Now that swing wing design….we have seen designs shed tanks right. Thanks that when full of fluid could not possibly hold their own weight up right? And we don’t want ice getting on that RCC right?From Aviation magazine 1965.
Now that swing wing design….we have seen designs shed tanks right. Thanks that when full of fluid could not possibly hold their own weight up right? And we don’t want ice getting on that RCC right?From Aviation magazine 1965.
So you don’t.
The thing launches….the RCC are flaps nowhere near anything. Tanks and engines slide out of the wing that’s folded flat against the rocket. Ice slides right off the wing. When safe, RCC folds back along the wings. Re-enter…deploy as unit.
I was thinking having the whole TPS not attached to tankage at all-but through hinges? No ice. No cold. No flex. Fold along now dry empty tankage and airflow keeps it in place.
Everyone keep in mind the KISS principle. The STS got a whole lot of things wrong (SRBs and expendable flaking insulation tank tank), but at least the orbiter mostly made it back in one piece, except when solids (NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) and flaking insulation throwaway tanks (also NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) "malfunctioned". If you want true reusability, go all the way or not at all.I was thinking having the whole TPS not attached to tankage at all-but through hinges? No ice. No cold. No flex. Fold along now dry empty tankage and airflow keeps it in place.
That's still the mass of the 'folding' system and another point of failure if it does not deploy properly. You also have to have it rigidly attached to the vehicle since having it decide to 'slide' off one side could have "bad" results
Mind you I'm not totally against a 'deploying' TPS per-se as there's been some interesting work on the matter it's just that (unfortunately) none of the systems tested have actually worked in actual flight yet.
Randy
Everyone keep in mind the KISS principle. The STS got a whole lot of things wrong (SRBs and expendable flaking insuation tank tank), but at least the orbiter mostly made it back in one piece, except when solids (NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) and flaking insulation throwaway tanks (also NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) "malfunctioned". If you want true reusability, go all the way or not at all.I was thinking having the whole TPS not attached to tankage at all-but through hinges? No ice. No cold. No flex. Fold along now dry empty tankage and airflow keeps it in place.
That's still the mass of the 'folding' system and another point of failure if it does not deploy properly. You also have to have it rigidly attached to the vehicle since having it decide to 'slide' off one side could have "bad" results
Mind you I'm not totally against a 'deploying' TPS per-se as there's been some interesting work on the matter it's just that (unfortunately) none of the systems tested have actually worked in actual flight yet.
Randy
not feasible. Loads are too high.Hmm...TPS as fairing/shroud? Above cluster tankage-slides down on rails? All dry by then...petals...all tech inward facing. TPS is the grid fin.
But being honest you'd likely still have some 'ice' issues with a fully reusable system given the use of hydrogen. (Heck Starship/Superheavy is going to have the same issues with liquid methane if we're honest, they are hoping to avoid issues by "stacking" things better but it's likely still going to be a general issue)Everyone keep in mind the KISS principle. The STS got a whole lot of things wrong (SRBs and expendable flaking insulation tank tank), but at least the orbiter mostly made it back in one piece, except when solids (NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) and flaking insulation throwaway tanks (also NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) "malfunctioned". If you want true reusability, go all the way or not at all.I was thinking having the whole TPS not attached to tankage at all-but through hinges? No ice. No cold. No flex. Fold along now dry empty tankage and airflow keeps it in place.
That's still the mass of the 'folding' system and another point of failure if it does not deploy properly. You also have to have it rigidly attached to the vehicle since having it decide to 'slide' off one side could have "bad" results
Mind you I'm not totally against a 'deploying' TPS per-se as there's been some interesting work on the matter it's just that (unfortunately) none of the systems tested have actually worked in actual flight yet.
Randy
Everyone keep in mind the KISS principle. The STS got a whole lot of things wrong (SRBs and expendable flaking insuation tank tank), but at least the orbiter mostly made it back in one piece, except when solids (NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) and flaking insulation throwaway tanks (also NEVER EVER use those on crewed missions) "malfunctioned". If you want true reusability, go all the way or not at all.I was thinking having the whole TPS not attached to tankage at all-but through hinges? No ice. No cold. No flex. Fold along now dry empty tankage and airflow keeps it in place.
That's still the mass of the 'folding' system and another point of failure if it does not deploy properly. You also have to have it rigidly attached to the vehicle since having it decide to 'slide' off one side could have "bad" results
Mind you I'm not totally against a 'deploying' TPS per-se as there's been some interesting work on the matter it's just that (unfortunately) none of the systems tested have actually worked in actual flight yet.
Randy
"flaking insulation throwaway tanks" is not a generic issue. They are in constant use and it doesn't cause problems. And it isn't the insulation, it is ice that can cause problems most of the time. The STS issue was putting impact sensitive TPS in a debris shedding environment.
My apologies for derailing the conversation. I got triggered by the swing wings and went on to an old man rant/tear from there.And this relates to French TSTOs, how ?
Hi, any chance you could get these in a higher resolution? It's pretty much impossible to read the text or numbersGot this a while back on Ebay...
An updated link: Rev. Phys. Appl. (Paris) 5, 455-465 (1970) DOI: 10.1051/rphysap:0197000503045500 - Utilisation d'un alliage de niobium dans la réalisation d'un véhicule hypersoniquePerez, Syre, Billon, Pichoir et Guyot (Tréfimétaux GP, Nord-Aviation, Onera
"Utilisation d'un alliage de niobium dans la réalisation d'un véhicule hypersonique"
Rev. Phys. Appl. (Paris) 5, 455-465 (1970)
link: http://rphysap.journaldephysique.or..._1970__5_3_455_0/rphysap_1970__5_3_455_0.html
In case you wonder, Giscard (Valery, Giscard d'Estaing) was the french president 1974-81. As for George Marchais he was first secretary of the french communist party at the same period.Giscard punk
Bring back Marchais
Star Raker/Mini? Well, the bigger would be ten…Well it also depends if the design is realistic or not!
Turboramjets are complex, heavy and expensive, and even with 6 of them the airbreathing first-stage top speed is "only" mach 6.
At such "low" speed you still need expendable upper stages to reach orbit...