First-stage recovery using minimal Delta-v budget: tethered rotor-wings

A deployed set of spinning winglets as tethered to the nose section of any first-stage can be deployed shortly after separation, as offering a robust rotor-wing phase deceleration method, whereas the amount of active rotor-wing trim/attack angle and subsequent aerodynamic drag is fully adjusted to suit the best deceleration possible without exceeding winglet loading issues..

Upon nearing the ground (last km), the fly-by-rocket thrusters takeover and those spinning rotor blades as tethered winglets are released and most likely also recoverable.

Deploy-able as tethered rotor-wings can likely be limited as to not more than .1% the gross mass of the first stage.

Gross mass of the Saturn 5 being 5,000,000 lbs might require a tethered rotor-wing module of 5,000 lbs in order to properly stabilize and decelerate perhaps 350,000 lbs down to the lower elevation of 1 km. Seems like a small enough inert mass price to pay for having fully recovered the spendy first stage as on land instead of trashed in the ocean.

The idea here is to fully stabilize the decent and keeping its velocity well below supersonic speed by the time it reaches 1 km.

Of course if the entire Saturn 5 first stage can be outfitted with vertical sliding rotor-wings that would deploy by sliding upward and gradually begin to open up, might be a even better articulated winglet application, because then everything becomes compact and reusable.

Of greatly improved fly-by-rocket structural engineering and composites would likely make the new Saturn 5 (2.0) with its deployable rotor wings of sufficiently less all-inclusive inert mass, so as to more than offset the added inert mass of these deployable rotor-wings.

If they can make their V-22 Osprey fiasco fly via brute force and unlimited funding (similar to those F35s that no one can afford to own and operate), then perhaps rotor-winglets for a fully recoverable first stage rocket are not going to be as insurmountable as we might think.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:43:40 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
A deployed set of spinning winglets as tethered to the nose section of any first-stage can be deployed shortly after separation, as offering a robust rotor-wing phase deceleration method, whereas the amount of active rotor-wing trim/attack angle and subsequent aerodynamic drag is fully adjusted to suit the best deceleration possible without exceeding winglet loading issues.



Upon nearing the ground (last km), the fly-by-rocket thrusters takeover and those spinning rotor blades as tethered winglets are released and most likely also recoverable.



Deploy-able as tethered rotor-wings can likely be limited as to not more than .1% the gross mass of the first stage.



Gross mass of the Saturn 5 being 5,000,000 lbs might require a tethered rotor-wing module of 5,000 lbs in order to properly stabilize and decelerate perhaps 350,000 lbs down to the lower elevation of 1 km. Seems like a small enough inert mass price to pay for having fully recovered the spendy first stage as on land instead of trashed in the ocean.



The idea here is to fully stabilize the decent and keeping its velocity well below supersonic speed by the time it reaches 1 km.



Of course if the entire Saturn 5 first stage can be outfitted with vertical sliding rotor-wings that would deploy by sliding upward and gradually begin to open up, might be a even better articulated winglet application, because then everything becomes compact and reusable.



Of greatly improved fly-by-rocket structural engineering and composites would likely make the new Saturn 5 (2.0) with its deployable rotor wings of sufficiently less all-inclusive inert mass, so as to more than offset the added inert mass of these deployable rotor-wings.



If they can make their V-22 Osprey fiasco fly via brute force and unlimited funding (similar to those F35s that no one can afford to own and operate), then perhaps rotor-winglets for a fully recoverable first stage rocket are not going to be as insurmountable as we might think.

probably better to make the booster a flyback one with wings. Its good that alternative ideas are being explored. sad that more havent been adopted years ago to cut costs

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:40:13 PM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:43:40 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

A deployed set of spinning winglets as tethered to the nose section of any first-stage can be deployed shortly after separation, as offering a robust rotor-wing phase deceleration method, whereas the amount of active rotor-wing trim/attack angle and subsequent aerodynamic drag is fully adjusted to suit the best deceleration possible without exceeding winglet loading issues.







Upon nearing the ground (last km), the fly-by-rocket thrusters takeover and those spinning rotor blades as tethered winglets are released and most likely also recoverable.







Deploy-able as tethered rotor-wings can likely be limited as to not more than .1% the gross mass of the first stage.







Gross mass of the Saturn 5 being 5,000,000 lbs might require a tethered rotor-wing module of 5,000 lbs in order to properly stabilize and decelerate perhaps 350,000 lbs down to the lower elevation of 1 km. Seems like a small enough inert mass price to pay for having fully recovered the spendy first stage as on land instead of trashed in the ocean.







The idea here is to fully stabilize the decent and keeping its velocity well below supersonic speed by the time it reaches 1 km.







Of course if the entire Saturn 5 first stage can be outfitted with vertical sliding rotor-wings that would deploy by sliding upward and gradually begin to open up, might be a even better articulated winglet application, because then everything becomes compact and reusable.







Of greatly improved fly-by-rocket structural engineering and composites would likely make the new Saturn 5 (2.0) with its deployable rotor wings of sufficiently less all-inclusive inert mass, so as to more than offset the added inert mass of these deployable rotor-wings.







If they can make their V-22 Osprey fiasco fly via brute force and unlimited funding (similar to those F35s that no one can afford to own and operate), then perhaps rotor-winglets for a fully recoverable first stage rocket are not going to be as insurmountable as we might think.



probably better to make the booster a flyback one with wings. Its good that alternative ideas are being explored. sad that more havent been adopted years ago to cut costs

I'd proposed the fully fly-back (mostly glide-back) alternative several years ago. As per Usenet/newsgroup policy of status-quo naysay or bust, it got shot down before even being considered.

I'd still prefer the fly-back method via fold-out wings (rocket engine mass facing forward).

In article ,
says...

A deployed set of spinning winglets as tethered to the nose section of any first-stage can be deployed shortly after separation, as offering a robust rotor-wing phase deceleration method, whereas the amount of active rotor-wing trim/attack angle and subsequent aerodynamic drag is fully adjusted to suit the best deceleration possible without exceeding winglet loading issues.

Upon nearing the ground (last km), the fly-by-rocket thrusters takeover and those spinning rotor blades as tethered winglets are released and most likely also recoverable.

Deploy-able as tethered rotor-wings can likely be limited as to not more than .1% the gross mass of the first stage.

Gross mass of the Saturn 5 being 5,000,000 lbs might require a tethered rotor-wing module of 5,000 lbs in order to properly stabilize and decelerate perhaps 350,000 lbs down to the lower elevation of 1 km. Seems like a small enough inert mass price to pay for having fully recovered the spendy first stage as on land instead of trashed in the ocean.

The idea here is to fully stabilize the decent and keeping its velocity well below supersonic speed by the time it reaches 1 km.

Of course if the entire Saturn 5 first stage can be outfitted with vertical sliding rotor-wings that would deploy by sliding upward and gradually begin to open up, might be a even better articulated winglet application, because then everything becomes compact and reusable.

Of greatly improved fly-by-rocket structural engineering and composites would likely make the new Saturn 5 (2.0) with its deployable rotor wings of sufficiently less all-inclusive inert mass, so as to more than offset the added inert mass of these deployable rotor-wings.

If they can make their V-22 Osprey fiasco fly via brute force and unlimited funding (similar to those F35s that no one can afford to own and operate), then perhaps rotor-winglets for a fully recoverable first stage rocket are not going to be as insurmountable as we might think.

Jesus Guthball, you're like Mookie, but without any math. What a
worthless post. :-(

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

probably better to make the booster a flyback one with wings.
Its good that alternative ideas are being explored. sad that
more havent been adopted years ago to cut costs

Wings are a p.i.t.a. During vertical flight, they're dead weight. In
the case of an engine shutdown, they're dead weight. Anything which
can't potentially help during ascent is just a liability.

SpaceX has the right approach. Landing legs mass less than wings. But
more importantly, the extra fuel needed to perform a vertical landing
(during a nominal ascent) can be used to assist in ascent in the case of
an engine out. This is a "good thing".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
probably better to make the booster a flyback one with wings.
Its good that alternative ideas are being explored. sad that
more havent been adopted years ago to cut costs

I'd proposed the fully fly-back (mostly glide-back) alternative
several years ago. As per Usenet/newsgroup policy of status-quo
naysay or bust, it got shot down before even being considered.

I'd still prefer the fly-back method via fold-out wings (rocket
engine mass facing forward).


It seems that you're calling actual engineers "nay-sayers". How odd...

It's been proposed *many* times over the decades of spaceflight and
we've yet to see a fly-back booster actually fly (on an actual launch
vehicle). Wings drive up development costs even if they can be made to
work. Plus, it's hard to test a fly-back booster incrementally, unless
it can fly solo. And, even if it can be flown solo, tests attached to
the core stage will still be needed.

Because of the high development costs, when operational, a fly-back
booster needs to fly quite frequently in order to be economical. The
reason they've never been developed is because the numbers simply don't
work out economically. What's the point in trying to lower launch
costs, if it will cost you billions on development costs just to make
the attempt?

There are quite valid reasons SpaceX is approaching reusability the way
they are (vertical landing of the first stage). Considering the baby
steps they've made, on a shoestring budget, I'd say they're on the right
path. They can continue to perform recovery tests on actual launches
with actual customers. This approach is not only sound in terms of
engineering, but it's sound in terms of economics too.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:50:40 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

probably better to make the booster a flyback one with wings.

Its good that alternative ideas are being explored. sad that

more havent been adopted years ago to cut costs



I'd proposed the fully fly-back (mostly glide-back) alternative

several years ago. As per Usenet/newsgroup policy of status-quo

naysay or bust, it got shot down before even being considered.



I'd still prefer the fly-back method via fold-out wings (rocket

engine mass facing forward).





It seems that you're calling actual engineers "nay-sayers". How odd...



It's been proposed *many* times over the decades of spaceflight and

we've yet to see a fly-back booster actually fly (on an actual launch

vehicle). Wings drive up development costs even if they can be made to

work. Plus, it's hard to test a fly-back booster incrementally, unless

it can fly solo. And, even if it can be flown solo, tests attached to

the core stage will still be needed.



Because of the high development costs, when operational, a fly-back

booster needs to fly quite frequently in order to be economical. The

reason they've never been developed is because the numbers simply don't

work out economically. What's the point in trying to lower launch

costs, if it will cost you billions on development costs just to make

the attempt?



There are quite valid reasons SpaceX is approaching reusability the way

they are (vertical landing of the first stage). Considering the baby

steps they've made, on a shoestring budget, I'd say they're on the right

path. They can continue to perform recovery tests on actual launches

with actual customers. This approach is not only sound in terms of

engineering, but it's sound in terms of economics too.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Tenth scale prototypes are not all that spendy. A rotor-wing method of keeping it stabilized down to roughly the last km, seems doable.

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:40:09 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



A deployed set of spinning winglets as tethered to the nose section of any first-stage can be deployed shortly after separation, as offering a robust rotor-wing phase deceleration method, whereas the amount of active rotor-wing trim/attack angle and subsequent aerodynamic drag is fully adjusted to suit the best deceleration possible without exceeding winglet loading issues.



Upon nearing the ground (last km), the fly-by-rocket thrusters takeover and those spinning rotor blades as tethered winglets are released and most likely also recoverable.



Deploy-able as tethered rotor-wings can likely be limited as to not more than .1% the gross mass of the first stage.



Gross mass of the Saturn 5 being 5,000,000 lbs might require a tethered rotor-wing module of 5,000 lbs in order to properly stabilize and decelerate perhaps 350,000 lbs down to the lower elevation of 1 km. Seems like a small enough inert mass price to pay for having fully recovered the spendy first stage as on land instead of trashed in the ocean.



The idea here is to fully stabilize the decent and keeping its velocity well below supersonic speed by the time it reaches 1 km.



Of course if the entire Saturn 5 first stage can be outfitted with vertical sliding rotor-wings that would deploy by sliding upward and gradually begin to open up, might be a even better articulated winglet application, because then everything becomes compact and reusable.



Of greatly improved fly-by-rocket structural engineering and composites would likely make the new Saturn 5 (2.0) with its deployable rotor wings of sufficiently less all-inclusive inert mass, so as to more than offset the added inert mass of these deployable rotor-wings.



If they can make their V-22 Osprey fiasco fly via brute force and unlimited funding (similar to those F35s that no one can afford to own and operate), then perhaps rotor-winglets for a fully recoverable first stage rocket are not going to be as insurmountable as we might think.



Jesus Guthball, you're like Mookie, but without any math. What a

worthless post. :-(



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

None of your reusable solutions have ever flown, or have they?

In article ,
says...
Tenth scale prototypes are not all that spendy. A rotor-wing
method of keeping it stabilized down to roughly the last km,
seems doable.

This was the approach of Rotary Rocket with their Roton vehicle. They
got so far as to fly a full scale prototype to test this recovery
method, which *seemed* to work, but flying it was "challenging" to
"dangerous" according to the accounts of the pilots. From Wikipedia:

"Test pilots have a rating system, the Cooper-Harper rating scale,
for vehicles between 1 and 10 that relates to difficulty to pilot.
The Roton ATV scored a 10 ? the vehicle simulator was found to be
practically unflyable by anyone except the Rotary test pilots,
and even then there were expected to be short periods where the
vehicle was out of control."

At any rate, the company failed (shuttered its doors in 2001) due to
lack of funding, so it's hard to tell if this approach really would have
panned out in the long run. Roton could have been made to work by
relying on current day computers to land it instead of a pilot seated in
Roton's awkwardly located "bat cave" cockpit. But, do note they were
attempting this *two decades ago*, when I was still using my C-64
computer to log into work from home on a 14.4k baud modem.

Considering Roton's development was done back in the 1990's, it's hard
to say how expensive an automated landing system would have been to
develop. Such systems are practically "off the shelf" today, since
they're close to what's routinely flown on autonomous quad-copter
vehicles, which are relatively cheap these days. What a difference 20
years makes in computer and automated control technologies.

In terms of dynamics and control, Roton was ahead of its time in much
the same way WWII era German flying wings were ahead of their time.
Modern flight computers are what makes the B-2 possible to (safely) fly.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 4:33:53 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

Tenth scale prototypes are not all that spendy. A rotor-wing

method of keeping it stabilized down to roughly the last km,

seems doable.



This was the approach of Rotary Rocket with their Roton vehicle. They

got so far as to fly a full scale prototype to test this recovery

method, which *seemed* to work, but flying it was "challenging" to

"dangerous" according to the accounts of the pilots. From Wikipedia:



"Test pilots have a rating system, the Cooper-Harper rating scale,

for vehicles between 1 and 10 that relates to difficulty to pilot.

The Roton ATV scored a 10 ? the vehicle simulator was found to be

practically unflyable by anyone except the Rotary test pilots,

and even then there were expected to be short periods where the

vehicle was out of control."



At any rate, the company failed (shuttered its doors in 2001) due to

lack of funding, so it's hard to tell if this approach really would have

panned out in the long run. Roton could have been made to work by

relying on current day computers to land it instead of a pilot seated in

Roton's awkwardly located "bat cave" cockpit. But, do note they were

attempting this *two decades ago*, when I was still using my C-64

computer to log into work from home on a 14.4k baud modem.



Considering Roton's development was done back in the 1990's, it's hard

to say how expensive an automated landing system would have been to

develop. Such systems are practically "off the shelf" today, since

they're close to what's routinely flown on autonomous quad-copter

vehicles, which are relatively cheap these days. What a difference 20

years makes in computer and automated control technologies.



In terms of dynamics and control, Roton was ahead of its time in much

the same way WWII era German flying wings were ahead of their time.

Modern flight computers are what makes the B-2 possible to (safely) fly.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

This is not at all what I had in mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X--EDUqP9wI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kp63-an2ts


Your boxed thinking has you confined to only very dark places.

A controlled free-fall as rotor stabilized down to less than 1 km when the fly-by-rocket method takes over for the controlled vertical soft landing of a first stage, as such is nothing like you've suggested.