CATS and the re-use of RD-171s

I was reading Mark Wade's write-up on the Zenit's
RD-171s and couldn't help but focus on the fact
that they recovered the engines on an early test
flight in order to see how the engines fared.
With an appropriate nod to Kistler, I'm intrigued
by the possibility that a (partially) re-usable Zenit
might be engineered.

Four architectures seem possible for re-use of a
first stage: 1) a liquid fly-back booster (Baikal),
2) parachutes and air-bags (Kistler), 3) tail-lander
(DC-X), and 4) an engine pod/boat-tail. Each architecture
has various strengths and weaknesses.

My favorite for the moment is the engine-pod. I wonder
how well the engineering aspects of this approach
have been studied, and why we haven't seen one flown
yet. As with the SSMEs, there's also the concern
that the engines will have to be frequently rebuilt,
but one has got to believe that that will be cheaper
than throwing them away with each flight.

- Cris Fitch
San Diego, CA
http://www.orbit6.com/

(Cris Fitch) wrote

I'm intrigued by the possibility that a (partially)
re-usable Zenit might be engineered.

The Energiya strap-on version of Zenit was apparently meant to
be parachute/retrorocket recoverable, so I guess that could
be revived. It would mean a payload hit, though.

My favorite for the moment is the engine-pod. BRBR


Didn't Boeing's original submission for the EELV competition use one?
Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR