Flyback boosters

Has anyone ever flown flyback boosters on any vehicle?

--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

On Aug 24, 8:46 am, Aaron Lawrence
wrote:
Has anyone ever flown flyback boosters on any vehicle?

Do X-planes count?
Anti-satellite weapons launched from fighters?
Pegasus?
Rutan's SpaceShipOne?

Tom

TC wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:46 am, Aaron Lawrence
wrote:
Has anyone ever flown flyback boosters on any vehicle?

Do X-planes count?
Anti-satellite weapons launched from fighters?
Pegasus?
Rutan's SpaceShipOne?

I suspect he means rocket powered VTHL, which is (AFAIK) the default
meaning for 'flyback booster'. To date the HTHL airbreathers you
refer to have been referred to as 'carriers' or 'motherships'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Surely, at the start you are battling huge weight of propellant, you want to
not add weight surely, so any additional structure to allow fly back would
seem to be a non starter, at least to my mind.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
TC wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:46 am, Aaron Lawrence
wrote:
Has anyone ever flown flyback boosters on any vehicle?

Do X-planes count?
Anti-satellite weapons launched from fighters?
Pegasus?
Rutan's SpaceShipOne?

I suspect he means rocket powered VTHL, which is (AFAIK) the default
meaning for 'flyback booster'. To date the HTHL airbreathers you
refer to have been referred to as 'carriers' or 'motherships'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
k...
Surely, at the start you are battling huge weight of propellant, you want
to not add weight surely, so any additional structure to allow fly back
would seem to be a non starter, at least to my mind.

If the alternative is using less fuel, but throwing away the booster after
every flight, then a fly back booster makes economic sense if the flight
rate is high enough.

Also, a liquid fueled flyback booster seems to make more sense to me than
solid fueled boosters you drop in salt water, then fish out and refurbish
after every flight.

This is why, at one time, liquid fueled flyback boosters were studied for
the space shuttle. The problem was, with the shuttle's low flight rate,
you'd never make back your investment since development costs were projected
to be pretty high.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On a pleasant day while strolling in sci.space.shuttle,
a person by the name of Jeff Findley exclaimed:
This is why, at one time, liquid fueled flyback boosters were studied for
the space shuttle. The problem was, with the shuttle's low flight rate,
you'd never make back your investment since development costs were projected
to be pretty high.

I suppose it would be like developing a second vehicle
to boost the shuttle... almost double the effort...
though without the complications of people involved...

Anyone know if the Buran Zenit boosters got beyond just
the idea of wanting flyback? They had a lot more
incentive with the more complex engines ... at least
throwing away solids seems to make some sense. Ironic
that they don't.

--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

On a pleasant day while strolling in sci.space.shuttle,
a person by the name of Brian Gaff exclaimed:
Surely, at the start you are battling huge weight of propellant, you want to
not add weight surely, so any additional structure to allow fly back would
seem to be a non starter, at least to my mind.

Seems that way to me, also. Especially an actual
precision flyback and landing seems to be fairly
difficult and require a lot of control ability, far
beyond what a booster would have otherwise ...not to
mention wings...

--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

Aaron Lawrence wrote:

I suppose it would be like developing a second vehicle
to boost the shuttle... almost double the effort...

Think "a lot more than double."

See Geoff Little's (quite good) "Mach 20 or Bust" in the new Air &
Space for a realistic look at what we don't know about aerodynamics of
*any* kind beyond Mach 7 or so. What we know about sustained,
airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's
rocket-driven "going up, seeya later when I'm a glider") is even less.
It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money
aimed at some sort of hyper-cruise missile, long before anything big,
reusable or manned -- to fill in the gaps

Decades of STS second-guessing and handwaving hindsight
notwithstanding, the people who looked at a wide variety of more or
less winged hypersonic first stages in 1969-1971 -- and settled for
the clunky, partly-reusable, kinda-stage-and-a-half solution we got --
were neither stupid nor unimaginative nor timid.

On Aug 25, 11:42 am, Monte Davis wrote:
Aaron Lawrence wrote:
I suppose it would be like developing a second vehicle
to boost the shuttle... almost double the effort...

Think "a lot more than double."

See Geoff Little's (quite good) "Mach 20 or Bust" in the new Air &
Space for a realistic look at what we don't know about aerodynamics of
*any* kind beyond Mach 7 or so. What we know about sustained,
airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's
rocket-driven "going up, seeya later when I'm a glider") is even less.
It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money
aimed at some sort of hyper-cruise missile, long before anything big,
reusable or manned -- to fill in the gaps

Decades of STS second-guessing and handwaving hindsight
notwithstanding, the people who looked at a wide variety of more or
less winged hypersonic first stages in 1969-1971 -- and settled for
the clunky, partly-reusable, kinda-stage-and-a-half solution we got --
were neither stupid nor unimaginative nor timid.

They were, however, budget limited. There were continous cuts in STS
R&D funding that forced the configuration to what it is now. I agree
with you, no one designing or building and ultimately flying this
thing was lacking for intelligence, imagination, or courage.

John

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:42:43 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote:



See Geoff Little's (quite good) "Mach 20 or Bust" in the new Air &
Space for a realistic look at what we don't know about aerodynamics of
*any* kind beyond Mach 7 or so. What we know about sustained,
airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's
rocket-driven "going up, seeya later when I'm a glider") is even less.
It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money
aimed at some sort of hyper-cruise missile, long before anything big,
reusable or manned -- to fill in the gaps

Decades of STS second-guessing and handwaving hindsight
notwithstanding, the people who looked at a wide variety of more or
less winged hypersonic first stages in 1969-1971 -- and settled for
the clunky, partly-reusable, kinda-stage-and-a-half solution we got --
were neither stupid nor unimaginative nor timid.


For those of us financially challenged dolts who don't receive Air and
Space, is the article online somewhere?
Thanks
Jim in Houston.

Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd!

Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com