Estes Star Booster Rocket or Glider?

[dlazarus6660]

I found this while searching for a different project last fall and keep coming back and asking 'Was this ever offered as a kit?'

Can someone tell me if this is a rocket or glider?

Was this ever offered as a kit?

Who is the designer?

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes97/97estb.html

[rokitflite]

It never made it to production... Glider or otherwise. :(

[mojo1986]

But it wasn't intended to be a glider...................rear parachute ejection.

Joe

[dlazarus6660]

Joe,

Tell me more!!

Daniel

[CaninoBD]

Mike Dofferler comment on it in this post (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=68766&postcount=10)

[mojo1986]

Joe,

Tell me more!!

Daniel

Length 18" (45.7 cm)
Diameter 1.6" (39.7 mm)
Wingspan 9.5" (24.1 cm)
Detailed display nozzles

Flies on C engines with a short delay, so probably wasn't going to be a high performance bird. I sure like the looks of this one, though. By the way, I'm getting this info from the Ninfinger link you supplied (had to get out my magnifying glass). :)

Joe

[blackshire]

I found this while searching for a different project last fall and keep coming back and asking 'Was this ever offered as a kit?'

Can someone tell me if this is a rocket or glider?

Was this ever offered as a kit?

Who is the designer?

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes97/97estb.htmlStarcraft Boosters, Inc. developed several iterations of the Star Booster (see: www.starbooster.com/desig.htm and www.starbooster.com/starhawk1.pdf ). The Estes kit-that-never-was depicted the earliest version, which looked like North American's V-tailed B8G booster (see: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/shutbnar.jpg and http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm ) that they proposed during NASA's Phase B Space Shuttle design study.

The V-tailed version of the Star Booster would have used a LOX/kerosene-powered Ukrainian Zenit first stage that would have slid into the "glove" of the Star Booster's fuselage. To power its return to the launch site, the booster would have had a single turbofan engine mounted in its forward fuselage (with the air intake in the nose and a flush-mounted exhaust vent on either side of the fuselage).

The Star Booster was to have been fabricated out of aluminum, which was intended to function as a "heat-sink" structure during re-entry after staging at around Mach 3. I corresponded with Dr. Maxime Faget (who championed the original straight-winged Space Shuttle design that would have re-entered at a very nose-high angle of attack in a manner similar to the blunt Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space capsules) regarding the Star Booster not long before he died. He told me that the basic Star Booster concept was sound, but that it would have needed some kind of modest TPS (Thermal Protection System) to prevent the vehicle's aluminum structure from undergoing deformation under load during re-entry due to the high thermal gradients across the structure. The undersides of the fuselage, wings, and tail would have gotten pretty hot during re-entry, while their upper surfaces in the "lee" of the onrushing airstream would have remained cool, and aluminum can't resist such thermal gradient-induced deformation as titanium and Inconel-X (what the X-15 was made of) can.

[dlazarus6660]

WOW,

I like the concept, sooooo... any one make a model of this puppy!

[blackshire]

WOW,

I like the concept, sooooo... any one make a model of this puppy!I'd love to see Starlight Model Rockets kit the Star Booster--the name tie-in alone would be great! Any of the Star Booster versions would make a good rear-motor (with a parachute- or streamer-recovered internal motor pod) boost-glider.

[FlyBack]

... Any of the Star Booster versions would make a good rear-motor (with a parachute- or streamer-recovered internal motor pod) boost-glider.

Hmmm... I'm thinking, scale it up about 25% and convert it to R/c. Seriously. Motor pod ejection could trigger rubber band loaded elevators (trimmed for glide). A Spektrum AR6400 receiver on the ailerons a-la Edmonds Arcie II for steering. The whole flight pack could be done for about 5-6 grams. Fly it on a D12-3 or maybe an E9. Yup, I'm like'n it.

Regards,

FlyBack

[blackshire]

Hmmm... I'm thinking, scale it up about 25% and convert it to R/c. Seriously. Motor pod ejection could trigger rubber band loaded elevators (trimmed for glide). A Spektrum AR6400 receiver on the ailerons a-la Edmonds Arcie II for steering. The whole flight pack could be done for about 5-6 grams. Fly it on a D12-3 or maybe an E9. Yup, I'm like'n it.

Regards,

FlyBackWith the early version's V-tail and high-mounted wings (see: www.starbooster.com/sb350a.jpg , from the page www.starbooster.com/desig.htm on the main site), an R/C model should have good roll stability. If more pitch or yaw stability is needed during boost, one ruddervator could be set in the "up" position to create a slow roll during ascent (as was done with the Estes Cosmos Mariner kit), with the other ruddervator popping up into the "up" position when the motor pod is jettisoned.

[mycrofte]

I take it from the dates this was intended as a shuttle replacement?

[AstronMike]

Any of the Star Booster versions would make a good rear-motor (with a parachute- or streamer-recovered internal motor pod) boost-glider.


Yes, and it would be ridiculously easy to do so, and especially in a larger size. It doesnt have much wing area and that wing is located pretty far aft on the main body. That V tail looks cool too, I cant remember the last time I built any larger glider with one.

In fact, since this design is pretty 'nosy', it would be incumbent to make sure that what ever you use for BT and NC are the lightest possible, or youll get a glide CG way too far forward. Probably the best way is to make an 'LV' type like I did with that BT-80 Bomarc on an E9 deal.

While this doesnt have much wing area per se, it does have a pretty thin high AR planform, so any material too prone to flutter and warping isnt good here.

Ill probably make an 80 sized version of this once I either can get more long BT80s or even a good gift wrap roll. Only hitch is making ruddervators but the old 2x band/clip suffices.

[blackshire]

I take it from the dates this was intended as a shuttle replacement?Not directly (in terms of payload mass), although it was intended to lead to a shuttle replacement vehicle. The Star Booster was designed to be a generic reusable first stage that could lift either existing expendable launch vehicles or planned reusable spacecraft. Dr. Buzz Aldrin planned it to be an incremental "building block" booster that could be employed either singly or in pairs, depending on the payload mass.

One future option that was under study was a manned VTOVL (Vertical Take-Off/Vertical Landing) spacecraft similar to McDonnell Douglas' Clipper Graham DC-X test vehicle (it was built and flight-tested in the 1990s) that would have served as a second stage carried by one or two Star Boosters. The combination would have been a fully-reusable TSTO (Two-Stage-To-Orbit) space transportation system. Making the VTOVL spacecraft a second stage instead of a SSTO (Single-Stage-To-Orbit) vehicle as originally envisioned would have made it considerably less difficult to design and build, since the TSTO version's mass ratio would not have been nearly as hard to achieve as the mass ratio required for the SSTO version.

[blackshire]

Yes, and it would be ridiculously easy to do so, and especially in a larger size. It doesnt have much wing area and that wing is located pretty far aft on the main body. That V tail looks cool too, I cant remember the last time I built any larger glider with one.The closely-spaced V-tail and wings could make a model of the Star Booster rather sensitive in pitch, although the generous sweepback of the tail assembly may compensate for this somewhat by lengthening the ruddervators' moment arms.In fact, since this design is pretty 'nosy', it would be incumbent to make sure that what ever you use for BT and NC are the lightest possible, or youll get a glide CG way too far forward. Probably the best way is to make an 'LV' type like I did with that BT-80 Bomarc on an E9 deal.Yes, a blow-molded nose cone or a hollowed-out balsa nose cone would be in order for such a model.While this doesnt have much wing area per se, it does have a pretty thin high AR planform, so any material too prone to flutter and warping isnt good here.The illustration of the early V-tailed version may not depict the wing and tail airfoil thicknesses accurately. Going from memory (it may have been Dr. Maxime Faget who told me), they were thinking in terms of rather thick (although not exaggeratedly so), symmetrical-section airfoils to prevent the wings and tail surfaces from warping due to the thermal gradients across their aluminum structures during re-entry. In addition, thicker airfoil sections would provide improved low-speed lift and a lower landing speed. (Dr. Faget's straight-winged shuttle orbiter and reusable booster designs also had wing and tail section airfoils of this type.)Ill probably make an 80 sized version of this once I either can get more long BT80s or even a good gift wrap roll. Only hitch is making ruddervators but the old 2x band/clip suffices.Quest's 40 mm and 50 mm tubing might be light enough, and they have lightweight blow-molded nose cones for these. Also, Quest might be interested in kitting your design for F/F (Free Flight) and/or R/C (Radio Control). [Shrox, are you reading this?]. :-)