Rockwell International Star-Raker

Archibald said:
(grabs popcorn and waits for the @Byeman to join the slaughter. You guys have been arguing in circles since the day I was in high school - vintage 1996)
Click to expand...

Listen here Youngn, it's been "going on" since before "I" was in high school :) Keep in mind "Aerospaceplane" is a late 50s vintage concept and the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you :) )

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you :) )
Click to expand...
It might be that VTVL rocket and HTOL airbreather are equally good. It might be that one or the other will eventually prove to be long-term clearly superior. As with internal combustion, battery electric and steam power for the very first cars, nobody really *knew,* they just had arguments and opinion. What settled it was *doing* it. And so far, VTVL rocket is the only system that has made a serious effort towards getting it done. Airbreathers, despite the billions spent, have not made a serious effort; no airbreather has made it halfway to the needed velocity. And that fact that "billions spent" still equates to "not a serious effort" is a good indicator that "HTOL airbreather" may well not be that great of a system. While VTVL rockets can be built by an internet billionaire with occasionally dodgy ideas. The fact that every single vehicle to ever get to orbit has had far more in common with the VTVL rocket than with the HTOL airbreather is also an indicator.
 
But Musk level investment really hasn't been done. The size of Star Raker scared folks off same as with NOVA class rockets only now being stacked. My only point is that I'd like to to see other concepts well funded. Then the arguements can truly begin. We are here because we are all suckers for lost causes...lost futures...
 
publiusr said:
But Musk level investment really hasn't been done. The size of Star Raker scared folks off same as with NOVA class rockets only now being stacked. My only point is that I'd like to to see other concepts well funded. Then the arguements can truly begin. We are here because we are all suckers for lost causes...lost futures...
Click to expand...
Just developing the air-breathing engine portion of Star Raker would likely cost more than SpaceX has spent on Starship.
 
publiusr said:
But Musk level investment really hasn't been done.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. Far more than Musk-Money was spent on NASP alone (budgetted well into the billions), resulting in *zero* flight hardware. The X-43 programs spent about a quarter billion in order to spend a few seconds cruising, not even accelerating, at about Mach 10. Imagine what Musk could have done with *that* money. How much has been spent on HOTOL/SKYLON/SABRE, so far resulting in zero flight hardware?

The evidence suggests so far that the development of an airbreather launch system is orders of magnitude more expensive than the development of relatively conventional rocket systems. If the end result is a vehicle that reliably flies for orders of magnitude less operational cost, it *might* end up being worth it, but there is no evidence to suggest that an orbital airbreather would cost less to operate than a rocket. Liquid oxygen is *cheap.*
 
publiusr said:
But Musk level investment really hasn't been done. The size of Star Raker scared folks off same as with NOVA class rockets only now being stacked. My only point is that I'd like to to see other concepts well funded. Then the arguements can truly begin. We are here because we are all suckers for lost causes...lost futures...
Click to expand...

Past the money issue there's no actual need or requirement for that much lift capacity and there really WOULDN'T be considering the amount of in-space and on-orbit infrastructure they were supposed to support.

Going back to the video you need to keep in mind that in addition to that huge power-sat there's also a huge amount of construction, industrial and living infrastructure to back all that up. In a way it DOES come down to money because essentially space exploration is a vast hole that swallows money like candy but does not have a consummate actual 'payback' which is unlike similar historical efforts here on Earth.

You can make money in, around and using "space" but for the most part the actual "economics" don't lend themselves as of yet to regular usage. I kinda find it funny that folks bandy around statements like "Musk level of investment" when he's been pretty clear that SpaceX is NOT the cash cow and it's things like Tesla that keep SpaceX 'fat' enough to afford throwing away "prototypes" instead of taking the time and effort to actually do it right the first time. It's not easy nor is it guaranteed but there's enough money to be made supporting operations that we finally have actual 'commercial' interest beyond just that supporting role.

The other issue is actually the idea of a "lost future" because we didn't really "lose" anything. We got overly hyped for a one time situation and event (Apollo) that skewed our ideas of not only what was possible but what was probable and when all that hype returned to a more reasonable and sustainable level, (and frankly in 'reaction' to that previous over-hype dropped below those levels for far to long) we were disappointed and frustrated. The entire reason such 'lost futures' were created was trying to find a reason and 'cause' that would support a return to the over-hyped levels of the past instead of actually looking towards a working and reasonable future and that in turn only fed the discontent and disappointment. And there's still a HUGE amount of hype surrounding such 'futures' that frankly not lost but likely yet to come.

People want that 'future' now, without wanting to do the hard and serious work needed to build them up and make them happen. The 'problem' is that space exploration and even exploitation is still very much a 'niche' operation until and unless we build up capability and capacity on-orbit and that's going to be a process that will take some time and effort and most "Space Cadets" (like me :) ) don't really want to hear that let alone wait for it. But that's how it works, it's literally the only way it's ever worked.

Randy
 
Orionblamblam said:
RanulfC said:
the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you :) )
Click to expand...
It might be that VTVL rocket and HTOL airbreather are equally good. It might be that one or the other will eventually prove to be long-term clearly superior. As with internal combustion, battery electric and steam power for the very first cars, nobody really *knew,* they just had arguments and opinion. What settled it was *doing* it. And so far, VTVL rocket is the only system that has made a serious effort towards getting it done. Airbreathers, despite the billions spent, have not made a serious effort; no airbreather has made it halfway to the needed velocity. And that fact that "billions spent" still equates to "not a serious effort" is a good indicator that "HTOL airbreather" may well not be that great of a system. While VTVL rockets can be built by an internet billionaire with occasionally dodgy ideas. The fact that every single vehicle to ever get to orbit has had far more in common with the VTVL rocket than with the HTOL airbreather is also an indicator.
Click to expand...

Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL :)
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so. The problem you're addressing is the "all-in-one-go-to-orbit" which is exactly NOT how either VTVL or VTHL space launch is working the problem.

NASP for example was no more likely to happen than VTVL rocket powered SSTO as both were 'aimed' at very specific and 'niche' missions that had little to do with actual operation and a ton to do with politics and bias'. We have and had flying and working examples of airbreathing engines and airframes that have flown up to Mach 6 speeds (where you want to get out of the atmosphere anyway) that have been tested up to Mach 10 and are adequate to the job as long as the mission is reasonably based.

As you note we currently (and for the foreseeable future) don't need to go to space often enough in enough missions to have to really 'chose' a means at this time. Rocket's are like the steam cars in your example. Reliable and well understood technology that gets the job done. Air Breathing could be like internal combustion engines, new-ish, finicky and "cutting-edge" but may be the way of the future. Or they could be 'batteries' which are also new, limited and in need of a lot of development and may only be usable in mass far in the future. We simply don't really know at this point and have to keep our options open.

Or someone could throw a nice wrench in the works and figure out how to make anti-gravity "lifters" that do the job with no fuss or muss... Not holding out hope on that one though :)

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL :)
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.


Rocket's are like the steam cars in your example. Reliable and well understood technology that gets the job done. Air Breathing could be like internal combustion engines, new-ish, finicky and "cutting-edge" but may be the way of the future. Or they could be 'batteries' which are also new, limited and in need of a lot of development and may only be usable in mass far in the future. We simply don't really know at this point and have to keep our options open.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But "keep our options open" is a different worldview than "I choose this untried idea. I will base all future planning on this one technology somehow working soon, when it hasn't in fifty years of trying."
 
Haze has a 'dip' at the tail where some art has the engine bank straight across...
 
Missed this when it came out:
Orionblamblam said:
RanulfC said:
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL :)
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.
Click to expand...

Uhm, no actually. Turboramjets, ramjets, and rocket-based combined-cycle jets (both solid and liquid) have been developed and even flight tested to hypersonic speeds and really you want to get out of the atmosphere after Mach 5/6 anyway. Yes we've seen more 'subsonic' jet use (mosty carrier aircraft) but the basic technology isn't questioned.
We use rockets because of the operations and the fact we've got that infrastructure in place. High mach aircraft operations are known to be expensive but in context they are on par with rocket operations so the main question has always been who has the means, opportunity and funding to give it a try. Like booster reuse it's a known possible method but the risks for first adapters is pretty significant.

Orionblamblam said:
Rocket's are like the steam cars in your example. Reliable and well understood technology that gets the job done. Air Breathing could be like internal combustion engines, new-ish, finicky and "cutting-edge" but may be the way of the future. Or they could be 'batteries' which are also new, limited and in need of a lot of development and may only be usable in mass far in the future. We simply don't really know at this point and have to keep our options open.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But "keep our options open" is a different worldview than "I choose this untried idea. I will base all future planning on this one technology somehow working soon, when it hasn't in fifty years of trying."
Click to expand...

Again the same as booster reuse for context. (Or Starship for that matter :) ) The risk is high but so is the reward if it goes well.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Missed this when it came out:
Orionblamblam said:
RanulfC said:
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL :)
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.
Click to expand...

Uhm, no actually.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually. The only airbreathers that have been used for space launch are the turbofans used by NB-52's and L-1011's to Launch Pegasi, and in those cases the turbofans have stayed firmly within the atmosphere. One could argue that the turbojets used on the fighters that launched NOTSNIKs may also apply, assuming orbital *attempts* counts, but still the airbreathers stayed within the air.

So far no vehicle to go to orbit has had anything but rockets for propulsion. IIRC, nothing but rockets have gone above the atmosphere.
 
A nice thing about not using air-breathing engines on craft which leave the atmosphere and return to it is that you do not need to protect the air intake pathway during reentry heating and hence the craft does not carry either the weight or the potentially malfunctioning hardware of such a system.
(there already are plenty enough potential malfunction points on a spacecraft thank you very much)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom