USAF FAST/RBS Reusable Booster System programs

HyperTech said:
Here are two 1964 concepts that today could use a returnable liquid booster (As Energia SS-18 strap-on with two paraglider chutes on each booster could have done) with hydrogen fueled hypersonic gliders with greater than half Earth circumference glide range. The were originally sized for 9 to 13 people with initial support supplies (two supported a 21 to 24 person space station concept) or an 7 to 10 metric ton payload. There design was for the gliders to have a 100 flight capability before overhaul (YES, and that was designed and materials available then). The Russian concept for the booster was 25 to 35 flights before overhaul or replacement. Why the sad smiley? All of the design details, wind tunnel data, models, materials tests, etc was all shedded and destroyed with the suggestee receiving an award for disposing of old unused unimportant material. One fellow received a cash award for burning 5,000 ft of color schlieren film of a supersonic through-flow engine duplicating a Mach 8 combustor (4,100 F stagnation temperature with a 7,100 ft/sec flow speed) in 1962. (there is no SCRAMJET as there is NO supersonic combustion only combustion in a supersonic stream.)
I'm confused on this post as there is only one (1) concept shown which is the Model 176 FDL-7 hypersonic glider concept with duel (expendable) hydrogen tanks.
Information here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6515.0/highlight,model+176.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8543.0/highlight,model+176.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5125.0/highlight,model+176.html

So what what the "other" concept mentioned?

Randy
 
possible NG's contender?
 

Attachments

  • ng-fast_1.jpg
    ng-fast_1.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 296
  • 7834859_Process_for_recovering_a_spacecr.pdf
    58.7 KB · Views: 19
Nice touch on using twin fins to avoid the second stage rocket, but why does the first stage ship do a skip reentry? Energy bleedoff issues getting back to the launch site?
 
It's a good question, but probably because it makes sense to aerodynamically first brake and turn and then rocket propel yourself back. Even when you lose altitude while doing the first two.

The alternative would be to propulsively turn, brake and boost yourself back to the launch site, all while prettymuch at the staging altitude.
 
quellish said:
Part of Hangar 18 is storage for old projects, that section of the hangar is called "Dyson's Dock" and access is severely restricted. This is where TACIT BLUE lived for some time. TACIT BLUE was moved out and given to the AF museum because Dyson's Dock was well over capacity.
Hmmm, "Dyson's Dock" eh? Probably too much to hope for that part of the "storage" is a "Proof-Of-Concept" Orion-Boom!Boom! vehicle awaiting "propellant" I suppose? ;)

Randy
 
AvLeak from last year

USAF Plans For Reusable Booster Development

Apr 25, 2010
By Graham Warwick
Washington

Plans to begin technology development for a reusable booster system to replace its existing expendable launch vehicles beyond 2025 are being finalized by the U.S. Air Force.

With the Air Force facing escalating costs on the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, the new system offers the promise of cutting launch costs more than 50% by combining a reusable first stage with expendable upper stages. The booster would take off vertically and return to a runway landing at the launch site.

The next-generation Reusable Booster System (RBS) architecture is defined in a spacelift development plan now in the final stages of coordination within the Air Force.

“The plan will go up to Space Command within the next month or two,” says Ken Hampsten, head of spacelift for the Space and Missile Systems Center’s developmental planning division. “There is a very good business case for replacing the EELV,” he says.

The plan calls for replacing the Atlas V and Delta IV with two versions of the RBS: a single reusable first stage and expendable cryogenic upper stage for medium-lift missions; and two reusable boosters, cryogenic core stage and upper stage for heavy-lift and growth missions. Initial operational capability is set for 2025, with the EELVs being phased out in 2030 once the Air Force is comfortable relying on the RBS, he says.

“The EELV is rapidly escalating in cost,” says Hampsten, in part because of increased overhead resulting from the Obama administration’s decision to cancel development of NASA’s Ares I crew launch vehicle. “At lower flight rates, the RBS does very well,” he says. At the Air Force’s nominal rate of eight launches a year, “we get at least a 50% cost saving, and that’s before the cost growth now hitting us.” The business case is based on a 100-flight reusable booster life, with the engines being replaced after every 10 flights.

The first step in the spacelift plan is to begin technology development for the reusable booster, including demonstrators for the autonomous first stage and its liquid-oxygen/kerosene engines. The first of these is the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) RBS Pathfinder, planned to fly in 2013 to demonstrate the preferred “rocket-back” return-to-launch-site maneuver. This would be followed in 2016-17 by the RBX, a “moderately large-scale” demonstrator representative of the operational system.

Rocket-back was selected after extensive analyses that included unpowered glide-back and turbine-powered jet-back maneuvers. Using the main rocket engine to reverse the booster’s flight path allows staging at a higher Mach number than with glide-back, for a smaller upper stage, while the downrange distance and reentry velocity after the flip-over maneuver are lower than jet-back. This reduces the need for reusable thermal protection on the first stage, says Jeff Zweber, AFRL’s RBS Pathfinder program manager.

But pirouetting the winged vehicle 180 deg. involves extremely high angles of attack and slideslip, and the aerodynamic loads at high altitudes cannot be adequately measured in existing tunnels, so the Pathfinder is intended as a “wind tunnel in the sky,” Zweber says. AFRL plans to award three $1.5-million study contracts, then downselect to one team for a $28.5-million contract to build the demonstrator. The 15-ft.-long Pathfinder will be ground- or air-launched on three flights to test different rocket-back maneuvers.

The follow-on RBX flight demonstrator is expected to be 50-60 ft. long and “highly representative” of the operational unmanned, reusable booster, Hampsten says. Both subscale vehicles are expected to be powered by existing engines available from the entrepreneurial space industry, he says, while a parallel AFRL demonstration program, called Hydrocarbon Boost, will develop a large LOX/kerosene rocket engine for the full-size booster.

Cancellation of its Ares I may be helping drive up EELV costs, but NASA still plans to develop the heavy-lift Ares V and needs a large hydrocarbon rocket motor, so it has begun talks with the Air Force on joint development.

“NASA is coming into the picture,” says Hampsten. “We realize there is only enough money to develop one engine.”

From March 2011

Dayton Business Journal
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:46pm EDT

A new $250 million U.S. Air Force program to develop a reusable booster system for space flights has been launched from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Air Vehicles Directorate, which is based at Wright-Patt, issued the request for proposals on Monday.

Officials anticipate awarding up to three contracts for the project, where winners would compete for individual tasks of experiments and demonstrations that address technology, processes and other attributes of a reusable booster system, or RBS.

Air Force officials envision an RBS that includes a reusable rocket and an expendable upper stage rocket. The reusable rocket would be launched vertically and return, landing aircraft style on a runway, after carrying the space craft to a point where the expendable rocket could take over.

While there are not any Dayton-area businesses expected to land a prime contract role on the program, some local companies are expected to vie for subcontract work.

The deadline for proposals is May 19.

News surrounding rocket boosters has heated up recently.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that United Launch Alliance, the Colorado-based launch-services joint venture of Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) and Lockheed Martin Corp.(NYSE: LMT), will work with XCOR Aerospace Inc. on the development of lower-cost rocket booster engines.

The report said ULA plans to join with Mojave, Calif.-based XCOR to develop a new upper-stage engine for ULA’s Delta IV and Atlas 5 launchers.

ULA and XCOR, a privately held rocket-engine and spaceflight-development company, have partnered before on a variety of projects.
 
...The irony is that the Air Farce wouldn't be considering an RBS of any sort were the odds of a shooting war with either of the two Superpowers at Cold War levels. The simple fact being that an RBS makes no sense under such conditions; after all, once the balloon goes up and TOT has been achieved by all sides involved, what are the odds that there'll be a need to go pick up all those ICBMs. Much less anyone with time or ability to go out after them in the first place.
 
Er, this is a space launch system.

What's happening is that the EELV program (Atlas/Delta) has been going up in price lately, so the USAF wants to replace them with a partially reusable TSTO system which has a winged rocket powered booster stage flip over and land on a runway, while an expendable upper stages pushes a satellite to orbit.
 
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~lucian/resume.html

NG FAST 'Maintenance Concept'
 

Attachments

  • fast.jpg
    fast.jpg
    600 KB · Views: 560
RyanCrierie said:
Er, this is a space launch system.

What's happening is that the EELV program (Atlas/Delta) has been going up in price lately, so the USAF wants to replace them with a partially reusable TSTO system which has a winged rocket powered booster stage flip over and land on a runway, while an expendable upper stages pushes a satellite to orbit.

It's possible that RBS predates the EELV price increases by a little bit. RBS has apparently been studied in classified form for a couple of years now and only surfaced last year. The dramatic increases in EELV prices have only been public for about a year, but it is possible (maybe even likely) that some of the people behind RBS saw the trend lines long before the price increases became public. My suspicion is that RBS really comes out of some people at the USAF musing about eventually replacing EELV and was not directly inspired by the EELV cost increases, but that the cost increases gave them more traction.

Last week I was out at a NASA center and saw a couple of models of a 747 with a rocket on the back. There were two versions, both with wings. These were like Pegasus, but much bigger. You may hear more about them in the near future, but this is NASA, not USAF.
 
Here is a NASA powerpoint presentation or whatever on the RBS Concept from 7 DEC 2010:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110001377_2010047066.pdf

Single slide in that 11 MB presenation shows pretty much they are aiming at:
 

Attachments

  • RBS_01.jpg
    RBS_01.jpg
    110.8 KB · Views: 200
Recent papers:

Aerodynamic Loads and Controllability of a Winged Reusable Launch Vehicle During a Rocketback Maneuver H. L. Wilkin, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, and D. J. Hudson, N. Rajendran, R. L. Vernot, and M. Fairchild, Science Applications International Corporation, King of Prussia, PA

Comparison of Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis to Reusable Booster System Wind Tunnel Test C. Tyler, C. Boyer, and H. L. Wilkin, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
 
blackstar said:
Byeman said:
OM said:
...The irony is that the Air Farce

How childish to continue to use such sophomoric terms

Consider the source. I think you can safely ignore him.

...Same applies your way, D. Figured you couldn't just get along for long before reverting to old grievances. Shame.
 
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011SET/Thieman.pdf
 
[edit - deleted post - Admin]

You can't categorically state that it's impossible. Yes, ballistic missiles are one-shot items, but that doesn't mean you can't make a few modifications (maybe a stronger structure, some parachutes, and a landing cushion?) and turn them into reusable rockets (which would then by definition be derived from ballistic missiles). You will take some kind of performance hit from the extra weight, of course, but it may be possible.

This is even more true with liquid-fuel engines. If you're making a liquid-fueled ICBM, you don't deliberately design a reusable engine--but you don't deliberately design one that self-destructs after one run, either. It's very possible that you could use the engine over and over again if you just took the trouble not to throw it away. It's kind of like a 2-liter Coke bottle--they aren't designed to be reusable, but they can be reused if someone just takes the trouble to wash them out.

Does that make sense?
 
mr_london_247 said:
NG FAST 'Maintenance Concept'

Umhh... sounds familiar, like those (too much) optimistic artist concepts about Shuttle's maintenance in mid '70s.....
 
gtg947h said:
Yes, ballistic missiles are one-shot items, but that doesn't mean you can't make a few modifications (maybe a stronger structure, some parachutes, and a landing cushion?) and turn them into reusable rockets (which would then by definition be derived from ballistic missiles). You will take some kind of performance hit from the extra weight, of course, but it may be possible.

Possible, yes, but hardly likely to be sensible.


gtg947h said:
This is even more true with liquid-fuel engines. If you're making a liquid-fueled ICBM, you don't deliberately design a reusable engine--but you don't deliberately design one that self-destructs after one run, either.
Actually, you kinda do. With any rocket vehicle, weight is at a premium, so you shave as much off of it as you can. With a one-shot item, you tend to make it out of stuff that Just Barely Survives that one shot. The ignition system is almost certainly entirely consumed (especially true of a solid rocket), and the throat of the rocket engine is tore all to hell (*extremely* *especially* true for solids). Electrical power supplies have melted down, attitude control systems are burnt to a crisp. Stuff that survived the motor burn has melted, vaporized, burst into flames or been Born Again due to the heat soak finally getting through to them. Structures that survived to staging now have no need to survive any longer, so whatever thermal insulation or heat absorbing capability they have is now fully loaded, and everything is turning to garbage. Staging the second stage has sent shrapnel into the head end of the first stage; when the second stage fires up, it blast the bejeebers out of the first stage, along with sudden aerodynamic forces.
 
don't forget burning hydraulic fluid...

here how look a Blue Streak engine bay, after it made short test ignition
note de-coloration of metal and crispy burn isolation of the hydraulic line.
 

Attachments

  • Bluestreak.jpg
    Bluestreak.jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 466
Orionblamblam said:
Actually, you kinda do. With any rocket vehicle, weight is at a premium, so you shave as much off of it as you can. With a one-shot item, you tend to make it out of stuff that Just Barely Survives that one shot. The ignition system is almost certainly entirely consumed (especially true of a solid rocket), and the throat of the rocket engine is tore all to hell (*extremely* *especially* true for solids). Electrical power supplies have melted down, attitude control systems are burnt to a crisp. Stuff that survived the motor burn has melted, vaporized, burst into flames or been Born Again due to the heat soak finally getting through to them. Structures that survived to staging now have no need to survive any longer, so whatever thermal insulation or heat absorbing capability they have is now fully loaded, and everything is turning to garbage. Staging the second stage has sent shrapnel into the head end of the first stage; when the second stage fires up, it blast the bejeebers out of the first stage, along with sudden aerodynamic forces.

Yep. I seem to recall one of the early THAAD failures was due to an attitude nozzle burn through. They'd figured the nozzle would have to be good for X number of seconds, but because of an error of some sort early in the flight it put the KKV slightly out of position and one of the nozzles had to be active longer than designed for.
 
Sort of like the old adage about racing engines -- the perfect one lasts 500 miles plus one car length.


Back on topic, while much of Mulready's discussion of the SSME competition has an, albeit well-earned, emotional element, he noted Rocketdyne's engineering culture was oriented towards expendables and as Scott said, once it's staged, who cares? As late as 1979 they were blowing up test stands with regularity, and they needed a cultural transition to begin addressing the problems of reusable staged-combustion engines.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Actually, you kinda do. With any rocket vehicle, weight is at a premium, so you shave as much off of it as you can. With a one-shot item, you tend to make it out of stuff that Just Barely Survives that one shot. The ignition system is almost certainly entirely consumed (especially true of a solid rocket), and the throat of the rocket engine is tore all to hell (*extremely* *especially* true for solids). Electrical power supplies have melted down, attitude control systems are burnt to a crisp. Stuff that survived the motor burn has melted, vaporized, burst into flames or been Born Again due to the heat soak finally getting through to them. Structures that survived to staging now have no need to survive any longer, so whatever thermal insulation or heat absorbing capability they have is now fully loaded, and everything is turning to garbage. Staging the second stage has sent shrapnel into the head end of the first stage; when the second stage fires up, it blast the bejeebers out of the first stage, along with sudden aerodynamic forces.

...This somehow begs the question: although we've got test stand examples, have any of the F-1 or J-2's that were flown ever recovered for analysis? IIRC, as of the last time I recall this question being asked on .history - about 7-8 years ago? - the answer was no.
 
OM said:
...This somehow begs the question: although we've got test stand examples, have any of the F-1 or J-2's that were flown ever recovered for analysis?

Not that I'm aware of. F-1's would survive to splashdown, but I'd image J-2's would be largely trashed on re-entry. Of course, I believe the S-IC would tend to orient tail-first, so the F-1's would get mashed flat on impact.
 
Orionblamblam said:
OM said:
...This somehow begs the question: although we've got test stand examples, have any of the F-1 or J-2's that were flown ever recovered for analysis?

Not that I'm aware of. F-1's would survive to splashdown, but I'd image J-2's would be largely trashed on re-entry. Of course, I believe the S-IC would tend to orient tail-first, so the F-1's would get mashed flat on impact.

...See, that's what Henry and a couple other .history regulars claimed when this topic came up quite a few years ago. IIRC, Henry cited that Langley had done some wind tunnel tests on a S-IC scale model - films of which sadly have *not* made it to YouTube among the dozens that have shown up lately - and the model did orient tail first. What conbefuddles me is that with those allegedly unnecessary fins *and* from my own experiences with grade school experiments in aerodynamics with paper cups, I'm still a bit clueless - shaddap, D! - about *why* the S-IC would tend to reenter and land butt-first.

[sigh] I spent yesterday giving history lessons on various topics in various threads *and* went over Brother Dim's lecture notes, as he's dealing with Space History next week in his teaching position. Guess I shouldn't be ashamed to ask for a bit of history for myself... :eek: :eek:
 
The S-1C falling after staging would be empty or almost empty and the forward motion would have been reduced by events during staging. Wouldn't those five engines and associated plumbing be the heaviest part of the stage in that condition?
 
It would be interesting to see the condition of an S-IC, its F-1s, power heads, etc. after 40 briny years on the ocean floor - not for analysis - just for curiosity, some pictures, and perhaps artifact recovery. Shouldn't cost that much (But would anyone finance a dive to see a bunch of salty smashed metal?). Dives are made to ship-wrecks all the time... of course, for a sea bottom Saturn that would be... up-ship wreck.
 
aerodog said:
It would be interesting to see the condition of an S-IC, its F-1s, power heads, etc. after 40 briny years on the ocean floor - not for analysis - just for curiosity, some pictures, and perhaps artifact recovery. Shouldn't cost that much (But would anyone finance a dive to see a bunch of salty smashed metal?). Dives are made to ship-wrecks all the time... of course, for a sea bottom Saturn that would be... up-ship wreck.

Curt Newport, who found Grissom's Mercury capsule, expressed interest in trying to recover an S-IC stage, but never got the funding.
 
blackstar said:
aerodog said:
It would be interesting to see the condition of an S-IC, its F-1s, power heads, etc. after 40 briny years on the ocean floor - not for analysis - just for curiosity, some pictures, and perhaps artifact recovery. Shouldn't cost that much (But would anyone finance a dive to see a bunch of salty smashed metal?). Dives are made to ship-wrecks all the time... of course, for a sea bottom Saturn that would be... up-ship wreck.

Curt Newport, who found Grissom's Mercury capsule, expressed interest in trying to recover an S-IC stage, but never got the funding.

...IIRC, from what Curt was telling us on .history not long after he'd found LB-7, was that he was "fairly certain" of the final resting spots for at least two S-IC stages, and considering he was as "fairly certain" about where Liberty Bell 7 was, quite a few of us were in hopes some of the revenue taken in from displaying the recovered Mercury could be diverted into an S-IC recovery attempt. Obviously that didn't happen, but I *still* owe Curt lunch for gracing us with his presence and time back in those days.

....And on that note...Overscan? I may have to dig up the disk out of the boxes from the unexpected move, but I've got quite a few pictures from the JSC display of LB-7. You interested in me posting them here if I can find the damn things?
 
blackstar said:
Last week I was out at a NASA center and saw a couple of models of a 747 with a rocket on the back. There were two versions, both with wings. These were like Pegasus, but much bigger. You may hear more about them in the near future, but this is NASA, not USAF.
Missed this somehow before but what you saw was probably related to this new study on Horizontal Launch:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015353_2011016245.pdf

Thread at NSF about it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26812.0

Randy
 
Three in AFRL's Reusable Booster Contest: The Air Force Research Lab has chosen Andrews Space of Seattle and Boeing—in addition to Lockheed Martin—to pursue a Reusable Space Booster system to revolutionize future spacelift. We reported on Lockheed's contract award in Tuesday's column. Andrews and Boeing subsequently issued statements outlining their own work. Like Lockheed, each of the two companies initially will mature its RBS concept under a $2 million task order. "We are honored that the USAF has selected Andrews for this important effort," said Jason Andrews, company president and CEO in a release. "Boeing looks forward to sharing our extensive background in the development of launch systems and reusable space vehicles with the Air Force," said Steve Johnston, director of advanced space exploration, in his company's release. The three companies are competing to see which one will advance to a flight demonstration of a sub-scale vehicle known as the RBS Pathfinder in 2015 that will pave the way for the RBS operational architecture.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • awst_2012_04_23_rbs_1.jpg
    awst_2012_04_23_rbs_1.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 270
  • awst_2012_04_23_rbs_2_.jpg
    awst_2012_04_23_rbs_2_.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 232
  • MSF12-0046-01_Reusable+Booster+System_small.jpg
    MSF12-0046-01_Reusable+Booster+System_small.jpg
    151.3 KB · Views: 199
  • Reusable Boost Aviation Week Article Apr 19 2010.pdf
    736.7 KB · Views: 13
I wonder if any concepts similar to MDAC's Toss-Back Booster were studied for this.
 
No, because the RBS was turning out to be too expensive:


Among the criticisms leveled by the NRC report, was the fact that the Air Force failed to make a business case for the program, and in particular based projected cost savings against current EELV’s operated by United Launch Alliance, without taking into account the fact that other companies, SpaceX and Stratolaunch (carrying a SpaceX booster) could offer substantially lower prices than the current baseline, and thus undercut the case for the new program.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom