Last year I sent the following to Rocket Lab, who produce the two-stage, electrical pump-fed kerolox-powered Electron launch vehicle (and are working toward recovering and reusing its nine-[Rutherford] engine first stage):

I am a spaceflight historian in Fairbanks, Alaska. While examining the design features of the Rocket Lab Electron launch vehicle—including its Sea Level-optimized and vacuum-optimized Rutherford rocket engines—it occurred to me that there are several types of historical suborbital, and also orbital TSTO (Two-Stage-To-Orbit) and SSTO (Single-Stage-To-Orbit), VTOVL (Vertical Take-Off, Vertical Landing) reusable launch vehicle/spacecraft designs that your company could produce, in smaller, Rutherford-powered versions. (Your restartable, monopropellant Curie rocket engine could also be used in reusable VTOVL vehicles of this type [with aerospike or aeroplug altitude-compensating propulsion systems], especially suborbital ones [and a VTOVL, single-stage reusable high-altitude meteorological rocket would also be useful].) These VTOVL vehicles, made in different sizes, could cater to suborbital (scientific [meteorological and sounding rocket-type] and/or suborbital space tourism) and orbital spaceflight needs, and:

Most—but not all—of these historic designs used external-expansion, plug nozzle (aerospike) or aeroplug altitude-compensating engines. In these propulsion systems, several small, conventional bell nozzle or conical nozzle rocket engines exhausted against (or through) either a central plug nozzle (as in the aerospike, an “inside-out” bell or conical nozzle) or the rounded, “space capsule heat shield-like” bottom of the vehicle (this was the aeroplug engine concept). In fact, in these vehicle designs, both the aerospike and aeroplug engines also doubled as base-first, blunt-bottom re-entry heat shields, which were usually actively cooled. (With modern, low-regression [erosion] rate heat shield ablators such as PICA and PICA-X, active cooling of the aerospike or aeroplug—during engine operation and/or re-entry—may be unnecessary, especially with suborbital VTOVL vehicles.) This was done either by pumping the fuel (usually liquid hydrogen, although some more recent VTOVL SSTO designs used kerosene fuel) through cooling passages in the aerospike (and the small conventional rocket engines) and venting it overboard, or by actually running the aerospike engine—at low thrust—during re-entry (this also enabled the vehicles to fly high-crossrange re-entry trajectories, despite their lack of wings!). Here (see: http://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glos...=term&term=SSTO ) are several articles about U.S. and foreign VTOVL SSTO vehicle designs (I have also provided individual links to some of the more prominent ones below [and *here* http://www.google.com/search?source.....0.jTsY013c6zM is information on Chrysler’s SERV SSTO vehicle]). But first:

There are two books that contain valuable SSTO information. They are “Frontiers of Space” by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland (see: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sea...Space&kn=&isbn= ) and “Halfway to Anywhere: Achieving America’s Destiny in Space” by G. Harry Stine (see: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sea...Space&kn=&isbn= ). (I’m sure that Amazon.com also carries both of these books.) “Frontiers of Space” covers McDonnell Douglas engineer Philip Bono’s Saturn S-IVB stage-derived SASSTO SSTO vehicle, and his larger Hyperion, Ithacus, Rombus, and Pegasus SSTO craft, all of which used aerospike or aeroplug engines and rocket-powered vertical takeoffs (except Hyperion, which was track-launched) and vertical landings. G. Harry Stine’s “Halfway to Anywhere,” in addition to covering the early history of the Clipper Graham DC-X test vehicle, also chronicles Philip Bono’s, Maxwell Hunter’s, and Gary Hudson’s SSTO designs. It also contains a list—with performance figures—of historic and existing rocket stages that were/are capable of reaching Earth orbit all by themselves while carrying small payloads, which shows that the oft-repeated claim that “SSTO is impossible” is simply untrue. In addition:

There are designs for fully-reusable, TSTO (Two-Stage-To-Orbit) VTOVL launch vehicles that were/are designed like VTOVL SSTO vehicles. One—which was developed for a science fiction novel, but would actually work (which resulted in its designers patenting the design! [here is the patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5568901.html ])—is the DH-1 (see: http://www.projectrho.com/public_ht...urfaceorbit.php [and Philip Bono’s SASSTO SSTO design is covered directly below the DH-1 on this webpage]), which is featured in the 2005 novel “The Rocket Company” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rocket_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DH1 ). The DH-1 uses conventional bell nozzle rocket engines on its first stage, and what looks like an aeroplug engine on its second stage. While the DH-1’s patent—which will expire in three years, unless renewed for another 17 years—is for its specific design, there is nothing that would prevent Rocket Lab from building a generally similar vehicle. In fact:

A derivation of the DH-1’s design concept could utilize the conventional bell nozzle Rutherford engines on *both* stages. The second stage, which resembles a Jupiter IRBM or Titan II ICBM conical re-entry vehicle, could, like those ballistic missiles’ nose cones, utilize nose-first re-entry (like the somewhat similarly-shaped Discoverer and CORONA spy satellite film “buckets,” and also the Biosatellites, which used the same “bucket” re-entry vehicles to return their payloads to Earth). After re-entry, the second stage could re-orient itself “bottom downward” at low altitude and low airspeed for a rocket-braked vertical landing, by using either attitude control thrusters or a nose-deployed, small drogue parachute. (The first stage could also, if used by itself, function as a reusable suborbital launch vehicle [like a sounding rocket] and/or as a suborbital space tourism spacecraft [the payload or pressurized cabin could separate in space and land separately by parachute, if desired]; for this application, the first stage would have a nose cone/payload fairing or pressurized module [all of which could be reusable, too], which could be shaped like the DH-1’s conical, radiused-tip second stage.) Also, here are other SSTO and “SSTO-style” TSTO vehicle designs:

The following historic designs are covered in “INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLE PLANS [1963 – 2001]” by Marcus Lindroos (see: http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseyt...celvs/index.htm ); his document contains information on—and illustrations of—several VTOVL (Vertical Take-Off, Vertical Landing) SSTO—Single-Stage-To-Orbit—launch vehicles. Smaller vehicles of similar design, powered by Rutherford (or Curie, for quite small vehicles) rocket engines, could be made to cater to suborbital (scientific [sounding rocket] and/or space tourism) and orbital spaceflight needs. These designs include (in Section 1) the DOUGLAS “R.O.M.B.U.S.” [1963], DOUGLAS “R.O.M.B.U.S.” & PROJECT SELENA [1963], DOUGLAS “R.O.M.B.U.S.” & PROJECT DEIMOS [1963], DOUGLAS “PEGASUS” [1964], DOUGLAS “ITHACUS” [1964], NORTH AMERICAN AIR-AUGMENTED VTVL SSTO [1963], DOUGLAS “S.A.S.S.T.O.” [1966], and (in Section 2), the CHRYSLER “S.E.R.V.” [PHASE-A' SHUTTLE] [1971] , plus (in Section 3), the BOEING “LEO” VTVL SSTO [1976] and BOEING 2-STAGE VTVL “HLLV” [1976] (this last one was a two-stage vehicle with SSTO design features, rather like how the DH-1 is). As well, below are links to some of the more prominent SSTO articles on the “Space Future” website:

“Beta, A Single Stage Reusable Ballistic Space Shuttle Concept” (see: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...e_concept.shtml )

“History of the Phoenix VTOL SSTO and Recent Developments in Single-Stage Launch Systems” (it also contains several links, see: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...h_systems.shtml )

“A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment” (see: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...xperiment.shtml )

“Design Study on Propulsion Systems for Space Tourist Carrier Vehicle” (see: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...r_vehicle.shtml )

I hope this information will be useful.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

I always feel more comfortable flying rudder-elevator models than aileron-elevator models anyway. And I did briefly do an orbiter with mixed elevons, which was not as easy to fly, and did not look smooth and realistic for how an orbiter really flew (no quick hard banking).

Anyway, I once made a huge 1/22 scale orbiter out of cardboard (1977 or early 1978), to throw off of a very tall hill.



It had the whole rudder move for steering. First throw, it was a bit nose-down, I went to turn it left, but it rolled to the right! So, it acted like a vertical aileron, the wrong way. So, I figured I needed to steer it opposite. Next throw, I did not try to steer it until it was nose-high. I gave left rudder to roll it right.....and it YAWED left like rudder should do.
And that is how I realized the angle of attack made a huge difference in the rudder's "steering" response, if I used the full height rudder. I theorized if only the lower half moved, that might solve the opposute roll problem regardless of angle of attack (at least for glide). And the first orbiter I tried lower-rudder-only steering, had rock-solid control response like a rudder model should (dihedral is what allows yaw from rudder to cause a model to gently bank in roll. While technically the orbiter had no dihedral, the double delta wing and one other factor allow model orbiters to behave like they have dihedral)

Fortunately, the real orbiters had two rudder surfaces, upper and lower (also they split horizontally as speedbrakes but I am not referring to that aspect. So technically the "rudders" were four hinged assemblies). The main reason for the two rudder portions vertically, was concern over thermal expansion differences over a long distance. As used for aerodynamic flight, upper and lower rudders moved the same degrees left or right. I made use of that on my models to just make the lower part move, and since the area was not big, I had a LOT of throw, more than 45 degrees.



Photo above is the removeable plug-in vertical tail of my 1999 contest shuttle. Only the lower part of the rudder moved. Those black tile areas (black decal) helped to hide some things.

All of my R/C orbiters using rudder for steering, had opposite roll during rocket boost. Left rudder caused right roll. Because on the "side" of a rocket, a deflected rudder acted more like a spin tab, not a yaw producer. My fix for that was programming the transmitter to make the rudder move opposite for boost mode, then to normal when I toggled the switch from boost mode to glide mode (toggling that one switch also changed elevator trim, dual rates, and automatically moved the separation servo to release the orbiter from the ET or piggyback booster rocket).

So, on boost, if I moved the transmitter rudder stick to the left, the reversed servo moved the rudder right, which caused left roll. So, a sort of oddball problem easily solved once realized.

__________________
Contest flying, Sport flying, it's all good.....
NAR# 18723 NAR.org
GeorgesRockets.com
Georges'CancerGoFundMe:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-geo...ay-fight-cancer

I have read that, too, pertaining to "swap-able [flying] surfaces" rudder-elevator and aileron-elevator R/C sailplanes (that the latter, while easier to perform aerobatics with, are trickier to fly). Even rudder-only is sufficient, if the model has enough wing dihedral or polyhedral. The only exceptions I've heard and read about are V-tailed gliders with aileron-elevator control (where the V-tail surfaces function only as elevators, not as rudders at all; I have an FMS V-tailed trainer electric motorglider that's configured this way). An R/C scale X-37B or X-40 could also be set up that way.That big semi-scale Orbiter might have made a good PSS (Power Slope Scale [a category of slope scale gliders depicting powered aircraft and rocket planes, in which dimensional 'nudging' for better performance is welcome]) R/C glider (the rather similar-planform Avro Vulcan delta-winged bomber makes a great PSS glider). Argh...adverse yaw (and roll, in your case)! Thinking about it (it's in a NASA Langley Center book I have), some jet fighters--and jetliners--had/have this problem, too. At high speeds, the 727 used/uses its spoilers differentially to turn at high speeds, rather than "leading" a bank with the rudder (its vertical tail acts like the Orbiter's, too, causing roll rather than yaw at high speeds). By raising one spoiler to "dump" lift from that wing (the port wing, say), the 727 rolls "toward" that wing, and the bank is entered once the roll proceeds as far as the pilot needs it to.The only possible problem--which I'm sure you knew/know about, and which is easily avoided--is aerodynamic "blanking" of the lower-section-only rudder by turbulent airflow detaching from the fuselage upper surface, at high angles of attack. (The delta-winged Gloster Javelin's T-tail suffered the same "blanking" at high angles of attack, which made the fin-top horizontal stabilizer and elevator useless at such aircraft attitudes.) And yes--as Peter Alway pointed out in "The Art of Scale Model Rocketry"--minor flaws disappear behind a black-and-white checkerboard paint pattern (black and white tiles/quartz cloth blankets would have the same "hiding" effect... :-) ).That may be part of why R/C-capable Space Shuttle kits like NCR's were/are so rare (theirs may have been the only one). The R/C and trims set-up that you explained isn't terribly complicated (it's well within the capabilities of today's "computer radios"), but in the hands of the "average" R/C enthusiast, there are so many opportunities for facilitating power prangs and crashes while gliding (which would make company lawyers blanch at the accident/legal claim opportunities...).

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

I was able to get the Estes 1284 Space Shuttle orbiter to glide decently.
It needs about 25% more nose weight than Estes claims and I would set the elevens almost flat (maybe 10 degrees above neutral).
Don't expect "contest" glide performance.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

It might compete with a skydiver's glide performance.

__________________
I love sanding.

I got the 1284 Space Shuttle orbiter to glide almost as well as the Orbital Transport glider.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Flying brick, I like that.

__________________
BAR in his second tour of duty.
Nar# 32629

...Which can be surprisingly good, considering its short-span delta wing planform (long-span delta-wing sailplanes, such as the Horten H.1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_H.I , have been built and flown). If built using a good--light but strong--"grain cut" of sheet balsa, and given a smooth, lightweight finish, the Orbital Transport's Orbiter can glide much better than its compact configuration would suggest. A major factor could be its fixed elevons (which are fairly "draggy" in their 'catalog illustration' arrangement). If trimmed to glide well with the elevons at a lower angle (without making the glider very nose-heavy, which increases its total mass as well as its wing loading), it should have a better L/D ratio.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

The elevons on my Orbital Transport gliders have below HALF of the deflection in the original Estes plans.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Wing loading of the Orbital Transport glider, way better than the wing loading on the teeny little 1/162 shuttle orbiter.

No way that the 1/162 orbiter could glide as well as the OT's glider. That's like saying a VW bug could keep up with a Ford Mustang.

But I can certainly see that a few people got it to glide as stably as the OT glider can be, just not as "well" in the sense of sink rate.

One of the other issues with that little Estes orbiter was being so small and heavy that it didn't tend to be something very practical to throw to work out the glide trim. And as a "scale" orbiter, seems like a lot of builders either did not throw it enough to adjust trim (too concerned about damage from bad throws or bad trim), or went by the kit specs. Or, didn't bother with the kit specs, or plain screwed up by not paying the proper attention to the instructions (VERY tricky to set that elevon angle). I saw so many do things like super-stall, tumble, or spiral into the ground. That does not count the ones that never got a chance to glide because they pitched over badly at liftoff and crashed before ejection.

That's another plus of the Guillow's foma orbiter. It may not be accurate in scale, but it is molded to the exact elevon angles needed (not much), and if the CG is at the right spot, it will glide fine every time (a lot of the 1/162 builders got the elevon angles wrong for glide, or the noseweight wrong, or both, or both plus other errors). Had I kitted a 1/110 shuttle using that foam orbiter, I was going to give the exact CG location for the orbiter to achieve a stable glide.

Of course had I kitted it, I know at least one person would have complained how the whole kit sucked due to the 4 ounces of paint they would have somehow found a way to add. Or that it was "too weak" and shredded after they "ugraded" it to fly on an F50 or whatever. It would have been intended as a "look how nicely this flies" model, not a "detailed scale model that a person should have gotten a plastic model kit for and kept on a shelf to look at all pretty" model.

BTW - I still have a little bit of hope I still might do that 1/110 kit someday. The door is about 1/4" ajar, not nailed shut.

__________________
Contest flying, Sport flying, it's all good.....
NAR# 18723 NAR.org
GeorgesRockets.com
Georges'CancerGoFundMe:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-geo...ay-fight-cancer