DynaSoar spaceplane

[Lord Darth Beavis]

Great concepts, Archie, but for one teeny, tiny little problem...NASA, like most US Gummint programs suffers from the Not Invented Here syndrome, and I fear it will eventually be the downfall of our space program, not to mention most of the defense industries in this country.

Keep dreaming, though.  Hopefully some of those dreams will make their way into a NASA boss's head (not bloody likely, though!).

[elmayerle]

*chuckle* That's one of the best things about JSF, they've very deliberately trashed the NIH attitude and are quite open to good ideas from anywhere.  For instance, I can name one component that combines ideas from drag racing transmissions and high performance aircraft brakes.

[Archibald]

Not Invented Here syndrome... What's this illness exactly??? ( I know NASA is ill from the beginning of the space shuttle era...)
I'm very interested in Kistler K-1 rocket in think it could be a good idea for recovering a rocket quite simply (Parachutes and AIRBAGS... why noone thought about this solution before?). The trouble with Kistler is its weak payload to orbit (4500kg in LEO). It's because they use old russian rocket engines (NK-33 and NK-45 from the disastrous N-1!), and also because there's no boosters.
To boost LEO payload, we need better engines and boosters ok?
Concerning russians engines, they made much better things than the NK-33 : the RD-701 I mentionned is a fantastic engine (powerful, tripropellant and reusable)
concerning boosters, reusable flyback boosters projects have been well studied. The most advanced concepts are
- Krounitchev Baikal
- Hu Davis StarBooster
I just think a fully reusable launcher could be made, starting from the Kistler K-1 reusable core (parachutes and airbags) with  RD-701 engines + Starboosters (or Baikal)  to augment LEO payload... Such a launcher could have a LEO payload equivalent to Ariane V or Atlas V, but at the same time IT IS REUSABLE quite simply (Starboosters came back to the lauch site flying like UCAV, Kistler K-1 stages with airbags and parachutes)
Just for fun : do you think i can send this project to NASA ?
More seriously, I really want to know if my concept is flawed from a technical point of view
I explain this concenpt more in details here  http://starmaks.populus.org/rub/1

[elmayerle]

Not Invented Here Syndrome - a pathological management (generally) behavior consisting of refusing to consider ideas and approaches that were not conceived by the organization (company, agency, etc.) of the manager.

This syndrome is all together too prevalent in business and government.  It explains the reluctance with which all too many good ideas, first developed by others, are resisted.

There is a converse syndrome, the Not Invented Elsewhere Syndrome wherein management will only consider radical new ideas from outside the company even if the same idea has been suggested internally before.  The only company I've ever seen exhibit this syndrome was Gates Learjet Corporation and it's been two decades or more, now, since Gates owned Learjet.

[Archibald]

So elmayerle if I understand well, there's no chance NASA adopt Kistler or Starbooster ideas, because they were not invented by NASA...     this is a dogmatic point of view... thanks for your explanations!  

[Archibald]

In May 1973 Skylab 1 was launched by Saturn V 513. After having launch this first station, Nasa had a brilliant idea: joining the two skylab. to do that, Skylab was modified with a multiple docking system. this system had four ports; first was for docking with Skylab 1, second for the future spaceships, and the two others for future modules.
After Skylab 1, the multiple join modul (MJM) was launched by a titan III in march 1974. It docked to skylab 1 automaticaly. After that, in may 1974 Skylab II was launched by Saturn 515. The two station once again docked, forming an enormous complex of 160 tons. Three days later on 16th May 1974 CSM-102 was launched with Shirra, Slayton and Young. They docked and stay 4 months. Others CSM followed in 1975, in paralel with the ATSP mission. During this mission and the Helsinki meeting, NASA proposed the european and Russians improving the Skylab complex. To do that, a program was set up
- The last Saturn V, number 514 would be used to lauch a huge module name Cosmos international. This module would be made by the Europeans, russians and Americans. Wheiging 95 tons, it carried a huge internal volume to the skylab complex.
- The Russian were invited to dock a Saliout space station to this huge complex, adding 20 tons.
cosmos international was launched in February 1977, and Saliout 6I (International) in march 1978.
A huge space station was now orbiting earth; the soviets partially replaced the soyuz by the TKS from 1980. The last apollo CSM (number 119) was launched in 1977. At the time, DynaSoars were flying for two years but NASA liked its apollo capsules.  

[RLBH]

Archie,

Since the thrust of the StarKistler at liftoff is comprised of that from two StarBooster 200 flyback stages and one modified Kistler K-1 main stage, the most economical option is to replace the three NK-33 engines of the basic Kistler with one RD-701, with a small loss in thrust; this is easily made up by the additional thrust of the two RD-180 engines on the StarBooster stages.

A straight replacement of three NK-33 engines with one RD-701 engine, maintaining the same fuel volume, gives a first stage of the following characteristics, dubbed the Kistler/701:

Dry Mass*: 26,091 kg
Gross Mass: 178,705 kg
Burn Time: 328 seconds
Specific Impulse: 415 seconds in vacuo

* Dry Mass includes propellants for return of stage to launch site.

This stage would be slightly longer than the basic Kistler K-1 first stage, due to the requirement for three fuel tanks rather than two, but is slightly lighter overall, assuming that the same tankage mass ration can be maintained. This is highly unlikely, but will suffice for the purposes of this evaluation. The StarBooster 200 and Kistler K-2 upper stages are assumed to be identical to those proposed by the firms in question.

The basic stack assumed consists of two StarBooster 200 stages in parallel with a Kistler/701, with a Kistler K-1 upper stage serially mounted on top of the Kistler/701. This stack will operate to low earth orbit with a Dynasoar spacecraft of total mass 7,565 kg including propellants.

Assuming that gravitational and aerodynamic forces result in 5% velocity losses averaged out through a launch, this provides for the following payload conditions:

185 km altitude circular orbit: 13,630 kg exclusive of Dynasoar
Geostationary Transfer Orbit: 2,195 kg

Clearly, no Dynasoar can be launched onto a geostationary transfer orbit by this booster in its' basic form. It is, however, possible to upgrade the booster by adding further StarBooster parallel stages and by adding a further, expendable, upper stage.

If the StarKistler is used as a dedicated heavy-lift launch vehicle, without the Dynasoar orbiter but with two additional StarBooster 200 flyback boosters and the Ariane 5 ESC B upper stage, the following can be achieved:

185 km altitude circular orbit: 44,790 kg
Geostationary Transfer Orbit: 18,670 kg

The capacity to carry out this mission would require little further development beyond the basic StarKistler design, and potentially offers a multinational reusable heavy lifter in a comparatively short timeframe as compared to a from-scratch design. Were the StarKistler to be developed, such a vehicle would be a logical addition.

All analyses have been based on the assumption that the launch site would be located exactly on the equator, and do not take into account the mass of any shroud required by the payload. In actual operation, neither of these would be satisfied, and the payload would have to be reduced.

The results of the analysis do, however, suggest that the StarKistler reusable launch vehicle would be a viable booster for the NASA Dynasoar program.

This analysis has used data from Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia Astronautica (www.astronautix.com). Calculations were carried out in Microsoft EXCEL using formulae from Robert Braeunig's Rocket and Space Technology page on Orbital Mechanics (http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm).

I hope this has answered your question about the feasibility of the StarKistler concept. If you have further questions, or wish me to investigate other arrangements, just ask.

Robert

[Archibald]

Ok thank you very much! To be honest with you, I don't give a damn about DynaSoar. The main important thing for me is knowing that
- the concept would be feasible
- its payload
I ask you other question : do you think there's drawbacks combining the basic Kistler concept (ie parachutes/ airbags) and Starbooster? And is this launcher  really fully reusable?
I know Kistler and Starbooster are in difficulties so this launcher project is  (sadly) hypothetical.
So if this concept seems good (not flawed I hope , because I'm not a specialist!!) I'd like to see it spread on the web (once again, to see if it flawed or not)
Well, I red much thing about reusable space vehicles and these three options (Tripropellant, Flyback Booster and Parachutes/airbags) seems good.
So, why not combining the three to have this damned fully reusable launch vehicle we have wait  for so much years... ?
Nice to see someone backing this idea which turn into my head for some months now...
PS I explain it a bit further here http://starmaks.populus.org/rub/1

[RLBH]

As regards the recovery methods, I have doubts about the feasibility of Kistler's airbag system. Far easier, to my mind, is an oceanic splashdown. OK, so you'll need ships to recover it, but (if we're talking NASA here) the ships already exist, and diesel is an awful lot cheaper than RP-1, LH2 or LOX are.

What waterborne recovery does for you is means that the entire fuel mass can be given over to accelerating the upper stage and payload, giving you something like (wild-donkey guess here) 10% more payload for only the cost of operating the recovery ships. And, of course, water is far more prone to giving way when things hit than rocks, so at least some parts may be recoverable if the parachutes don't perform as advertised.

StarBooster, I think, is pretty doable, and is suitable to its' purpose. You get a controllable strap-on booster stage, which no present launcher has, but is nothing difficult to do. The recovery system is a UAV - which there are years of experience with. So, yes, it's pretty good for booster applications.

My major concern is the use of LH2 in the tripropellant engines. It gives pretty good performance, yes, and the tripropellant system largely overcomes the density issue, but LH2 is expensive. As in, $3.60 per kilogram, as compared to $0.20 for LOX. That sort of pricing puts customers right off; the successful commercial boosters only use hydrogen on the highest stages.

Not to say that the StarKistler is infeasible; it could certainly be done, and it's a far better idea than some things taken seriously in the various space programs (SSTO, anyone?). It's just not the way I'd get into space cheaply.

[Madoc]

Kistler?  StarKistler?  Dynasoar?

Boys, boys, boys... if it be heavy lift you're talkin' about then, lads, don't be to messin' around w' the wee stuff now, eh!

Instead, boyos, cast your eyes upon the true heavy lifter o' them all.

Aye, that's the thing.  

The Sea Dragon

450,000 kg of payload boyos!  That's 1.2 million pounds in real weight!  And they would've built the thing in a _shipyard!_

Nothing would've come close to it!

Except, of course, an Orion.  Ah, but there's a horse o' a different color there!

Madoc

[Archibald]

Not to say that the StarKistler is infeasible; it could certainly be done, and it's a far better idea than some things taken seriously in the various space programs (SSTO, anyone?)
Thank you very much!

Recovery at sea is not so easy. Salt attack structures, and falling too high on water is like falling on the ground -ie harsh and destructive-
NASA is now clearly dispointed about recovery at sea. Shuttle SRB are not reuse (or only some parts of them)
Ok, NASA boat exists... but they are not availble for private firms. Imean, if aprivate launch firm must built a boat, pay sailors and recovery team and the last, this add costs. Kistler idea is not only airbags; it is also "using some fuel to send the stages to the launch site". Iunderstand what you say about the fuel for that; that's right it's a waste.
Its much easy to recover a stage on land three kilometers from the launch pad with a simple crane and a truck than making 2500kms by boat, taking the stage out of the water (in a storm case, the stage can sunk... and you lose money!), go back to the coast.
Why not combining the two? no fuel for return to launch site, but landing on the ground with airbags, not in the ocean. Concerning airbags, I'm astonished that they could resist Mars landings. I mean, parachute don't brake much (Mars atmosphere is too thin) so the probe arrive at full speed; mars grounds is full of rocks; so the airbags duty is hard. But apparently they resist quite well... I admit, a big rocket stage is much heavier than a Mars probe.  
What i like with airbags is
- they complete parachutes much better than the water of the ocean
- they are much, much lighter than an enormous "plane structure" for a big rocket stage.
In starbooster, the "plane structure" is acceptable because
- its a booster, so it doesn't fly too high and too quick
- as a booster, size and weight are not too big
so the booster is not bigger than UAV or Cruise missiles currently flying today.  

[Archibald]

Well in fact there's a raging debate between the three ideas
- recovery at sea with parachutes
- recovery on land near the launch pad with airbags and parachutes
- recovery on an airport like a plane
- no recovery at all!!!
It's hard to say what option is better... Airbags are a new way of recovery, combined with some fuel in the stages to send them back to the launch site.

[RLBH]

Actually, my personal preference is for the "Big Dumb Booster" idea. HTP/kerosene propellants, build the sucker in a shipyard, launch once and throw away. Since there's no need for reuse, you can get away with really low tolerances on most components, which is cheaper. Kerosene is as cheap as dirt (by rocketry standards) and using HTP as an oxidiser gives you a storable combination that's no more awkward than hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

It's also relatively environmentally friendly, considering that any option will be based around producing huge amounts of polluting fumes. At least carbon dioxide and water don't normally dissolve the spectators.

I've come up with a range of launchers along these lines, with a LOX/RP-1 upper stage for slightly higher performance; the cheapest option per unit mass offers 26,290 kilograms to low earth orbit for just $1,370 per kilogram; the most expensive, 8,530 kg for $2,245 per kilogram. The Russian Proton, currently the cheapest launcher on the market, delivers 21,000 kilograms to low orbit at a cost of approximately $3,335 per kilogram.

I'd forgotten that the airbag system was used on Mars, so I suppose there is the precedent, and it did work. There again, a 600 kilogram probe doesn't quite compare with a 18,000 kilogram rocket stage, especially not in three times the gravity. Methinks this would need some large-scale trials before becoming operational. If the trajectory and/or launch site are chosen appropriately, it's certainly possible to recover downrange on land; in fact, the Russians designed the Zenit first stage to do this without airbags.

If we're going to do this, and can find a few investors, might I suggest a launch site somewhere like the Canaries, so that we've got the entire Sahara Desert downrange to hit. In fact, I think you can launch on almost any azimuth if you don't mind throwing away the stages.

[Archibald]

I like too the idea of the big dumb booster. This mean that there's no turbopump to force the propellants in the engine no? To obtain that  propellants must be under pression on the tanks, Ie the tanks must be thick like walls.
Its a cheap and powerfull idea. aparently it was one of the idea studied by NASA for the shuttle in 1971-1972, along with Saturn V S-1B and the f...astidious SRBs. They discovered that the strength of the tanks make them easy to recover at sea (Ie they were very robust and can't sunk!)
Cocerning the airbags, the rocket stage is of course much heavier but in comparison to Mars the Earth atmospher is much thicker so the Parachutes are much more efficient. This mean much less violent shock for the airbags... in fact Airbags were used instead of retrorockets because they use no fuel. In every case the parachutes were not efficient on Mars...
I heard that the whole Energia launcher was recoverable by parachutes, not only the Zeniths. aparently there was also retrorockets (which mean more fuel and weight penalty, so they are not interesting)

Before imagining the StarKistler I spend some months downloading hundreds of pages on RLV. I tried to  make a kind of classification of RLV concepts from an engine, number of stage point of view.  The result of this work is on my website... (I must traduce it in english lol)
On one hand, SSTO; on the other hand, TSTO...  

[elmayerle]

I tend to like the 1-1/2 stage to orbit concept of the Black Horse/Black Colt series of studies wherein the orbiter uses a couple high-performance jet engines and a Kero/Lox rocket engine.  The orbiter takes off like a normal aircraft on jet engines with a full fuel load but no LOx; it takes that onboard from a "tanker" aircraft (that condenses it as it goes) via standard inflight refueling methods and then climbw to orbit.  It returns and lands like a standard aircraft.