"X-craft" Invention Public Note

Well I have criticized SpaceX and here is a chance to do me a favor. I have a "micro-shuttle" design for a special re-entry trajectory.

My design is classifiable so only certain facts are released. A 2 seat suited astronaut craft is the basic outline. With all other factors removed. The second seat is an optional satellite capsule release mount. So the full sized craft is only 20 feet wide and 20 feet long. The shape is the classifiable aspect.

It is a man use for only five-hours because of LOX/Hydrogen fuel. The loss of fuel from steaming is not an issue at this duration design. And most uses only need five hours. The hardest use is expected to be nuclear weapon delivery.

I first investigated the lifting body when I found one in the surplus building at the Gaithersburg NIST lab. I was lab radiation safety supervisor there for a while. I had to rescue it from the public action blocks. It turn out to be a wood flyable prototype of a 1940's radar guided standoff glider bomb. It had the small wing to large diameter fuselage of the modern "X-craft". It had the space shuttle like flat rear fuselage plane. A famous inventor at the NBS, Jack Rabinow, invented it. I believe the flat rear plane was to add rocket boosters to it also. I think the design is still classified. The public webpage is an alternative conventional glider design, not Rabinow's.

Anyway the concept of wood prototypes to test was enlightening. Why not?

So I can build my design with oak framing not expensive composite. Oak framing with the well fitting steel skin passes the test requirements. It can fly orbital. The skin fitting can used epoxy to complete a wood to steel facing.

The concept is test by mock-up flight. My lifting body form is classified. These days the public is supposed to know when things are sensitive at the least technology. Mine is classifiable.

The interesting aspect is the use of steel thermal shielding. A de-orbit engine fires at 12-gees for about x minutes. This causes a straight vertical re-entry trajectory. A 100 percent de-orbit is allowed because of the light mass. It just drops in like Burt Rutan's ascender craft. The steel is unchallenged at these drop speeds.

The second stage orbiter engine stays attached for de-orbiting also. If this engine fails the craft has five solid rockets in the the craft to emergency de-orbit. In this emergency scenario the steel works, but was challenged, so reuse is not allowed.

Jack Rabinow's is the contemporary winged craft. Mine is a 100% lifting body craft. The winglet theory is not used.

A critical advantage is the use of a cone re-entry form. The point of the cone pointed at the ground stabilizes intrinsically. Meaning NO re-entry attitude retro-rocket system!

The ugly ICBM warheads first established this science. They hold on to the initial attitude. Friction maintains the trajectory.

***********************

The concept of cone re-entry craft is valid for normal trajectories. A micro space shuttle with heat shield over the whole frontal surface has a single compromise. Shield mass to cover the front. When the shuttle's bottom is the front a smaller area is encountered. With a cone's bottom an even smaller shield mass is required. My cone frontal area simply mandates more shielding carry-age. But the trade off is attitude retro-rocket free re-entry. The inefficiency is a small price for the gain.


Thanks Doug..

Oak orbiters figure that.

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:40:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Well I have criticized SpaceX and here is a chance to do me a favor. I have a "micro-shuttle" design for a special re-entry trajectory.

My design is classifiable so only certain facts are released. A 2 seat suited astronaut craft is the basic outline. With all other factors removed.. The second seat is an optional satellite capsule release mount. So the full sized craft is only 20 feet wide and 20 feet long. The shape is the classifiable aspect.

It is a man use for only five-hours because of LOX/Hydrogen fuel. The loss of fuel from steaming is not an issue at this duration design. And most uses only need five hours. The hardest use is expected to be nuclear weapon delivery.

I first investigated the lifting body when I found one in the surplus building at the Gaithersburg NIST lab. I was lab radiation safety supervisor there for a while. I had to rescue it from the public action blocks. It turn out to be a wood flyable prototype of a 1940's radar guided standoff glider bomb. It had the small wing to large diameter fuselage of the modern "X-craft". It had the space shuttle like flat rear fuselage plane. A famous inventor at the NBS, Jack Rabinow, invented it. I believe the flat rear plane was to add rocket boosters to it also. I think the design is still classified. The public webpage is an alternative conventional glider design, not Rabinow's.

Anyway the concept of wood prototypes to test was enlightening. Why not?

So I can build my design with oak framing not expensive composite. Oak framing with the well fitting steel skin passes the test requirements. It can fly orbital. The skin fitting can used epoxy to complete a wood to steel facing.

The concept is test by mock-up flight. My lifting body form is classified. These days the public is supposed to know when things are sensitive at the least technology. Mine is classifiable.

The interesting aspect is the use of steel thermal shielding. A de-orbit engine fires at 12-gees for about x minutes. This causes a straight vertical re-entry trajectory. A 100 percent de-orbit is allowed because of the light mass. It just drops in like Burt Rutan's ascender craft. The steel is unchallenged at these drop speeds.

The second stage orbiter engine stays attached for de-orbiting also. If this engine fails the craft has five solid rockets in the the craft to emergency de-orbit. In this emergency scenario the steel works, but was challenged, so reuse is not allowed.

Jack Rabinow's is the contemporary winged craft. Mine is a 100% lifting body craft. The winglet theory is not used.

A critical advantage is the use of a cone re-entry form. The point of the cone pointed at the ground stabilizes intrinsically. Meaning NO re-entry attitude retro-rocket system!

The ugly ICBM warheads first established this science. They hold on to the initial attitude. Friction maintains the trajectory.

***********************

The concept of cone re-entry craft is valid for normal trajectories. A micro space shuttle with heat shield over the whole frontal surface has a single compromise. Shield mass to cover the front. When the shuttle's bottom is the front a smaller area is encountered. With a cone's bottom an even smaller shield mass is required. My cone frontal area simply mandates more shielding carry-age. But the trade off is attitude retro-rocket free re-entry. The inefficiency is a small price for the gain.


Thanks Doug..

Oak orbiters figure that.

why send along a human astronaut at all?

better and cheaper to make it a unmanned vehicle

why send along a human astronaut at all?

better and cheaper to make it a unmanned vehicle

I agree why an astronaut?, has to be answered. Ingeneral, automatic control weights close to a pilot control system. Why pilot a satellite deployment flight anyways is the question. Lack of on ground remote occurs for recovery of satellite. Gyrations to place it in are touchy local sensors only. Begging the question, why ever a crew of two? It is the meaning of weapon deployment. Once the nuke is dropped or parachuted the pilot needs to eject. A pilot possibly behind enemy lines really needs a helping hand on the ground. A team of two survives dramatically well comparatively. The location of the nuclear weapon for dropping is classifiable also. How to make two versions is a real intention.

Man movable nukes with world wide placement is a speed race in war theory land.

Astronauts are agreeably a rare necessity for satellite uses. The crew is designated for design goals of multi-variable use.

Thanks Doug