Rockwell International Star-Raker

Hi,


from Astronautix site and from the book Rocketing Into The Future,here is
the Rockwell Star-Raker HTHL SSTO;


American winged orbital launch vehicle. Rockwell International's Star-raker was an enormous 1979 heavy-lift ramjet/rocket horizontal takeoff/horizontal landing single-stage-to-orbit concept capable of atmospheric cruise and powered landing for maximum operational flexibility.Rockwell studies in the late 1960's indicated that Mach 6 turboramjets would provide significant advantages to horizontal takeoff/horizontal landing (HTHL) two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) designs provided were only marginal benefits for single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles. However by the late 1970's, Rockwell believed that new materials technologies, combined with a wet wing design, would make HTHL SSTO possible. The lower wing loading of the design would make surface temperatures during reentry several hundred degrees lower than the Space Shuttle. Rockwell asserted that the Star-raker, using advanced airbreathing engines, could carry double the payload for the same gross liftoff mass as Boeing's Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle all-rocket HTHL SSTO concept. However Star-raker's dry mass would be 45% higher than the Boeing design and the vehicle would be exposed to a more severe aerodynamic heating environment..
Rockwell investigated the operational issues and requirements for launching 1600 tonnes of payload into low Earth orbit per day to support construction of solar power satellites. The baseline concepts were Boeing's rocket-powered VTVL TSTO (400t payload capability) and the Star-raker turbofan/air-turbo-exchanger/ramjet HTHL SSTO (100t payload). Although the airbreathing HTHL SSTO concept would require some advanced technologies, it appeared to be better suited for high flights rates (16/day) than the vertically-launched TSTO.
The VTVL vehicle would require ten launch pads requiring extensive refurbishment between missions, to meet the launch rate requirement of 4 flights per day from the Kennedy Space Center. Two high-bay Vertical Assembly Buildings would also be required as opposed to two aircraft maintenance type buildings for Starraker. The turnaround time for the HTHL SSTO (1.8 days) would be one-third that for the VTVL TSTO (5.5 days), primarily because the latter would land at sea and the requirement for mating and stacking two extremely heavy stages. On the other hand the risk of recovery damage was considerably higher than for aircraft landing.
For the HTHL, a single-runway air base would support an entire fleet of 30 Star-rakers. The VTVL TSTO launch range would have to be 850 square kilometers in area to accommodate a fleet of 22 vehicles and the launch noise they generated (120db at 13km, vs. <120db at 1km for the HTHL SSTO).
Rockwell estimated the cost per kilogram of payload to low earth orbit would be $22-$33 in 1978 dollars. The aircraft was to be compatible with C-5A Galaxy cargo handling facilities and airports (2440-4270m runways). Each of the ten turboramjets would have a thrust of 623 kN, and each of the three shuttle SSME-type engines, 4750 kN. The vehicle would have 1826 tonnes of liquid oxygen and hydrogen loaded at takeoff.
LEO Payload: 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) to a 556 km orbit at 28.00 degrees. Boost Propulsion: 3 x LOX/LH2 rocket engines + 10 x turboramjets.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/staraker.htm
 

Attachments

  • Star-Rakers.JPG
    Star-Rakers.JPG
    51.1 KB · Views: 247
  • starraker.jpg
    starraker.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 253
There's already a thread on this: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5735.msg95684.html#msg95684

Martin
 
Oh sorry for this double post,


please Mods,merge those topics.
 
Even if money weren't a factor could this thing have performed as intended?
 
Color Star-Raker picture found in preceding black-and-white pdf.
 

Attachments

  • RASV.png
    RASV.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 296
Dynoman said:
Color Star-Raker picture found in preceding black-and-white pdf.
Hi.

Sorry to bother you with that. As I understand from your picture name, Star Raker was Rockwell - or one of Roccwell's - RASV proposal??? Just doesn't fit the RASV story as I know it. Is it just my ignorance? RASV was so long time ago.
Again, just to clarify.

A.
 
Sorry, that's why I didn't post it earlier. It was misfiled under RASV, but it is the Rockwell Star-Raker and unrelated to the Boeing RASV.
 
Dynoman said:
Sorry, that's why I didn't post it earlier. It was misfiled under RASV, but it is the Rockwell Star-Raker and unrelated to the Boeing RASV.

Thx for clarification!

A.
 
View: https://youtu.be/JsS0Gn0IN2I

Star Raker! - The Giant Insane Mach 7.2 Space Plane

Special thanks: Aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Support Me: www.patreon.com/foundandexplained
Discord to chat with me: https://discord.gg/WXb565P9nQ
Website: www.foundandexplained.com

In the 1970s America faced increasingly worse energy shortages. It’s main source of petroleum had ground to a halt thanks to the international crisis in Iran and the Middle East, and nuclear had been ruled out after two high-profile nuclear meltdowns. NASA pitched series of 60 gigantic geosynchronous platforms orbiting the planet, beaming down refined energy for the world's use. It was called the Solar Power System and would be comprised of a global network of gigantic photovoltaic arrays. And they were huge, with two long solar panel structures 5 km long by 4 km wide, or 3.1 miles by 2.4 miles - for a total of 11.73 kilometers long, 7.2 miles in imperial unites, and weighing the small amount of 10.42 million kilograms or 22.97 million pounds. By being in orbit, weather, dust and day and night cycles would be eliminated, allowing 24/7 constant energy production. The electricity generated would be sent down via microwaves to a thin receiving mesh, that could be built anywhere, even over oceans. "The SPS is an attractive, challenging, worthy project, which the aerospace community is well prepared and able to address," physicist Robert G. Jahn wrote in support of the project. But the problem was – how would NASA even get these into orbit. So far, they had only launched the 77-metric-ton (85-U.S.-ton) Skylab into low-earth orbit using a huge Saturn 5 rockets left over from the apollo moon mission. The new solar powerplants weighed 100 times more than even the modern international space station above us today, and rockets wouldn’t cut it - it would need over 1,000 saturn 5 launches to get even one SPS into orbit - let alone 60. So NASA turned to Boeing for the solution. The Space Freighter was Boeing’s pitch to solve the earth to orbit problem of the SPS program. As its name may infer, it was a rocket system slash space plane that would act like a lorry for space station componets for assembly in orbit. Each mission would have had a payload of around 424,000 kilograms or 934,000 pounds. For the goal of two SPSs a year, this system would have required a stunning 240 space launched a year – or a turn around every 36 hours. Wommentating on the plans later in 1981, NASA made a very interesting observation. "The magnitude and sustained nature of this advanced space transportation program concept requires long-term routine operations somewhat analogous to commercial airline/airfreight operations,". Rockwell came up with this, the Airbreather/Rocket-Powered, Horizontal Takeoff Tridelta Flying Wing, Single-Stage-To-Orbit Transportation System, or dubbed today as "the Rockwell International Starraker. It was a space plane that was 103 meters (310 feet) long with a wing span of about 93 meters (280 feet), and would have carried a maximum of 89.2 metric tons (196,600 lbs) of cargo into low earth orbit around 300 nautical miles above the equator - or 555 kilometers. Overall this would have allowed firms to get payloads into orbit for a cost of $15 per pound ($55 per pound in 2010 dollars). In metric, this is $25 USD per kilograph. For comparisons sake, Elon musk with his space x rockets costs around $2,720 per kilogram into orbit. So clearly, this dream of low-cost orbit delivery is totally insane. thanks to its vast tri-delta wing blendered design, there was a great deal of internal volume for not only cargo but fuel as well. The cargo deck was modeled after the C-5 galaxy, 20 feet high and 20 feet wide, in a square shape, and 141 feet long. Thats 6 meters by 6 meters, bt 42.9 meters for those living outside the US. The craft would have two engine systems, the first was conventional jet engines, specifically hydrogen fueled high bypass supersonic turbofan/air-turbo-exchanger/ramjet engines, each with 140,000 lbf of thrust. Then the space plane also had three hydrogen fuelled rocket engines, each with 1.06 million lbf of thrust and an ISP of 455 seconds - enough to get it into a high orbit. Here is where it gets crazy, the aircraft would then rise to an altittude of 45,000 feet, before diving directly down to 37,000 feet to build up speed and break the sound barrier, then it would angle upwards to reach 95,000 feet, or 29 km before activating its rocket engines - hitting speeds up to Mach 7.2 . In terms of the SPS program we outlined before, this would mean than 1100 flights would have been required each year Yet- why was never built? In the end, the star raker never really came close to development. it was a change in political power in the United States to the Reagan administration, and the price of oil plummeting that made this expensive enegy concept, the SPS, seem foolish. Without a need for a launch craft, the whole concept unraveled. Work did continue on other projects, but thats a video for another day.
 
Keep in mind I am just some high school kid, in my humble opinion, and also keep in mind I have little in the form of a scientific or engineering background. Something like star raker would make more sense than a starship for fast transportation.

What I am getting at is there an argument to be made for something like this. As building such a thing from scratch would entail high costs.
 
Last edited:
Something like star raker would make more sense than a starship for fast transportation.
Fast *terrestrial* (point-to-point) transportation? No, not really. There are two immediate problems:
1) An "airplane" configuration is always going to be more costly than a "rocket" configuration. Much more complex geometry (hard to be a simple cylinder), less volumetrically efficient, so it weighs more. And structural weight is *expensive.*
2) An airplane that blasts through the air at Ludicrous Speed is going to be fighting aerothermal heating and dynamic pressure the whole time. A rocket transport is goign to pop out above the atmosphere and spend a good chunk of its trip basically in a vacuum, simply drifing along not getting burned or beat to death. That horrifying entry at the end is actually far easier to deal with than a long cruise; do like SpaceX and burn rockets to slow down *and* put relatively cool exhaust gases between you and the atmosphere, or use short-term transpiration cooling, or just build that part of your structure out of materials that can take a short-term blast of heat, But a cruiser... you need to build the *whole* structure able to take an hour or more of hypersonic heat soak.

For transportation to *orbit,* an air-breather like Star Raker lets you dispense with a lot of liquid oxygen. But... liquid oxygen is dense, thus the tanks are small, and it's *cheap.*
 
Something like star raker would make more sense than a starship for fast transportation.
Fast *terrestrial* (point-to-point) transportation? No, not really. There are two immediate problems:
1) An "airplane" configuration is always going to be more costly than a "rocket" configuration. Much more complex geometry (hard to be a simple cylinder), less volumetrically efficient, so it weighs more. And structural weight is *expensive.*
2) An airplane that blasts through the air at Ludicrous Speed is going to be fighting aerothermal heating and dynamic pressure the whole time. A rocket transport is goign to pop out above the atmosphere and spend a good chunk of its trip basically in a vacuum, simply drifing along not getting burned or beat to death. That horrifying entry at the end is actually far easier to deal with than a long cruise; do like SpaceX and burn rockets to slow down *and* put relatively cool exhaust gases between you and the atmosphere, or use short-term transpiration cooling, or just build that part of your structure out of materials that can take a short-term blast of heat, But a cruiser... you need to build the *whole* structure able to take an hour or more of hypersonic heat soak.

For transportation to *orbit,* an air-breather like Star Raker lets you dispense with a lot of liquid oxygen. But... liquid oxygen is dense, thus the tanks are small, and it's *cheap.*
Thanks for the reply, though I thought the star raker was supposed to take off from a runway with conventional engines, and enter space, then reenter the atmosphere for a landing? Or at least that what I thought the Rockwell proposal was supposed to do. Though whenever someone’s starts to debate the costs of a starship versus traditional airlift. I always get iffy feeling’s on the official spacex and enthusiast costs estimations. I should have been more specific by saying space flight, and the air forces recent growing interest in using starship for military purposes.
 
Thanks for the reply, though I thought the star raker was supposed to take off from a runway with conventional engines, and enter space, then reenter the atmosphere for a landing?

Kinda correct. The "conventional engines" were turboramjets to take it to hypersonic speed (2.2 km/sec, around Mach 6.5); it would have to slog through the atmosphere for much longer than a conventional booster would. A mission halfway around the planet would likely not involved actually going to orbit, but a pop up above the atmosphere and a drop back down... where all that speed would have to be burned off aerodynamically.
 
I guess, I mean if you could overcome some the issues pertaining to it’s flight profile. This thing would still face some the issues starship does, or at least assume it would.
 
Thanks for the reply, though I thought the star raker was supposed to take off from a runway with conventional engines, and enter space, then reenter the atmosphere for a landing? Or at least that what I thought the Rockwell proposal was supposed to do. Though whenever someone’s starts to debate the costs of a starship versus traditional airlift. I always get iffy feeling’s on the official spacex and enthusiast costs estimations. I should have been more specific by saying space flight, and the air forces recent growing interest in using starship for military purposes.

StarRaker was going to take off from a 'runway' but the same as the Skylon it wasn't going to be a 'normal' runway :) With it's mass it could only take off from a specially reinforced and extended runway so there was only a few places it could operate from. (And other than Edwards and maybe White Sands the "other" was going to have to be a specially built runway and the Cape :) )

There is not 'comparison' for something like Starship versus "traditional airlift"... Starship can't compete in any form or fashion either economically nor physically, the economics are made up and the operational issues totally ignored. StarRaker would have similar issues though "technically" is could actually LAND at some major airports the amount of noise and operational issues it would entail are huge :)

Interestingly enough actually integrating it into "normal" air traffic would actually be possible (being an actual 'aircraft' in operation with powered flight through all phases of the mission helps a huge amount :) ) But it's payload is far in excess of anything that could be economically supported in "point-to-point" operations and as Scott notes the operational costs of using a huge hypersonic airframe to do such tasks is questionable at best. (It's not even 'questionable' for Starship, it's ridiculous to the extreme)

In the case of "point-to-point" travel you'd want something with wings and air-breathing engines but not something that stays in the atmosphere and mostly uses the wings/engines for terminal range extension and maneuver to fit into the 'traditional' air transport system. You also want to keep in as close to standard operations and cost-modeling as possible to keep the costs lower and frankly any "orbital" system would be a struggle to meet any of those criteria.

The argument has been made that something the "Black Horse" concept would make an excellent candidate for "point-to-point" services being pretty much an "almost orbital" aircraft rather than a specialized orbital spacecraft but the ATP (Aerial Propellant Transfer) is a cost and operations factor on it's own. In the end the more specialized and unique 'bits' that get added to a "point-to-point" design the less economical and the higher the operational and servicing cost get.

Randy
 
I swear I saw a nose on painting of that in…Science ‘82 or something…
 
The argument has been made that something the "Black Horse" concept would make an excellent candidate for "point-to-point" services being pretty much an "almost orbital" aircraft rather than a specialized orbital spacecraft but the ATP (Aerial Propellant Transfer) is a cost and operations factor on it's own. In the end the more specialized and unique 'bits' that get added to a "point-to-point" design the less economical and the higher the operational and servicing cost get.
Good points there.
Subsonic APT is not mandatory for a jets-and-rocket spaceplane.
I use to see suborbital APT as an add-on capability to turn point-to-point into orbit.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so it seems Hazegrayart has decided to model every single (major) RLV concept since 1957 at least. Godspeed to him !

I've been digging that rabbit hole since 2002 (TWENTY YEARS ???!!!) , and I have to say: seeing these obscure designs flying in stupendous CGI work of art, is a dream come true.

Imagine how far we have gone:
from this

to this

(which doesn't mean the first website is crappy - it is certainly not).
 
Last edited:
How far have we gone? Marcus Lindroos' (who I had the pleasure of briefly working with on the ESA FESTIP program) compiled a pretty comprehensive (while admittedly aesthetically... challenging) compendium of RLV concept data and associated qualitative information. Hazegrayart provides pretty, though completely information free, RLV concept animations. It's a bit like comparing patents with paintings or the proverbial apples vs. oranges.

 
He would also invest some efforts in studying references
 
He would also invest some efforts in studying references
I assume you refer to Hazegrayart and not Lindroos, but the point remains that one site provides pure eye candy (and there's nothing wrong with that) and the other actual information.
 
Last edited:
Which is the exact reason why I added THIS (how far have we gone for visuals on the Internet)

(which doesn't mean the first website is crappy - it is certainly not).
 
Last edited:
Bezos should help fund Star Raker so we can see it fly for real. That is Hazegray’s best video yet…
 
Last edited:
Bezos should help fund Star Raker so we can see it fly for real. That is Hazegray’s best video yet…
An airbreathing HTHL SSTO RHLLV apparently remains the holy grail icon of all the various and sundry schemes brought forward heretofore to ascend to LEO and return intact back down, and believe you me, I've worshipped at that particular altar for quite some time before. But the ultimate goal of (aerospace, which I am a proud member of that particular trade) engineering is to find the solution that best meets the mission requirements with the least production and operation effort as well as environmental impact, and I have come to the conviction that that ain't it.
 
Last edited:
Bezos should help fund Star Raker ...

Why?


so we can see it fly for real.

That's not a very good reason to spend a billion dollars. What *good* reason would there be to build Star Raker, as opposed to a purely rocket powered VTOL design that would probably be cheaper to design, cheaper to build, cheaper to fly and cheaper to maintain?
 
When the video docked with the solar power station it really drove home why none of it happened. It looked like a grain of rice next to a house. It'd take tens of thousands (if not orders of magnitude more) to take that much mass to orbit. Don't know if they intended it to be working in conjunction with mass drivers on the moon or what. And imagine the station-keeping for the solar power satellite. Effectively it's a giant solar sail.
 
When the video docked with the solar power station it really drove home...
... that someone didn't do their homework. Star Raker would only go to LEO, not GEO. Some sub-assemblies would be built in low orbit, but the actual construction of the SPS would occur *far* above the max altitude of the Star Raker.
 
When the video docked with the solar power station it really drove home...
... that someone didn't do their homework. Star Raker would only go to LEO, not GEO. Some sub-assemblies would be built in low orbit, but the actual construction of the SPS would occur *far* above the max altitude of the Star Raker.
That surprised me too but I didn't give it much thought. I'd think raw materials would be shot from the moon and the only thing Star Raker would bring up would be stuff beyond what they could make in orbit.
 
When the video docked with the solar power station it really drove home...
... that someone didn't do their homework. Star Raker would only go to LEO, not GEO. Some sub-assemblies would be built in low orbit, but the actual construction of the SPS would occur *far* above the max altitude of the Star Raker.
That surprised me too but I didn't give it much thought. I'd think raw materials would be shot from the moon and the only thing Star Raker would bring up would be stuff beyond what they could make in orbit.
The SPS program was predicated on launching everything from Earth. Lunar materials would be nice, but that would be based on technology and infrastructure then not available.

Long-term, a proper SPS program would involve L-4 and L-5 Island habitats, lunar mass drivers, lunar colonization. But Star Raker was a first-SPS-generation system, wholly dependent on terrestrial resources. For more, see:

US Launch Vehicle Projects #6

uslp06cover.jpg
 
Better flight rate than Starship I would think. That 1km Earth Trojan might be a big help.

Now, once constructed, a powersats can be a giant solar electric tug and slowly spiral out…
 
Better flight rate than Starship I would think.
Based on what? Are you just assuming that hypersonic airbreathing engines will somehow be virtually maintenance-free? That a *vast* surface area of delicate heat shielding won't need to be inspected and maintained? That plowing through thick air for an extended time, racking up not only aerothermal heating but added time shaking itself to bits, bird strikes, bugs sucked into the inlets and splatted onto the windshield, will all be trivial concerns?

What the frak are you basing that desperate hope on? What real-world hypersonic air-breathing monster aircraft can you point to and say "that's our example?"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom