Reusable, winged versions of the Saturn V first stage

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,626
Reaction score
2,834
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Issue Volume 1 Number 2 of the new Electronic Aerospace Projects Review has just been finished. The main article, at about 60 pages, covers a wide variety of designs - spanning more than a dozen years - for winged S-IC flyback boosters. Very early Boeing and North American designs to lower the cost of the Saturn V and Boeing, North American, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed and Martin designs for reusable boosters for the Space Shuttle are all shown.
v1n2ad5.gif

v1n2ad6.gif

v1n2ad7.gif

v1n2ad8.gif

v1n2ad4.gif


This issue is very large (90 or so pages), so it costs a little more. Unless you're a subscriber, in which case it doesn't. The page for this issue:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n2.htm

The basic eAPR webpage:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,356
Reaction score
6,003
Hi,

the Boeing's proposal for an expandable booster for the shuttle
was a Saturn-IC (Saturn-V first stage) to which stabilising fins
had been odded.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1971/1971%20-%201669.html?search=vickers+VC+7
 

Attachments

  • Boeing.JPG
    Boeing.JPG
    27.9 KB · Views: 95

Graham1973

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
624
Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

Several configurations of a winged first-stage reusable booster have been investigated to determine effects of various components on the drag and stability characteristics. Effects of forebody shape, base flare shape, simulated rocket engines and shrouds, and an arbitrary afterbody fairing were investigated on a fineness-ratio-4 body to provide a basis for evaluating drag characteristics and to indicate methods for improvement. The reusable vehicle consisted of the body with appropriate components and an attachable recovery package,which was constituted of the wing, vertical tails, necessary wing-body fairing and flyback propulsion-system nacelles. Two wing planforms were employed - a 35º clipped delta and a 65º swept trapezoidal wing - for which the wing area, aspect ratio, taper ratio, and airfoil section were identical. Effects on both longitudinal and lateral-directional aerodynamic characteristics of the various components, as well as some modifications, were evaluated. The investigation was conducted largely in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.4 to 1.2 over an angle-of-attack range at 0º and 5º sideslip.

Selected configurations were tested at moderate supersonic speeds in the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel at Mach numbers from 1.6 to 2.1.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710064930_1971064930.pdf

As can be seen from the attached pictures the booster bears a vague resemblance to the S-IC.
 

Attachments

  • UnidentifedFlybackBooster01.png
    UnidentifedFlybackBooster01.png
    150.9 KB · Views: 358
  • UnidentifedFlybackBooster02.png
    UnidentifedFlybackBooster02.png
    117.6 KB · Views: 321
  • UnidentifedFlybackBooster03.png
    UnidentifedFlybackBooster03.png
    168.3 KB · Views: 289
  • UnidentifedFlybackBooster04.png
    UnidentifedFlybackBooster04.png
    211.1 KB · Views: 283

Rafael

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
128
Reaction score
6
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

I might be wrong, but IIRC it was a flyback booster version for Saturn rockets. The search enging will yield better results than my memory, though
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,304
Reaction score
2,290
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

Rafael said:
I might be wrong, but IIRC it was a flyback booster version for Saturn rockets. The search enging will yield better results than my memory, though


On first look it resemble the NAA study of reusable S-IC booster.
but this here is a study about large wing aerodynamics for flyback booster.
Although NAA could have used this Data for there reusable S-IC booster study
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,247
Reaction score
1,660
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n2.htm
 

Graham1973

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
624
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

Michel Van said:
Rafael said:
I might be wrong, but IIRC it was a flyback booster version for Saturn rockets. The search enging will yield better results than my memory, though


On first look it resemble the NAA study of reusable S-IC booster.
but this here is a study about large wing aerodynamics for flyback booster.
Although NAA could have used this Data for there reusable S-IC booster study

Maybe, but many of the studies referenced in the report seem to be related to flyback boosters for the DynaSoar.
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
109
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

Try this and be sure to buy the full report from Scott. It's pretty good.

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc11ani.gif
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,626
Reaction score
2,834
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

XP67_Moonbat said:
Try this and be sure to buy the full report from Scott. It's pretty good.

""Pretty good?" "PRETTY GOOD?!?!" It's freakin' awesome is what it is, anyone who says different probably punches kittens and kicks puppies.

And yes, the models shown above are flyback S-IC concepts. Some are clearly related to the Boeing designs; others are likely NASA in-house generic concepts. The idea was to try every reasonable permutation of wing geometry, turbojet engine location and body-clocking to see what'd work best. They are not Dyna Soar flyback booster concepts, though it's a safe bet that Boeing transitioned some of what they learned on the DS boosters to the flyback S-IC. As those who have the APR issue can attest, Boeing slapped the cockpit of the Dyna Soar onto the flyback S-IC so the pilot would have somewhere to sit. And *that* would have been a hell of a ride with one whopper of a view.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
27
Website
www.io.com
Re: Unidentified Flyback Booster (1964)

Orionblamblam said:
""Pretty good?" "PRETTY GOOD?!?!" It's freakin' awesome is what it is, anyone who says different probably punches kittens and kicks puppies.


...Yeah, I downloaded the pirated copy, and it's actually pretty darn good.






:p ;D ;)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,356
Reaction score
6,003
Hi,


http://www.xliby.ru/istorija/bitva_za_zvezdy_2_kosmicheskoe_protivostojanie_chast_i/p3.php
 

Attachments

  • Winged Saturn.png
    Winged Saturn.png
    28.6 KB · Views: 79

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
Hesham,
these aren't exactly winged Saturn, I see Säger concepts in the picture
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,356
Reaction score
6,003
My dear Pometablava,


in the Google translate,they refer to the article as Winged Saturn,OK please transfer
it to Sager topic.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
27
Website
www.io.com
hesham said:
My dear Pometablava,


in the Google translate,they refer to the article as Winged Saturn,OK please transfer
it to Sager topic.


...Yeah, these are all from those "next-generation" Silverbird concepts. Good cross-selection of the various proposals, tho.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
27
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
pometablava said:
Hesham,
these aren't exactly winged Saturn, I see Säger concepts in the picture

Two in upper right *are* winged Saturns, via NAA.


...OTay, on a second look, the upper top right one looks like one of the NAA proposals, but can you cite sour....


[slaps head]


...Frack me. Of *course* you can cite source. And one of these days I'll buy the collected works of your sources. I'd do it tomorrow, but I've been told I don't get anymore birthday presents after I turned 50 because I got to turn 50 twice last year.


Ah well..go figger, eh? :-\
 

chuck4

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
12
Just how much weight penalty is involved in making the saturn stage flyable and landable?
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
491
Reaction score
670
Just double checking, was the fly back booster manned or controlled from a ground station?
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
491
Reaction score
670

publiusr

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
144
Reaction score
96
Aldebaran next please.

Now…how about a winged SuperHeavy? Redundant to be sure…but maybe not too limber. I read at Macleans.ca that Nuytten at Nuytco was allowed to use recently declassified submarine steel secrets released to industry for his Exo Suit 2000…and I think it was the July 2021 issue of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets that had a bit on metallic heat shields for winged designs that used…what was it…304 stainless.


Put this all together and you would have Boeing’s Space Freighter…just without the Boeing.

Might save on the cranes at least.
 
Last edited:

publiusr

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
144
Reaction score
96
One last aside if I may...about the possibility of a winged SLS....

Buran T was a winged Energia after all: http://www.astronautix.com/b/buran-t.html


But then I remembered this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9LfDM0l-XY



I had no idea that strap-ons could be so widely based...and wondered...could those attachment points be inside a wing? The forward attachment points inside canards.

SRBs would be at the wingtips now.

The payload would be in a Hustler type pod so the SRBs would have the center of gravity through them. Do-able?
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
966
Reaction score
450
Hazegrayart did it again ! top notch

Yes but he DID miss the fly-back engines required for the concept :)
Still a LOT better than the folks who are still passing around a flyback S1 as a "flyback Atlas" illustration :)

Aldebaran next please.

Now…how about a winged SuperHeavy? Redundant to be sure…but maybe not too limber. I read at Macleans.ca that Nuytten at Nuytco was allowed to use recently declassified submarine steel secrets released to industry for his Exo Suit 2000…and I think it was the July 2021 issue of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets that had a bit on metallic heat shields for winged designs that used…what was it…304 stainless.


Put this all together and you would have Boeing’s Space Freighter…just without the Boeing.

Might save on the cranes at least.

Musk doesn't like wings, he's specifically rejected them as a possible recovery system. (Say's they are to expensive, which is questionable, and to heavy which has some merit but isn't as clear) The boost-back and landing propellant are said to 'trade' as about equal to wings-wheels in payload penalty but I'm not so sure and it's not even clear if they every considered anything BUT a rocket powered landing approach. (A set of tip-turbine 'fans' powered by the RCS monopropellant instead of the grid gins would be possible and allow a more accurate and controlled landing but I'm not even sure if anyone has even suggested such a set up) This is mostly about landing places OTHER than Earth which doesn't actually apply to the SuperHeavy.

One last aside if I may...about the possibility of a winged SLS....

Buran T was a winged Energia after all: http://www.astronautix.com/b/buran-t.html


But then I remembered this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9LfDM0l-XY



I had no idea that strap-ons could be so widely based...and wondered...could those attachment points be inside a wing? The forward attachment points inside canards.

SRBs would be at the wingtips now.

The payload would be in a Hustler type pod so the SRBs would have the center of gravity through them. Do-able?

Not really, 'wings' don't normally have that much structural strength and the stress' would be tremendous due to the drag/thrust of the SRB's. Yes those are pretty 'spaced' out, (no pun intended :) ) but they would still be pretty narrow for wings to have enough lift to support the vehicle on reentry, flight and landing. Possible? Yes, but I wouldn't want to try to engineer that to work if I didn't have to :)

You'd also still have to have the payload on the 'nose' to keep the CG/CP balance I'd think.

Just put bigger wings and a nuclear engine on the payload... Wait, I think I've heard of that one before...
1631401132979.png


Randy
 

publiusr

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
144
Reaction score
96
I don’t think anyone thought to put SRB supports inside wings…maybe a smaller design like Ariane 5?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,494
Reaction score
3,904
Wings induce lift, a force that has to be taken into account designing the rocket structure. The induced torque is significant and alters the simplicity of a rocket design, adding complexity and cost when a set of wings only serve the purpose of landing.
Mass wise, it is then more practical to carry an extra volume of fuel for a boosted recovery.

One parameter that is scarcely taken into account is that wings for rockets are not wings as you have in an airplane. The total lift is only a fraction of the takeoff mass and, when coupled with a small trick that I may post one day, only a percentage of the landing mass.
I think that Musk is pretty spot on when he says that wings are costly.

However, the complexity of having to catch a huge booster during recovery might change his view on this IMOHO. Even if the cost of the ground installation is fixed and can be amortized on multiple launches, the added reliability risks (something reset to zero on every launches) might offset any advantages regarding a simpler winged landing.
 

publiusr

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
144
Reaction score
96
Wings wouldn’t do him any good on Mars…which is his end goal…so VTOVL all the way for him…but ULA could at least have done a winged Pyrios fly-back in place of Vulcan. Two or three F-1 Bs…J-2 upper stage…low part count…
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
861
Reaction score
66
I had no idea that strap-ons could be so widely based...and wondered...could those attachment points be inside a wing? The forward attachment points inside canards.
They were spaced to fit on the shuttle MLP
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
352
Wings induce lift, a force that has to be taken into account designing the rocket structure. The induced torque is significant and alters the simplicity of a rocket design, adding complexity and cost when a set of wings only serve the purpose of landing.
Mass wise, it is then more practical to carry an extra volume of fuel for a boosted recovery.

One parameter that is scarcely taken into account is that wings for rockets are not wings as you have in an airplane. The total lift is only a fraction of the takeoff mass and, when coupled with a small trick that I may post one day, only a percentage of the landing mass.
I think that Musk is pretty spot on when he says that wings are costly.

However, the complexity of having to catch a huge booster during recovery might change his view on this IMOHO. Even if the cost of the ground installation is fixed and can be amortized on multiple launches, the added reliability risks (something reset to zero on every launches) might offset any advantages regarding a simpler winged landing.
Wings do not "only serve the purpose of landing" - they are also instrumental for reentry, glideback, and TAEM, see Shuttle CONOPS. Musk understandably chose VTVL simply because there are no substantial atmosphere and landing strips on Mars (or the Moon, for that matter). Circumstances are a bit different here on Earth. Another important aspect is that wings (apart from moveable aerodynamic controls) are largely a passive structure, whereas rocket engines are highly energetic machines, with cumulative burn time being a limiting factor. From a basic engineering perspective, it makes sense to add comparatively simple structures to decelerate a reusable vehicle rather than waste propulsion system life on something environmental friction can easily take care of for you.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,494
Reaction score
3,904
I do agree @martinbayer but we are discussing here a winged first stage. Hence my take on it.

We will see what's the value of Musk's reentry technique. Even if I think it's a great idea it still haven't been fully demonstrated. The main negative point being the vertical landing and the cost of fixed infrastructure that are needed. So wings on rockets are probably there to stay for a long time when mission perspectives dictates.
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
352
I do agree @martinbayer but we are discussing here a winged first stage. Hence my take on it.

We will see what's the value of Musk's reentry technique. Even if I think it's a great idea it still haven't been fully demonstrated. The main negative point being the vertical landing and the cost of fixed infrastructure that are needed. So wings on rockets are probably there to stay for a long time when mission perspectives dictates.
My arguments above hold true for orbiters as well as boosters.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
861
Reaction score
66
Wings do not "only serve the purpose of landing" - they are also instrumental for reentry, glideback, and TAEM, see Shuttle CONOPS. Musk understandably chose VTVL simply because there are no substantial atmosphere and landing strips on Mars (or the Moon, for that matter). Circumstances are a bit different here on Earth. Another important aspect is that wings (apart from moveable aerodynamic controls) are largely a passive structure, whereas rocket engines are highly energetic machines, with cumulative burn time being a limiting factor. From a basic engineering perspective, it makes sense to add comparatively simple structures to decelerate a reusable vehicle rather than waste propulsion system life on something environmental friction can easily take care of for you.
Not true. From a basic engineering perspective when engines are inexpensive and easily replaceable, it makes more sense to use them than carry needless mass around. Also don't have the additional cost of managing large area of TPS. Instead of burning propellant to haul needless wings and TPS, use it for landing.

The basic structure of the vehicle is enough to provide drag without adding more mass. No need for aero TAEM.

And wrong about substantial atmosphere on Mars, it will still provide the bulk of the braking.

Wings on a booster are a waste, and more so for orbiters.
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
352
Wings do not "only serve the purpose of landing" - they are also instrumental for reentry, glideback, and TAEM, see Shuttle CONOPS. Musk understandably chose VTVL simply because there are no substantial atmosphere and landing strips on Mars (or the Moon, for that matter). Circumstances are a bit different here on Earth. Another important aspect is that wings (apart from moveable aerodynamic controls) are largely a passive structure, whereas rocket engines are highly energetic machines, with cumulative burn time being a limiting factor. From a basic engineering perspective, it makes sense to add comparatively simple structures to decelerate a reusable vehicle rather than waste propulsion system life on something environmental friction can easily take care of for you.
Not true. From a basic engineering perspective when engines are inexpensive and easily replaceable, it makes more sense to use them than carry needless mass around. Also don't have the additional cost of managing large area of TPS. Instead of burning propellant to haul needless wings and TPS, use it for landing.

The basic structure of the vehicle is enough to provide drag without adding more mass. No need for aero TAEM.

And wrong about substantial atmosphere on Mars, it will still provide the bulk of the braking.

Wings on a booster are a waste, and more so for orbiters.
Blithely asserting that liquid rocket engines are "inexpensive and easily replaceable" is quite a tall tale, especially compared to passive structures or TPS, since liquid propulsion systems are inherently more complex. TPS has also come a long way since the Shuttle - note that Musk is using an innovative version as well. In addition, every single in flight rocket engine reignition is a potential risk event. Also, compare how many SpaceX boosters have been lost to date during landing as opposed to how many Shuttle, X-37B, or Buran missions during the same flight phase - the DC-XA comes to mind as well. While the upper atmosphere of Mars is dense enough for aerobraking, the lower layers would require inordinately large wings for aerodynamic flight of any large craft, so that rationale still stands as well. But I'm sure Musk would be absolutely fascinated to learn that having aerodynamic surfaces on the Starship is a waste :D ...
 
Last edited:

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
966
Reaction score
450
Wings do not "only serve the purpose of landing" - they are also instrumental for reentry, glideback, and TAEM, see Shuttle CONOPS. Musk understandably chose VTVL simply because there are no substantial atmosphere and landing strips on Mars (or the Moon, for that matter). Circumstances are a bit different here on Earth. Another important aspect is that wings (apart from moveable aerodynamic controls) are largely a passive structure, whereas rocket engines are highly energetic machines, with cumulative burn time being a limiting factor. From a basic engineering perspective, it makes sense to add comparatively simple structures to decelerate a reusable vehicle rather than waste propulsion system life on something environmental friction can easily take care of for you.
Not true. From a basic engineering perspective when engines are inexpensive and easily replaceable, it makes more sense to use them than carry needless mass around.

So jets instead of rockets to land with, that makes some sense as we've known that jets are vastly cheaper and more reliable than rockets and use less propellant fraction. Bonus if you cut them down to just the 'fan' stages. Somehow though I don't think that's where you were going though :)
Also don't have the additional cost of managing large area of TPS. Instead of burning propellant to haul needless wings and TPS, use it for landing.

Large area TPS is actually easier to do than low area TPS though, especially if you design towards a more lower-mass/higher surface area design. "Needless" isn't a 'fact' btw it's really a matter of opinion and design philosophy.

Randy
 

Similar threads

Top