Orbiter shape.

We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a TSTO,
or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land under
control - and that probably means on a runway.



I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like the
Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines on
stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry to
power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act as a
tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?


--
Peter Fairbrother

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message ...
We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a TSTO,
or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land under
control - and that probably means on a runway.



I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like the
Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines on
stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry to
power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act as a
tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?

You are going nuts. But you have a lot of company.

There is no reason why you should want any portion of the orbiter
to re-enter, except maybe for the people.

And you may well be nuts in having people orbiting in the first place,
though that probably depends on the mission.

In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message
...
We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a
TSTO,
or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land under
control - and that probably means on a runway.



I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like the
Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines on
stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry to
power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act as
a
tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?

You are going nuts. But you have a lot of company.

There is no reason why you should want any portion of the orbiter
to re-enter, except maybe for the people.

How do you propose to have the people re-enter without any portion of
the orbiter? (Let's assume the constraint that we want the people to
remain alive.)

And you may well be nuts in having people orbiting in the first place,
though that probably depends on the mission.

Yes, if the mission is to have people in orbit (perhaps because that's
what they're paying for), then it's hard to do this without people
orbiting.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Joe Strout" wrote in message ...
In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message
...
We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a
TSTO,
or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land under
control - and that probably means on a runway.



I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like the
Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines on
stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry to
power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act as
a
tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?

You are going nuts. But you have a lot of company.

There is no reason why you should want any portion of the orbiter
to re-enter, except maybe for the people.

How do you propose to have the people re-enter without any portion of
the orbiter? (Let's assume the constraint that we want the people to
remain alive.)

I'll accept that stipulation. ;-)

And you may well be nuts in having people orbiting in the first place,
though that probably depends on the mission.

Yes, if the mission is to have people in orbit (perhaps because that's
what they're paying for), then it's hard to do this without people
orbiting.

Hmmm! So the mission is to reproduce the excitement of the Mercury
program, except that the passengers have to pay. And the question is
what shape of orbiter forces them to pay the least? Or do you want
them to pay the most?

In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message
...
We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a
TSTO,
or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land
under
control - and that probably means on a runway.



I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like
the
Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines
on
stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry
to
power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act
as
a
tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?

You are going nuts. But you have a lot of company.

There is no reason why you should want any portion of the orbiter
to re-enter, except maybe for the people.

How do you propose to have the people re-enter without any portion of
the orbiter? (Let's assume the constraint that we want the people to
remain alive.)

I'll accept that stipulation. ;-)

Right -- so, any suggestions? I can't think of any way to do it without
some portion of the orbiter re-entering, but perhaps I'm just tired this
evening.

Yes, if the mission is to have people in orbit (perhaps because that's
what they're paying for), then it's hard to do this without people
orbiting.

Hmmm! So the mission is to reproduce the excitement of the Mercury
program, except that the passengers have to pay. And the question is
what shape of orbiter forces them to pay the least? Or do you want
them to pay the most?

I'd say the question is what shape of orbiter costs the least for the
operators (the passengers will presumably pay whatever the market can
bear).

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Joe Strout" wrote in message ...
In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote:

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message
...
We have to design an orbiter. By an orbiter I mean a second stage of a
TSTO, or the orbiting stage of a MSTO.

What shape should it be? It has to survive reentry from LEO, and land
under control - and that probably means on a runway.

I have been looking at this, and my orbiters look more and more like
the Star-Trek's Enterprise. It's a saucer or capsule, with two jet engines
on stalks. The saucer is to re-enter, and the stalks extend after re-entry
to power the landing.

Even the engine room is there, to put the landing wheels in, and to act
as a tail. The main deflector dish is absent though.

Am I going nuts? Is this actually a good design?

You are going nuts. But you have a lot of company.

There is no reason why you should want any portion of the orbiter
to re-enter, except maybe for the people.

How do you propose to have the people re-enter without any portion of
the orbiter? (Let's assume the constraint that we want the people to
remain alive.)

I'll accept that stipulation. ;-)

Right -- so, any suggestions? I can't think of any way to do it without
some portion of the orbiter re-entering, but perhaps I'm just tired this
evening.

One of us is tired, maybe it is me. I thought the implications of what
I was saying were clear. Anything that is useful in orbit should ideally
stay in orbit, so it can be reused without reentering and relifting.
That which re-enters should be the bare minimum needed, and therefore
probably doesn't include stuff like jet engines and landing gear.

Yes, if the mission is to have people in orbit (perhaps because that's
what they're paying for), then it's hard to do this without people
orbiting.

Hmmm! So the mission is to reproduce the excitement of the Mercury
program, except that the passengers have to pay. And the question is
what shape of orbiter forces them to pay the least? Or do you want
them to pay the most?

I'd say the question is what shape of orbiter costs the least for the
operators (the passengers will presumably pay whatever the market can
bear).

And my point here was that a Mercury-like reentry capsule probably costs
the least for the operators, because it is probably the lightest payload
that does the job. Operational costs for recovery will be much lower than
was the case for Mercury, if you have frequent flights. Mercury-like
capsules are the best way to return from a space station, too.

If you don't want the expense and risk of recovery at sea, bring them down
over land as the Russians did.

But, I will admit that I have a fundamental distaste for the whole concept
of space tourism. What a step backward! The goal should be space settlement,
and the next step toward that is better robotics and exploration of the moon
and asteroids for possible material resources, not orbital tourism.

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

But, I will admit that I have a fundamental distaste for the whole concept
of space tourism. What a step backward!

You apparently don't understand anything about the economics of spaceflight.

The goal should be space settlement,
and the next step toward that is better robotics and exploration of the moon
and asteroids for possible material resources, not orbital tourism.

Orbital tourism is a necessary, and probably sufficient condition to
attain those other goals.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message link.net...
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

But, I will admit that I have a fundamental distaste for the whole concept
of space tourism. What a step backward!

You apparently don't understand anything about the economics of spaceflight.

Still learning about that. But I do understand the difference between
making progress and maintaining momentum.

The goal should be space settlement,
and the next step toward that is better robotics and exploration of the moon
and asteroids for possible material resources, not orbital tourism.

Orbital tourism is a necessary, and probably sufficient condition to
attain those other goals.

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message link.net...

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:


But, I will admit that I have a fundamental distaste for the whole concept
of space tourism. What a step backward!

You apparently don't understand anything about the economics of spaceflight.


Still learning about that. But I do understand the difference between
making progress and maintaining momentum.

If you're opposed to space tourism, apparently you don't.

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

[snip]

I'd say the question is what shape of orbiter costs the least for the
operators (the passengers will presumably pay whatever the market can
bear).

And my point here was that a Mercury-like reentry capsule probably costs
the least for the operators, because it is probably the lightest payload
that does the job.

Great. So, we have a light capsule shape, and it gets our tourists from
orbit to about a mile or two high.

Then they have to get to zero velocity with respect to the ground.
Re-espect. Ground there long, long time. Zero velocitee, or it hurting.

How do we do that - we have a capsule full of tourists a mile high, and we
need to get them down safely? I'd say jets, wheels, and a runway. Got a
better idea?

You don't need wings - the capsule can be built in a subsonic lift producing
wing-type shape, while also being a stable re-entry shape, in the first
place.*

We need two jet engines for several reasons, like reliabilty, and they will
have to stick out from the saucer/capsule/wing.

We need a flat-to flight surface for steering - a tail or similar. We need
wheels.

This is looking more and more like the USS Enterprise, once again.

HELP.

But, I will admit that I have a fundamental distaste for the whole concept
of space tourism. What a step backward!

No, it's a step forward. Of course real tourism won't actually happen, the
tourists are too trepid, and we'll just shunt them around in batches - which
is what we want, and what they want too - so no problem.

The goal should be space settlement,
and the next step toward that is better robotics and exploration of the moon
and asteroids for possible material resources, not orbital tourism.

We'll just get on with what we are doing.

The hotel employees will be the first real space settlers. When we set up
the moon run, the guys who operate the moonside operation will be the first
lunies. And so on.





*I think.
--
Peter Fairbrother