Retro designs

[David Findlay]

Maybe a shift to more retro style shuttle designs is in order? Something
more like those 1950's movies?

How about an SSTO that is VTVL, has a heat sheild at the bottom and landing
gear and engines that retract into the sides of the vehicle when
appropiate? This way there are no openings in the critical portion of the
shield.

David

[Alan Erskine]

"David Findlay" > wrote in message
. au...
> Maybe a shift to more retro style shuttle designs is in order? Something
> more like those 1950's movies?
>
> How about an SSTO that is VTVL, has a heat sheild at the bottom and
landing
> gear and engines that retract into the sides of the vehicle when
> appropiate? This way there are no openings in the critical portion of the
> shield.
>
> David

Two words for you, David: Delta Clipper.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[Alan Erskine]

"David Findlay" > wrote in message
. au...
> Maybe a shift to more retro style shuttle designs is in order? Something
> more like those 1950's movies?
>
> How about an SSTO that is VTVL, has a heat sheild at the bottom and
landing
> gear and engines that retract into the sides of the vehicle when
> appropiate? This way there are no openings in the critical portion of the
> shield.
>
> David

Two words for you, David: Delta Clipper.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.

[rschmitt23]

Actually, there was a VTVL (aka VTOVL) version of the shuttle studied by
NASA during Phase A of the original shuttle program in 1969-70. Chrysler
(the contractor for the first stage of von Braun's Saturn I/IB vehicles) got
a NASA contract and produced a design for a VTOVL vehicle called the
*Single-stage Earth-orbital Reusable Vehicle* (SERV). Marcus Lindroos has
rescued this turkey from the historical dumpster and you can find info on it
at his website:

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld034.htm

NASA gave Chrysler this $750K study contract partially to keep that company
involved in manned spaceflight (since the Nixon Administration had pulled
the plug on von Braun's Saturn IB and Saturn V vehicles in late 1969 after
the success of Apollo 11) and partially as window-dressing to satisfy the
SSTO advocates. These folks were loudly objecting that NASA's conceptual
design work for the shuttle was too strongly slanted towards the large
2-stage VTOHL fully reusable shuttle, the one with the humongous winged
flyback booster, and that competing SSTO designs were being unfairly
treated.

NASA, of course, had no interest either in VTOVL vehicles or SSTOs while
shuttle Phase A and B work was going on in 1969 thru 1971. We eventually got
the partially reusable VTOHL shuttle with the large ET and strap-on SRBs, a
design that has turned out to be hazardous to the health of the astronauts.

Fast forward to 1995 and the X-33 preliminary design. McDonnell Douglas was
pushing VTOVL in the form of an enlarged version of its DC-XA. (BTW, I was
involved at McDonnell Douglas with the X-33 technology support effort at
that time, specifically on developing and testing the carbon/silicon carbide
(C/SiC) material that we intended to use on the successor to X-33 instead of
reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC), the stuff that was damaged during STS-107).
This turned out to be a losing proposition for us. Twenty-five years had
passed since the days of SERV. NASA had changed its mind about SSTOs and
decided that this should be the X-33 baseline. But NASA had not changed its
mind about VTOVL designs as replacements for its VTOHL shuttle. No surprise
that Lockmart's VTOHL design won the X-33 competition in July 1996.
Unfortunately, the Skunk Works turned the X-33 effort into a royal screwup,
but that's another story.

Later
Ray Schmitt



"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> "David Findlay" > wrote in message
> . au...
> > Maybe a shift to more retro style shuttle designs is in order? Something
> > more like those 1950's movies?
> >
> > How about an SSTO that is VTVL, has a heat sheild at the bottom and
> landing
> > gear and engines that retract into the sides of the vehicle when
> > appropiate? This way there are no openings in the critical portion of
the
> > shield.
> >
> > David
>
> Two words for you, David: Delta Clipper.
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
>
> Trial or release, Mr Bush, trial or release.
>
>
>
>

[David Findlay]

> Two words for you, David: Delta Clipper.

Well that's somewhat like what I was thinking. I understand that would
reenter forwards though, not backwards? Thanks,

David

[David Findlay]

> http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld034.htm

Very cool. Thanks.

> SSTO advocates. These folks were loudly objecting that NASA's conceptual
> design work for the shuttle was too strongly slanted towards the large
> 2-stage VTOHL fully reusable shuttle, the one with the humongous winged
> flyback booster, and that competing SSTO designs were being unfairly
> treated.

> Twenty-five years had passed since the days of SERV. NASA had changed its
> mind about SSTOs and decided that this should be the X-33 baseline. But
> NASA had not changed its mind about VTOVL designs as replacements for its
> VTOHL shuttle. No surprise that Lockmart's VTOHL design won the X-33
> competition in July 1996.

What is it at NASA that is so against VTVL? With a VTVL craft you can take
off and land anywhere.

David

[Chuck Stewart]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:12:56 +1000, David Findlay wrote:

> What is it at NASA that is so against VTVL? With a VTVL craft you can take
> off and land anywhere.

I dunno how NASA sees it, but one good argument against
it has been the fact that the -VL part of VTVL requires
hauling the fuel for landing all the way to orbit... and
back...

Roton would have reduced this via large aerofoils, but
all other VTVL designs I can recall at the moment
incurred a landing fuel penalty.

A nuclear air-breather could help here... :)

> David

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just designing
nuclear scramjet's... ?"

[rschmitt23]

Carrying enough liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen propellant for landing is a
problem if you want a VTOVL vehicle to be able to fly 14-16 day missions
like the present shuttle does ( it's a boiloff problem requiring additional
tank insulation and increased vehicle weight). And without a wing on the
VTOVL vehicle, you are betting the vehicle and crew on being able to start
the engines reliably at low altitudes during the final stages of the
descent. If the engines don't light, NASA has another bad day. These are two
of the problems that NASA has with VTOVLs.

Of course, this last quibble didn't stop the space agency from using an
inverted version of VTOVL, i.e. VLVTO, with the Apollo Lunar Module with
100% success. However, since there are very few suitable runways on the
lunar surface, it was a no-brainer to choose VLVTO for the LM rather than
HLHTO.

Later
Ray Schmitt


"David Findlay" > wrote in message
. au...
> > http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld034.htm
>
> Very cool. Thanks.
>
> > SSTO advocates. These folks were loudly objecting that NASA's
conceptual
> > design work for the shuttle was too strongly slanted towards the large
> > 2-stage VTOHL fully reusable shuttle, the one with the humongous winged
> > flyback booster, and that competing SSTO designs were being unfairly
> > treated.
>
> > Twenty-five years had passed since the days of SERV. NASA had changed
its
> > mind about SSTOs and decided that this should be the X-33 baseline. But
> > NASA had not changed its mind about VTOVL designs as replacements for
its
> > VTOHL shuttle. No surprise that Lockmart's VTOHL design won the X-33
> > competition in July 1996.
>
> What is it at NASA that is so against VTVL? With a VTVL craft you can take
> off and land anywhere.
>
> David

[David Findlay]

> I dunno how NASA sees it, but one good argument against
> it has been the fact that the -VL part of VTVL requires
> hauling the fuel for landing all the way to orbit... and
> back...

The fuel load is a hell of a lot less than launch fuel though. The drag the
design when going backwards would do a lot to slow it down.

> A nuclear air-breather could help here... :)

Well actually my first thought would have been a fusion drive, but they're
not yet available, at least in Australia. :-) Thanks,

David

[David Findlay]

rschmitt23 wrote:
> Carrying enough liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen propellant for landing is a
> problem if you want a VTOVL vehicle to be able to fly 14-16 day missions
> like the present shuttle does ( it's a boiloff problem requiring
> additional tank insulation and increased vehicle weight).

I think rather than additional heavy insulation, have a seperate smaller
tanks to hold the fuel for landing. It could even be non-cryogenic. LH2/LOX
for liftoff and Kero/H2O2 for landing maybe? I can't see why a dual fuel
aerospike engine couldn't be built. Just requires a good nitrogen flush
when you arrive on orbit. Catalyse the H2O2 just before it's pushed into
the oxidiser injection system.

> And without a
> wing on the VTOVL vehicle, you are betting the vehicle and crew on being
> able to start the engines reliably at low altitudes during the final
> stages of the descent. If the engines don't light, NASA has another bad
> day. These are two of the problems that NASA has with VTOVLs.

I can't remember the last time engines didn't light. They're usually pretty
reliable. I'd envision an initial test burn at high altitude to ensure the
engines are operational before you get down low. Combined with lots of
sensory equipment and artificial intelligence computer monitoring of engine
data I think you could be pretty certain before you got to low of whether
they were going to light. If not, bail out. Thanks,

David

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message <USqfb.12363$gi2.1861@fed1read01>, rschmitt23
> writes
>
>Of course, this last quibble didn't stop the space agency from using an
>inverted version of VTOVL, i.e. VLVTO, with the Apollo Lunar Module with
>100% success. However, since there are very few suitable runways on the
>lunar surface, it was a no-brainer to choose VLVTO for the LM rather than
>HLHTO.

Didn't one of the early designs call for horizontal landing?
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

[Derek Lyons]

David Findlay > wrote:

>> I dunno how NASA sees it, but one good argument against
>> it has been the fact that the -VL part of VTVL requires
>> hauling the fuel for landing all the way to orbit... and
>> back...
>
>The fuel load is a hell of a lot less than launch fuel though. The drag the
>design when going backwards would do a lot to slow it down.

The problem is, the drag drops considerably as speed does. Gravity
ensures fairly high terminal velocity, which means a lot of fuel to
drop the speed to something reasonable.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[jeff findley]

David Findlay > writes:
>
> Maybe a shift to more retro style shuttle designs is in order? Something
> more like those 1950's movies?
>
> How about an SSTO that is VTVL, has a heat sheild at the bottom and landing
> gear and engines that retract into the sides of the vehicle when
> appropiate? This way there are no openings in the critical portion of the
> shield.

You mean something that looks like the DC-X, or its proposed
follow-on, the Delta Clipper? Note that this isn't quite retro 50's,
more like retro 90's. Do a little web searching, or better yet,
search periodicals at a library and you'll find lots of info about
this beast.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.