|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SEI Quicksat booster
This is a really interesting design for a two-stage-to-orbit reusable
light satellite booster/transatmospheric hypersonic attack aircraft. At only 123 feet in length and capable of reaching Mach 9-10, the flyback booster packs a lot of performance into a small vehicle. http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...-2004-5950.pdf http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...50_present.pdf Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SEI Quicksat booster
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... This is a really interesting design for a two-stage-to-orbit reusable light satellite booster/transatmospheric hypersonic attack aircraft. At only 123 feet in length and capable of reaching Mach 9-10, the flyback booster packs a lot of performance into a small vehicle. http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...-2004-5950.pdf http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...50_present.pdf This is a wet dream for many aerospace engineers. Air breathing, horizontal takeoff hypersonic first stage coupled with a horizontal landing space maneuvering vehicle. And how do you make the numbers work? Expendable tankage for the upper stage. No thanks. This has turkey written all over it. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SEI Quicksat booster
Pat Flannery wrote:
This is a really interesting design for a two-stage-to-orbit reusable light satellite booster/transatmospheric hypersonic attack aircraft. At only 123 feet in length and capable of reaching Mach 9-10, the flyback booster packs a lot of performance into a small vehicle. http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...-2004-5950.pdf http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_ar...50_present.pdf That's not a serious design - it's an effort by the company to show off / demonstrate their optimization and analysis software and abilities. It's also an excellent demonstration of why you don't want to use airbreathing propulsion for large chunks of your space launch acceleration - to get to the 9k fps staging point they incur nearly twice that in drag losses and need about five times as much propulsion hardware. If you've got spare time, try putting together an excel spreadsheet, dumping the scramjet hardware retaining only enough turbojet thrust for flyback, and using their rocket engines for ascent. Not only does dry weight go down, but it looks like gross weight does as well. Of course, if you spend all of your time trying to complicate your designs so you can get more analysis contracts, it can be difficult to switch mental gears to "cheap, not cool" when you actually get the opportunity to build something. -jake |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Russians delay launch of new booster | Revision | History | 6 | November 2nd 04 03:29 PM |
non man rated booster compared to shuttle? | bob haller | History | 58 | August 30th 04 05:07 AM |
Solid Rocket Booster takes first steps in stacking for return to flight | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 12th 04 01:13 AM |
Towed Booster Stability | johnhare | Policy | 23 | July 8th 04 03:06 AM |
LSC Room 103, LCCV, UPRCV | Allen Thomson | Policy | 4 | February 5th 04 11:20 PM |