RLV Design Discussion

P

publiusr

The Anti-Proxmire
Joined
24 September 2011
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
2,310
I like the Idea of that as part of a Buran type Shuttle II....as in figure 21. here:

---but there could be another possibility:

Imagine if you will, an all hydrogen External Tank made from the start to be used as a wet workshop---with no foam problems.

The payload of crew/cargo goes in a forward cargo carrier in the nose of the External Tank....top mount...escape tower, etc.

The oxidizer tank is inside the unmanned orbiter where the payload bay used to be.

This way, you can still fly back the SSMEs.....the orbiter is simplified, and the ET can have smaller motors to take care of itself.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
I like the Idea of that as part of a Buran type Shuttle II....as in figure 21. here:

---but there could be another possibility:

Imagine if you will, an all hydrogen External Tank made from the start to be used as a wet workshop---with no foam problems.

The payload of crew/cargo goes in a forward cargo carrier in the nose of the External Tank....top mount...escape tower, etc.

The oxidizer tank is inside the unmanned orbiter where the payload bay used to be.

This way, you can still fly back the SSMEs.....the orbiter is simplified, and the ET can has smaller motors to take care of itself.
Click to expand...

The 'better' idea is to do away with the Orbiter entirely and go with a recoverable engine pod. You'd lose the 'down-mass' capability but that was seriously over-hyped from the start and nothing anyone was actually designing into spacecraft or satellites even after the Shuttle came on-line.

Of course that violated THE biggest requirement for the Shuttle which was to fly a crew every flight no matter what :)

The other 'problem' it that the foam was always going to be a problem unless you put it internally or covered it over with a 'skin' since it was always going to have adherence issues.

Did you happen to note that the SDHLLV in figures 2 and 3 is launching an Apollo CM/SM and S-IVB stage in that paper? I'd have kind of liked to see that kind of 'transition' vehicle at some point but given the engines were one of the main delay issues with the STS stack I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened :)

Randy
 
It is always good to explore different ways of building launch vehicles…who knows?
 
Did foam problems suddenly get worse due a formulation change ? I've a vague memory of reading that the stuff's consistency and adhesion suffered when the CFC foaming agent was replaced...
 
Nik said:
Did foam problems suddenly get worse due a formulation change ? I've a vague memory of reading that the stuff's consistency and adhesion suffered when the CFC foaming agent was replaced...
Click to expand...
From memory
STS-112 late 2002 was one of the first flights with some change to the foam - and it had an issue similar to STS-107 except non lethal.
 
Nik said:
Did foam problems suddenly get worse due a formulation change ? I've a vague memory of reading that the stuff's consistency and adhesion suffered when the CFC foaming agent was replaced...
Click to expand...
urban myth
 
publiusr said:
I like the Idea of that as part of a Buran type Shuttle II....as in figure 21. here:

---but there could be another possibility:

Imagine if you will, an all hydrogen External Tank made from the start to be used as a wet workshop---with no foam problems.

The payload of crew/cargo goes in a forward cargo carrier in the nose of the External Tank....top mount...escape tower, etc.

The oxidizer tank is inside the unmanned orbiter where the payload bay used to be.

This way, you can still fly back the SSMEs.....the orbiter is simplified, and the ET can has smaller motors to take care of itself.
Click to expand...
Not viable. Liquid hydrogen always requires foam insulation. Also, no point in a winged engine return pod.
 
Byeman said:
Not viable. Liquid hydrogen always requires foam insulation. Also, no point in a winged engine return pod.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a 'point' to adding significant lift to the engine recovery pods: Landing location :)
The deep Outback of Australia or the Mexican Northern deserts were NOT convenient to land and recover from. Ballistic recovery pods didn't/couldn't have the cross-range needed.

Randy
 
I am not saying to not have foam. Wet workshops also need insulation. There would be an outer smooth layer-a double hull is also good for a simple all hydogen ET station module. There are hydrophobic coatings that could be added to the second skin to reduce ice...so it slides off at lift-off. Remember- the oxidizer is in the orbiter...so no oxygen ramp. The payload is atop the ET here. My point is is that the tankage for low density LH2 is an asset, for wet workshops need no grid fins, TPS, or legs-and need not endure the Adama maneuver. Winged spaceflight has its place. My thought was that Wayne Ordway' Shuttle II would prevail with a Buran type orbiter that could be replaced by factory pods the orbiter could service...returning tons of goods to Earth..sparking investments...with shuttle 3 spaceplanes grown in space. To me...orbital factories need come first and RLVs last.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
I am not saying to not have foam. Wet workshops also need insulation. There would be an outer smooth layer-a double hull is also good for a simple all hydogen ET station module. There are hydrophobic coatings that could be added to the second skin to reduce ice...so it slides off at lift-off. Remember- the oxidizer is in the orbiter...so no oxygen ramp. The payload is atop the ET here. My point is is that the tankage for low density LH2 is an asset, for wet workshops need no grid fins, TPS, or legs-and need not endure the Adama maneuver. Winged spaceflight has its place. My thought was that Wayne Ordway' Shuttle II would prevail with a Buran type orbiter that could be replaced by factory pods the orbiter could service...returning tons of goods to Earth..sparking investments...with shuttle 3 spaceplanes grown in space. To me...orbital factories need come first and RLVs last.
Click to expand...
Double hull is not viable.
Wet workshop is not viable for decades. Not until there is an existing healthy infrastructure already present on orbit. Just better to use the dry workshop concept stacked on top of the vehicle using similar tanks.

Oxygen ramp was unique to shuttle, and there where other areas were foam was liberated.

No factories do not come first. RLVs and cheap launch are required to make orbital factories feasible. Factories aren't built anywhere until there is a viable transportation infrastructure in place. And they are usually built using the same infrastructure.
 
RanulfC said:
Byeman said:
Not viable. Liquid hydrogen always requires foam insulation. Also, no point in a winged engine return pod.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a 'point' to adding significant lift to the engine recovery pods: Landing location :)
The deep Outback of Australia or the Mexican Northern deserts were NOT convenient to land and recover from. Ballistic recovery pods didn't/couldn't have the cross-range needed.

Randy
Click to expand...
Don't need wings to produce lift.
 
But without factories as a destination, RLV markets can be over saturated. Space has to be funded by more than a handful of squabbling billionaires...and having goods spill out of some crafts' hold is probably what is needed to mainstream space beyond vanity projects that turn many off. We know what you are against. Tell me what you are for.
Getting back to the topic at hand-a Buran type system may have been for the best. With an Energia type SLS, perhaps different winged boilerplates could be tested on what would have been a giant Navaho for high speed tests-and released by 747 for low speed tests. Hurricane Andrew might have opened up Homestead...with the de facto F-2 eyewall damage track 'pressed into service as a repurposed long runway.

An interesting aside

An engineless orbiter developed from a “challenge” by an individual at NASA/MSFC regarding the ability of the orbiter to evolve into an unpowered vehicle, something like the Russian Buran. This worked out very nicely, as seen in Fig. 21, by adding a payload bay segment at the aft end of the bay (as noted above for the stretched orbiter) and moving as much equipment into a new faired aft body as possible to compensate for the removal of the engines and thrust structure. The subsonic L/D increased to an estimated 6.02 as a result.


From NSF:

The Buran Thread

The Buran Thread
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

It's interesting to compare the Shuttle and Buran three main propulsion systems
- the main rocket engines
- the two OMS
- the planned jet engines (deleted in '74 for the Shuttle, kept to the very end on Buran but not flown)

In a sense, Buran dropped its SSME-look-alike engines into its Energiya rocket carrier.

And this meant two things
- Buran OMS went to the back end - where the Shuttle had its 3*SSME.
- the AL-31 jet engines went flanking the vertical tail - where the Shuttle had its OMS pods instead
- Note: before 1974 the Shuttle ferry jets (TF30s, then F401s) were to be hanged below the wing and TPS, in a removeable big pod.

Some more thoughts.

Buran AL-31 were unreheated Su-27 engines, aproximately 1500 kg in weight. One SSME is 3200 kg, and the Shuttle had three of them in the back.

Hence Buran pair of turbojets weighed as much as 1*SSME, and the Shuttle had three of them. Center of gravity issues must have been slighty easier to handle (well, for the computers & FBW system) on Buran, with so much weight removed from the back.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
But without factories as a destination, RLV markets can be over saturated. Space has to be funded by more than a handful of squabbling billionaires...and having goods spill out of some crafts' hold is probably what is needed to mainstream space beyond vanity projects that turn many off. We know what you are against. Tell me what you are for.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
1. RLVs are used to build the factories. That is the only way to make it work (business case).
2. No, space doesn't have to be funded by gov'ts. The marketplace and industry (billionaires) are the rightful sources. Why does space have to be treated like social program? The gov't doesn't do the same for the oceans, land and air, now it is time for space (don't include the military).
3. The govt can stick to space science and robotic exploration. Space exploitation can be left to the marketplace and industry
 
Space shouldn't have to be funded by gov'ts....but with Musk killing winged spaceflight, Bezos could have the weight of the USAF behind him if he goes that route--and they have more pull and longevity than Shelby even...so there's that. Branson has been no friend to the cause of rocketplanes--that's for bloody sure.

As far as a Buran type Shuttle II---Wayne Ordway (Fred's son) seemed to like the concept:

I'm not saying that a Buran type system is the cheapest winged RLV...but it would be the simplest. A pathbreaker.

The point is to get winged research going and get some type of cargos back to increase the appetites of the business community at large. Once that is done---even sleepy Boeing might take notice and start work on Star Raker or something really useful.

But you are correct in saying the marketplace and industry are the right sources--but billionaire vanity projects aren't.

Musk doesn’t like wings?

Well, I don’t like eggshell tankage…and the “Adama Maneuver” falls under what I call stupid tank tricks…because it is land perfectly or die.

An Americanized Buran with turbojets…esp if it can have a metal heat shield—-that is a full aircraft. Not a glider. With F-111 type escape pods…you have even more margin…launch heads up.

Buran might be an old space design…but with new space passion it can work. The engine-equipped ET core can more easily be a wet workshop later or if you assembly line 3D printed engines…can be expended or come back with wings of its own if scaled up enough…the Buran itself as close to an airplane as can be…not an eggshell.

In FOR ALL MANKIND we see a lunar shuttle. The only way that could work is if it were refilled with the ET remaining attached there and back again so as to slow down to orbital velocity for re-entry:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910014907


While this was pooh-poohed…it is no different than Starship…but that full frame orbiter just says “hold my beer” to the ET.
www.trekbbs.com

For All Mankind Trailer - Apple TV- SPOILER

A tech manual I'll actually be interested in!
www.trekbbs.com www.trekbbs.com

With Starship…the beer can holds you.

A Buran style orbiter with perhaps beefed up snap-on ablatives Portree once wrote about…might leave a refilled engine equipped ET (after emptying itself on a burn to Luna) behind to soft land on the Moon as an “uncrasher” stage…and perhaps come back all by itself.

It is tankage…not wings…that get in the way.
Unless you like landing grain silos…then…knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
1. Space shouldn't have to be funded by gov'ts....but with Musk killing winged spaceflight, Bezos could have the weight of the USAF behind him if he goes that route--and they have more pull and longevity than Shelby even...so there's that. Branson has been no friend to the cause of rocketplanes--that's for bloody sure.

2. As far as a Buran type Shuttle II---Wayne Ordway (Fred's son) seemed to like the concept:

3. I'm not saying that a Buran type system is the cheapest winged RLV...but it would be the simplest. A pathbreaker.

4. The point is to get winged research going and get some type of cargos back to increase the appetites of the business community at large. Once that is done---even sleepy Boeing might take notice and start work on Star Raker or something really useful.

5. But you are correct in saying the marketplace and industry are the right sources--but billionaire vanity projects aren't.

Musk doesn’t like wings?

6. Well, I don’t like eggshell tankage…and the “Adama Maneuver” falls under what I call stupid tank tricks…because it is land perfectly or die.

7. An Americanized Buran with turbojets…esp if it can have a metal heat shield—-that is a full aircraft. Not a glider. With F-111 type escape pods…you have even more margin…launch heads up.

8. Buran might be an old space design…but with new space passion it can work. The engine-equipped ET core can more easily be a wet workshop later or if you assembly line 3D printed engines…can be expended or come back with wings of its own if scaled up enough…the Buran itself as close to an airplane as can be…not an eggshell.

9In FOR ALL MANKIND we see a lunar shuttle. The only way that could work is if it were refilled with the ET remaining attached there and back again so as to slow down to orbital velocity for re-entry. While this was pooh-poohed…it is no different than Starship…but that full frame orbiter just says “hold my beer” to the ET.

With Starship…the beer can holds you.

A Buran style orbiter with perhaps beefed up snap-on ablatives Portree once wrote about…might leave a refilled engine equipped ET (after emptying itself on a burn to Luna) behind to soft land on the Moon as an “uncrasher” stage…and perhaps come back all by itself.

10 It is tankage…not wings…that get in the way.
Unless you like landing grain silos…then…knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
1. Who care if winged flight is killed. Cost is what matters. Wings and USAF don't matter. Space Force does. Bezos isn't going that direction.
2. Who? He is a nobody
3. Wings are not simple
4. No need to get it started
5. billionaire vanity projects are the marketplace and industry
6. no different than dead stick winged vehicles. And what you like and dislike has never mattered. You are not in the business and don't know what you are talking
7. No, it is not. The turbojets were just for test glides. It can't carry payload with turbojets and jet fuel.
8. Wrong, see #3
9. Again, you don't know the different between scifi and what is possible.

10. nope, wrong again. tankage carry propellant and are very simple and cheaper. Wings are complex and just weight. 90 landed first stages and 70 reused disproves any of your arguments.
The reusable first stage is only different from the expendable first stage with the addition of landing legs, grid fins and ACS. Winged is heavier, more complex, and requires more propellant for the equivalent performance.

You really don't get it. Cheaper is better. Simpler is cheaper. Cost is what matters. Not coolness, not convention. Not inane remarks about landing silos or moving light houses.

BTW, Saturn V on a ML and crawler was moving a lighthouse. N1 on its rail transport was like moving an Egyptian obelisk. So what is wrong moving a large first stage using COTS SPMTs (which is the cheapest solution)?
Why is this
and this
OK?
And this is not?

Just another case of you spamming another forum with unsubstantiated claims and unsupported opinions. You have no experience or education to back them and you use dubious sources*. Just because you think something is cool (ORTRAG, Eneriga/Buran, etc) is it good. You have yet to provide any analysis to support your claims. History and time tend to weed out ideas that were not cost effective or worth pursuing.

*Wayne Ordway (Fred's son) ??? Knowledge and experience is not hereditary.
 
publiusr said:
But without factories as a destination, RLV markets can be over saturated. Space has to be funded by more than a handful of squabbling billionaires...and having goods spill out of some crafts' hold is probably what is needed to mainstream space beyond vanity projects that turn many off. We know what you are against. Tell me what you are for.
Getting back to the topic at hand-a Buran type system may have been for the best. With an Energia type SLS, perhaps different winged boilerplates could be tested on what would have been a giant Navaho for high speed tests-and released by 747 for low speed tests. Hurricane Andrew might have opened up Homestead...with the de facto F-2 eyewall damage track 'pressed into service as a repurposed long runway.

An interesting aside

An engineless orbiter developed from a “challenge” by an individual at NASA/MSFC regarding the ability of the orbiter to evolve into an unpowered vehicle, something like the Russian Buran. This worked out very nicely, as seen in Fig. 21, by adding a payload bay segment at the aft end of the bay (as noted above for the stretched orbiter) and moving as much equipment into a new faired aft body as possible to compensate for the removal of the engines and thrust structure. The subsonic L/D increased to an estimated 6.02 as a result.


From NSF:

The Buran Thread

The Buran Thread
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

It's interesting to compare the Shuttle and Buran three main propulsion systems
- the main rocket engines
- the two OMS
- the planned jet engines (deleted in '74 for the Shuttle, kept to the very end on Buran but not flown)

In a sense, Buran dropped its SSME-look-alike engines into its Energiya rocket carrier.

And this meant two things
- Buran OMS went to the back end - where the Shuttle had its 3*SSME.
- the AL-31 jet engines went flanking the vertical tail - where the Shuttle had its OMS pods instead
- Note: before 1974 the Shuttle ferry jets (TF30s, then F401s) were to be hanged below the wing and TPS, in a removeable big pod.

Some more thoughts.

Buran AL-31 were unreheated Su-27 engines, aproximately 1500 kg in weight. One SSME is 3200 kg, and the Shuttle had three of them in the back.

Hence Buran pair of turbojets weighed as much as 1*SSME, and the Shuttle had three of them. Center of gravity issues must have been slighty easier to handle (well, for the computers & FBW system) on Buran, with so much weight removed from the back.
Click to expand...

YES I DID WROTE THAT THANKS TO CREDIT ME NEXT TIME
 
publiusr said:
- Buran OMS went to the back end - where the Shuttle had its 3*SSME.
- the AL-31 jet engines went flanking the vertical tail - where the Shuttle had its OMS pods instead
- Note: before 1974 the Shuttle ferry jets (TF30s, then F401s) were to be hanged below the wing and TPS, in a removeable big pod.
Click to expand...
No, the orbital Buran did not have jet engines. And was never going to have them like the shuttle. They were only for ferry and glide test.
 
Sigh. We all know Buran itself didn't have turbojets but OK-92 showed it was on the table. We aren't talking anti-gravity here. Sincere apologies Archibald....my intent was not to slight you...as I don't believe in calling people "nobodies."
 
Byeman said:
RanulfC said:
Byeman said:
Not viable. Liquid hydrogen always requires foam insulation. Also, no point in a winged engine return pod.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a 'point' to adding significant lift to the engine recovery pods: Landing location :)
The deep Outback of Australia or the Mexican Northern deserts were NOT convenient to land and recover from. Ballistic recovery pods didn't/couldn't have the cross-range needed.

Randy
Click to expand...
Don't need wings to produce lift.
Click to expand...

Never said they did but in context the design had to have a lot of built in lift, rather like Starship :)

Randy
 
Since I am a know-nothing, I will ask Byeman this: an alien is about to teleport you against your will to Orbital Starship's first landing-or to Buran's...which do you choose? I know what my choice would be-and not just based on the outcome. I'll take wings. No Ranch.
 
publiusr said:
Sigh. We all know Buran itself didn't have turbojets but OK-92 showed it was on the table. We aren't talking anti-gravity here. Sincere apologies Archibald....my intent was not to slight you...as I don't believe in calling people "nobodies."
Click to expand...
Wrong, false logic.
 
publiusr said:
Since I am a know-nothing, I will ask Byeman this: an alien is about to teleport you against your will to Orbital Starship's first landing-or to Buran's...which do you choose? I know what my choice would be-and not just based on the outcome. I'll take wings. No Ranch.
Click to expand...

The first part of your statement is right but the rest is a false premise. Starship is not going to be manned for dozens of flights.
 
Last edited:
But which would you ride in? Say Bezos props up Boeing...pays ten million to each retired engineer to come back to do an American Buran right-scaled up to where it can have good jets...and handle like any other jet aircraft. Or Starship after many flights. What do you ride?
 
publiusr said:
I'm not saying that a Buran type system is the cheapest winged RLV...but it would be the simplest. A pathbreaker.
Click to expand...
A "Buran type system" would not be a cheap winged RLV... it wouldn't be *any* kind of winged RLV. Buran was a *payload* not a launch vehicle. Energia was a semi-reusable parachute recovered vehicle; Buran was a reusable payload shroud, one of the most useless devices ever built by Man.
 
Buran itself-being Soviet-didn't have the best fit and finish...no. But modularity is what makes the concept. A pilot coming back in the system I describe has a very useful airplane unburdened with a lot of tankage. Separate crew and cargo? No--separate them both from tankage that is a threat to both. Fly the fume-filled ET/core back--use it as a wet workshop....I don't care...just keep it away from high-value assets---only those need the heat-shield and man rating.

A Buran system is safer than Starship:
A pilot can punch out with an F-111 type pod. That fails? I bail out. No 'chute? Jets quit?
Make like Sully and do a belly flop in the Hudson.

A better definition of useless?
Starship with a stuck landing leg and five seconds of fuel left.

Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain...
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
publiusr said:
I'm not saying that a Buran type system is the cheapest winged RLV...but it would be the simplest. A pathbreaker.
Click to expand...
A "Buran type system" would not be a cheap winged RLV... it wouldn't be *any* kind of winged RLV. Buran was a *payload* not a launch vehicle. Energia was a semi-reusable parachute recovered vehicle; Buran was a reusable payload shroud, one of the most useless devices ever built by Man.
Click to expand...

Well it was a bit cheaper than the Shuttle, which was a reusable payload shroud for the engines, crew and payload after all :) Glider's tend to be that way. It also never 'showed' the parachute recovery of the boosters unlike the Shuttle, and due to not recovering the main engines it wasn't likely to be all that much cheaper anyway.

publiusr said:
Buran itself-being Soviet-didn't have the best fit and finish...no. But modularity is what makes the concept. A pilot coming back in the system I describe has a very useful airplane unburdened with a lot of tankage. Separate crew and cargo? No--separate them both from tankage that is a threat to both. Fly the fume-filled ET/core back--use it as a wet workshop....I don't care...just keep it away from high-value assets---only those need the heat-shield and man rating.
Click to expand...

Going to point out that rockets are not legos :) You can have 'some' modularity but not a huge amount in a design. A 'better' system would actually have been a somewhat 'combination' design of the Shuttle and Buran but without all the assumptions and bias's that cluttered up those systems. Now THAT part would be a challenge :)

The problem is that you're going to have to compromise a lot in the various parts of the system which can cost you in payload and money both. LRB's instead of SRB's would cost a bit more upfront, (though not shipping them half way across the country to be refurbished and sent back is a big help :) ) but likely operationally less expensive. A recoverable engine pod to get the engines back and a depending on the need an un-powered glider with or without landing jets or an uppers-stage or plain payload fairing as needed. But a side-mount isn't as efficient or economical as an in-line system and having to qualify and test each and every configuration of an in-line system isn't cheap or easy.

publiusr said:
A Buran system is safer than Starship:
A pilot can punch out with an F-111 type pod. That fails? I bail out. No 'chute? Jets quit?
Make like Sully and do a belly flop in the Hudson.
Click to expand...

An orbiter that's capable of reentering, flying hypersonically, supersonic and then subsonic will generally not be 'optimal' for at least one of those and that's usually the subsonic regime. Both the Shuttle and Buran were 'hot' on landing because of this and so their chances of successfully landing anywhere but a prepared runway were not at all good. A 'escape pod' adds mass and complexity to the vehicle in addition to more system that can either fail when you need it or work when you don't want it to but in context it's probably better to have and not need it that not have it and need it. But again that's a 'break' in your system that you have to engineer around.

publiusr said:
A better definition of useless?
Starship with a stuck landing leg and five seconds of fuel left.

Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain...
Click to expand...

To be honest we'd first have to assume that they get around to designing actual landing legs for Starship which hasn't happened yet :)

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Orionblamblam said:
A "Buran type system" would not be a cheap winged RLV... it wouldn't be *any* kind of winged RLV. Buran was a *payload* not a launch vehicle. Energia was a semi-reusable parachute recovered vehicle; Buran was a reusable payload shroud, one of the most useless devices ever built by Man.
Click to expand...

Well it was a bit cheaper than the Shuttle, which was a reusable payload shroud for the engines...
Click to expand...

The Shuttle Orbiter contained the engines, and was thus an integral part of the launch system. Remove the orbiter, and all you have are some solid rockets throwing a hydrogen/oxygen tank into the air.
 
Remove Dyna Soar and you have a Titan with no payload.

I like side mount in that you can place outsized articles in place of a Buran…maybe hypersonic boilerplates, OTV aerobrake disks, etc. Parallel staging keeps the stack short and all engines are at ground level. I think that ease of access may allow easier inspections with attachment points well away from engines.

Now in terms of our STS…did anyone ever do comparison drawings of what External Tanks would look like if they were methalox, kerolox….or all hypergolic?

That would be the smallest tank…expensive, dangerous fuel…but no ice problems. Shuttle might have looked a bit like Super Huster maybe? I can see something like perhaps a smaller Buran with its wing fitted to an M2F2 Lifting Body belly tank…SRB supports in between? Engines stay with the tank perhaps?

Scott’s site had what looked like a massive winged ET. That looked to have its own engines and to have fed the orbiter bother. Maybe that was just an artists whim from the 80’s. That might work better with some of the microshuttles looked at in the 90’s.

One shuttle concept had orbiter and tank atop Saturn V. Maybe SuperHeavy would work as well…

For years we had it beat into us “don’t mix crew and cargo!” Keep both but get rid of the tankage maybe. I’d like to be able to at least glide coming back.
 
publiusr said:
But which would you ride in? Say Bezos props up Boeing...pays ten million to each retired engineer to come back to do an American Buran right-scaled up to where it can have good jets...and handle like any other jet aircraft. Or Starship after many flights. What do you ride?
Click to expand...
Buran was never to have jets nor would it ever handle like a jet.
 
publiusr said:
A Buran system is safer than Starship:
A pilot can punch out with an F-111 type pod. That fails? I bail out. No 'chute? Jets quit?
Make like Sully and do a belly flop in the Hudson.
Click to expand...
no, it isn't
a. Pod makes it too heavy to be viable
b. not going to be able to bail out
c. it would break up upon ditching
 
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
A Buran system is safer than Starship:
A pilot can punch out with an F-111 type pod. That fails? I bail out. No 'chute? Jets quit?
Make like Sully and do a belly flop in the Hudson.
Click to expand...
no, it isn't
a. Pod makes it too heavy to be viable
b. not going to be able to bail out
c. it would break up upon ditching
Click to expand...
Bail-out was an option on shuttle. Buran itself might have broken up...but a scaled up version of that modular system could be more robust. M-1 type engines on a scaled up Energiya means you could have different orbiters. One all crew. Another more like Buran.
 
publiusr said:
Remove Dyna Soar and you have a Titan with no payload.
Click to expand...

Except that Titan worked as a launch system just fine without Dyna Soar. Titan III and IV launched *many* times, never once with a Dyna Soar.

I like side mount in that you can place outsized articles in place of a Buran…maybe hypersonic boilerplates, OTV aerobrake disks, etc.
Click to expand...

None of which have any reason to be launched on a giant rocket. You're not going to launch giant hypersonic vehicles via SLS or STS or Energia; either the thing gets up to speed on its own, or it serves no purpose. And you will have gotten it to that point via *subscale* test vehicles vehicles. If you want an OTV aerobrake, you launch it folded, stowed or uninflated. You'd have to be an idiot to launch a giant dish.
 
What you can assemble can be yet larger and simple side mount...it doesn't have to be on top. Let me explore this further. Imagine a Starship that is ONLY tanker. One one side...a spaceplane....on the other side-the payload...extra propellant tankage...what have you. A conterweight if you will. Starship is simplified...returns by itself...and the crew has a much more agile way to return.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
What you can assemble can be yet larger and simple side mount...it doesn't have to be on top. Let me explore this further. Imagine a Starship that is ONLY tanker. One one side...a spaceplane....on the other side-the payload...extra propellant tankage...what have you. A conterweight if you will. Starship is simplified...returns by itself...and the crew has a much more agile way to return.
Click to expand...
no, it is simplified. it is more complex.
A. it doesn't work for vehicles that are simple cylindrical tanks.
b. side mount ops are more complex.
c.no need for the crew
d. still putting the crew vehicle in a shedding environment (all launch vehicle shed)
 
That’s why you do heads up. Scale the system up and you can at least cover the foam. We have hydrophobic coatings now…which means shedding at lift off…and not foam ramps coming off at speed. Side mount means attachment points are away from engines…and they are all at the bottom and out in the open.

Gliders can fly higher than bi-planes…but they are more acrobatic. Every choice has upsides and downsides.

Now imagine that—-when we first started talking—that I proposed not Buran—but doing away with the orbiter…and that I wanted to put shuttle tiles on the bloody ET and have it land like DC-X.

No one knew Elon from Adam mind you…and Garn was about the closest thing to a space tourist we had, if you recall.

Now had I suggested turning an engine equipped ET into DC-X…forget being banned at NSF…I’d been put in Bellevue
 
What has this any of got to do with the subject of "80s TNMTS/AMLS studies"?

Moved to own topic. If someone can suggest a better subject please do so.

Also - unpleasant vibe in this discussion. Be nicer to each other.
 
Last edited:
I love that shuttle II art.

Something similar made it into Iron Man
https://screenrant.com/iron-man-coolest-armor-transformers-optimus-prime/ scroll down

Gundam even seems to have used Bono's approach
gundam.fandom.com

H.L.L.V.

The H.L.L.V. appears in the Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam series. This large transport capsule, which name stands for Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, is essentially the same as the H.L.V. seen in 0083. It's used by AEUG forces to launch from Hickory spaceport, storing inside the MSN-00100 Hyaku Shiki. As...
gundam.fandom.com gundam.fandom.com

I seem to remember a huge vehicle that looked like a giant Energiya/Buran deal--- a lot like the B2 ASLV but exaggerated even more in favor of the booster---below (far left)
ASLV


From Dwayne's page here:
Gundam may have copied that G.I. Joe episode that had F-14s into space.

Shuttles have made it into SF quite a few times:

--But the shuttle from the latest Iron Man looks the most plausible
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom