to prove that all this trouble is worth it?
 
I guess we can assume that you don't want the job. We will just have to settle for someone else. I'm sure our people will be able to carry on. The offer still stands for those who enjoy the challenge.
 
partners. equity. I answered a lot more than Blue Origin does. You overlook a lot of details that might have given you some clues, so don't worry you didn't pass the interview!
 
diluther said:
partners. equity.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. So you take a supply of zero and divide it up amongst others...

I answered a lot more than Blue Origin does.
Click to expand...

Blue Origin has both a fat stack of cash *and* actual flights.

You overlook a lot of details that might have given you some clues, so don't worry you didn't pass the interview!
Click to expand...

I'm crushed. Truly. How shall I go on?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom