Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > Rocket Boosted Gliders
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2009, 08:16 AM
brianc brianc is offline
Rivet Counter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 173
Default USAF Reusable Booster System (RBS)

I'm gonna have to try this one!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/0...ploy/print.html

Quote:
The US Air Force has announced that it is interested in a "Reusable Booster System" (RBS) - a combination of rocket and aeroplane which could replace the first stage of existing orbital launch stacks. After the upper stages separated and carried on into space, the winged RBS would glide down to a winged landing for refuelling and subsequent re-use.
__________________
brianc -- NAR 83726 \ TRA 11640 \ L2
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-14-2009, 09:27 AM
wilsotr's Avatar
wilsotr wilsotr is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 332
Default

Interesting concept. Sounds a lot like a thing called "The Space Shuttle."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2009, 09:35 AM
AstronMike AstronMike is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 224
Default

Hmm, interesting, but wheres a good pic of it in full stack mode and one of a top view as well?

Its another delta derivative, so its very similar to stuff I have done before, such as the delta based glide booster from over 15yrs ago. IOW, it was a fully functional glider serving as a booster stage with a large flexie RG atop it as a sustainer. Worked well until one of the D motors in it catoed, burning the booster to a crisp and not igniting the flexie sustainer.

Might have to revisit this thing again, preferably upscaled.

Let us know what you are going to be doing with this, Brian!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-14-2009, 09:56 AM
Nuke Rocketeer's Avatar
Nuke Rocketeer Nuke Rocketeer is offline
Knuckle Draggin' Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minooka IL
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianc


It will get porkulated by the congresscritters if DoD tries to follow through with it. Just like the shuttle did when Congress found out NASA was going to use fewer people to run operations.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2009, 10:25 AM
GregGleason's Avatar
GregGleason GregGleason is offline
U.S. Manned Space Program Buff
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AstronMike

Hmm, interesting, but wheres a good pic of it in full stack mode and one of a top view as well?



There was a link to a PPT in the news link. Not great dimensional information but it is interesting.

In the 2nd pic, the lower right vehicle looks similar the Centuri Space Shuttle.

Greg
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  SDP.png
Views: 184
Size:  114.7 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  SDP_VO.png
Views: 199
Size:  320.4 KB  
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-14-2009, 02:51 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke Rocketeer
It will get porkulated by the congresscritters if DoD tries to follow through with it. Just like the shuttle did when Congress found out NASA was going to use fewer people to run operations.


I thought it was the DoD that got NASA to pork it up so it would be big enough to haul spy sat payloads. Or are you speaking of the program as a whole, not the specs on the shuttle?
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-14-2009, 03:02 PM
wilsotr's Avatar
wilsotr wilsotr is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
I thought it was the DoD that got NASA to pork it up so it would be big enough to haul spy sat payloads.


Yep .... that's pretty much the way it worked. Much of Shuttle's capability was driven by DoD - not NASA - requirements. There was a "partnership" there that made the program palatable to Congress.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-14-2009, 03:04 PM
wilsotr's Avatar
wilsotr wilsotr is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregGleason
In the 2nd pic, the lower right vehicle looks similar the Centuri Space Shuttle.


Which itself came from early NASA Space Shuttle proposals ... or at least appears to have come from them. History repeats.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-14-2009, 03:14 PM
Nuke Rocketeer's Avatar
Nuke Rocketeer Nuke Rocketeer is offline
Knuckle Draggin' Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minooka IL
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
I thought it was the DoD that got NASA to pork it up so it would be big enough to haul spy sat payloads. Or are you speaking of the program as a whole, not the specs on the shuttle?


The program as a whole. I found about the porking of the shuttle for employment from Jerry Pournelle's website. It was not widely publicized, but it was there. Certain powerful congresscritters wanted no shuttle caused drops in employment in their districts. Even with the DoD specs increasing the size/cross-range capability/etc, NASA projected that it would take far fewer people to run operations.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-15-2009, 10:39 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

This is a flyback BOOSTER... lofting either an expendable upper stage or a spaceplane. This has been proposed before but the cost always seems to get in the way.

There were proposals for a bimese or even trimese shuttles using either one or two 'flyback boosters' to propel lift an orbiter to act as a first and second stage where the orbiter would finish it's own ascent to orbit while the boosters returned to their own runway landing. Cost ultimately killed the idea which then led to the expendable tank solution, but which required huge SRB's to lift the thing off the ground for the first 2 minutes of flight. Hence the shuttle we have.

It's a VERY interesting read, if you're really interested in how the shuttle as we have it came to be, since it is SO different from the original proposals were. I highly recommend "The Space Shuttle Decision" by T. A. Heppenheimer. It details all the twists and turns and political machinations that can turn a technically challenging but feasible 'next step' engineering problem/solution into an overbudget, underperforming, compromised by compromises politically-derived vehicle that doesn't really satisfy ANYBODY'S requirements. We're seeing much the same from NASA all over again, only this time they can't blame the DoD/Air Force. Constellation is NASA's own perfect screwup...

Shuttle had to switch from the Faget short straight wing/conventional tailplane orbiter design to the delta wing configuration to get enough cross-range for AF/DOD requirements when returning from polar orbits. The orbiter got HUGE in response to AF/DOD requirements for payload bay sizing and lift capabilities for national defense payloads. The expendable tank came about after it was figured out that a shuttle would be TOO BIG to ever lift off carrying it's own fuel internally, and would not be able to carry a payload because of the internal tankage. The SRB's came about after the orbiter size had grown to the point that the amount of fuel required to propel it to orbit was SO heavy it would never lift off without booster rockets, and the money wasn't there to develop flyback boosters or a 'mother ship' to carry it to altitude where it COULD fly to orbit on it's own power with an external tank. All those decisions compromised the shuttle design, all for requirements that NEVER were utilized. The AF/DOD shuttle launch pads at Vandenberg were converted for Delta IV and NEVER used to launch a shuttle into the planned military polar orbits, which had to launch from Vandenberg to allow the SRB's the parachute into the Gulf of California or the Pacific off the Mexico coast... polar shuttle missions couldn't be launched from Florida without risking dropping the SRB's on Cuba or South America. Because of phasing of polar orbits (as the earth rotates underneath the orbiting vehicle) the large cross-range was required, which compromised MANY of the shuttle designs.

What's sad is that had the resources POURED into shuttle been diverted to upgrades and streamlining production and cost reductions on Saturn vehicles, we would have gotten FAR more return on investment... The Saturn S-IC stage could have been redesigned into the S-ID stage, with the four outer F-1 engines jettisoning halfway to orbit like the ATLAS missile did, with the remaining F-1 propelling the stage and it's cargo to orbit. Such a 1.5 stage to orbit vehicle could have given the same lift capability to orbit as shuttle for the same price or less, despite being an expendable vehicle. Plans were also in the works for using an S-IVB stage and a modified S-IC stage as a replacement for Saturn IB, or developing liquid booster rockets for the Saturn V, each of which would have had two F-1 engines, which could have been used as a first stage for a Saturn IB replacement. Sadly such plans all came to naught in the rush to trash the Saturns.

Now here we are 40 years later rushing BACK to the expendable capsule paradigm and expendable boosters, because shuttle has proven SO horrifically expensive, unsafe, and ill suited to exploration beyond LEO.

Interesting how history works sometimes.... OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024