A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old December 22nd 03, 09:50 AM
Oren Tirosh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
...
different stresses, etc. - but in general, which of these approaches
requires you to carry more extra weight on launch?


Not true. You are making assumtions before looking at all options.

There is at least one design that after doing a ballistic reentry comes to a
stop a couple of hundred feet above sea level because the base design is
light than air once all the fuel is used. How do you define dead weight in
that context?

Someone has suggested mid-air capture as a recovery mode.

Then there is my 'as crazy as a loon' idea of a wheeled lanuch sled that also
is used for the landing phase.

The fact is the range of possible designs has barely been explored.


The following two fall somewhere in between gliding and powered
recovery:

Rotor recovery a la roton
Peter Lynn's Tethered free-flying wings concept
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...le.snap.net.nz
  #3  
Old December 22nd 03, 09:50 AM
Oren Tirosh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
...
different stresses, etc. - but in general, which of these approaches
requires you to carry more extra weight on launch?


Not true. You are making assumtions before looking at all options.

There is at least one design that after doing a ballistic reentry comes to a
stop a couple of hundred feet above sea level because the base design is
light than air once all the fuel is used. How do you define dead weight in
that context?

Someone has suggested mid-air capture as a recovery mode.

Then there is my 'as crazy as a loon' idea of a wheeled lanuch sled that also
is used for the landing phase.

The fact is the range of possible designs has barely been explored.


The following two fall somewhere in between gliding and powered
recovery:

Rotor recovery a la roton
Peter Lynn's Tethered free-flying wings concept
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...le.snap.net.nz
  #4  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:33 PM
David Shannon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of
landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at 5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!
  #5  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:33 PM
David Shannon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of
landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at 5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!
  #6  
Old December 22nd 03, 11:47 PM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

(David Shannon) wrote in message . com...
but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of
landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at 5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!


I suspect that the propellants required for even a sporty vertical
landing are more than a parachute (about 5 percent of the landing mass).
Wings designed for reentry and landing--not exit at gross mass--
can, IMO, be competitive with vertical landing propellants in a
1-g gravity field and 1 atmosphere air density.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(replace x with len) ( http://www.tour2space.com )
  #7  
Old December 22nd 03, 11:47 PM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

(David Shannon) wrote in message . com...
but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of
landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at 5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!


I suspect that the propellants required for even a sporty vertical
landing are more than a parachute (about 5 percent of the landing mass).
Wings designed for reentry and landing--not exit at gross mass--
can, IMO, be competitive with vertical landing propellants in a
1-g gravity field and 1 atmosphere air density.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(replace x with len) ( http://www.tour2space.com )
  #8  
Old December 23rd 03, 01:42 AM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

(David Shannon) :

but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more

extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of


landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the
lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at
5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!


Extra data point, Armadillo AeroSpace is now considering using powered
landing instead of a parachute because of the smaller landing footprint. The
footprint size is affecting getting insurance, the smaller the footprint the
more confident the insuring company is that you will not land accidentally on
top of someone at random.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #9  
Old December 23rd 03, 01:42 AM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Powered vs gliding reentry - weight penalty

(David Shannon) :

but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more

extra
weight on launch?


For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of


landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the
lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at
5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!


Extra data point, Armadillo AeroSpace is now considering using powered
landing instead of a parachute because of the smaller landing footprint. The
footprint size is affecting getting insurance, the smaller the footprint the
more confident the insuring company is that you will not land accidentally on
top of someone at random.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jet Powered Parafoil for Airlaunch Vincent Cate Technology 3 October 19th 03 02:48 AM
Orbital Reentry shield/landing system? Ian Woollard Technology 14 October 3rd 03 10:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.