Some positions remain untenable no matter how many times they're repeated.
Rockwell International Star-Raker
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,302
- Reaction score
- 12,121
Won't stop them from being repeated. (UBI for example.)
Listen here Youngn, it's been "going on" since before "I" was in high school
Keep in mind "Aerospaceplane" is a late 50s vintage concept and the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you )Randy
It might be that VTVL rocket and HTOL airbreather are equally good. It might be that one or the other will eventually prove to be long-term clearly superior. As with internal combustion, battery electric and steam power for the very first cars, nobody really *knew,* they just had arguments and opinion. What settled it was *doing* it. And so far, VTVL rocket is the only system that has made a serious effort towards getting it done. Airbreathers, despite the billions spent, have not made a serious effort; no airbreather has made it halfway to the needed velocity. And that fact that "billions spent" still equates to "not a serious effort" is a good indicator that "HTOL airbreather" may well not be that great of a system. While VTVL rockets can be built by an internet billionaire with occasionally dodgy ideas. The fact that every single vehicle to ever get to orbit has had far more in common with the VTVL rocket than with the HTOL airbreather is also an indicator.the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you
But Musk level investment really hasn't been done. The size of Star Raker scared folks off same as with NOVA class rockets only now being stacked. My only point is that I'd like to to see other concepts well funded. Then the arguements can truly begin. We are here because we are all suckers for lost causes...lost futures...
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,302
- Reaction score
- 12,121
Just developing the air-breathing engine portion of Star Raker would likely cost more than SpaceX has spent on Starship.
I suppose Hazegrayart drew inspiration from that David Portree blog entry...
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com
Star-Raker (1978)
The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com
Hogwash. Far more than Musk-Money was spent on NASP alone (budgetted well into the billions), resulting in *zero* flight hardware. The X-43 programs spent about a quarter billion in order to spend a few seconds cruising, not even accelerating, at about Mach 10. Imagine what Musk could have done with *that* money. How much has been spent on HOTOL/SKYLON/SABRE, so far resulting in zero flight hardware?
The evidence suggests so far that the development of an airbreather launch system is orders of magnitude more expensive than the development of relatively conventional rocket systems. If the end result is a vehicle that reliably flies for orders of magnitude less operational cost, it *might* end up being worth it, but there is no evidence to suggest that an orbital airbreather would cost less to operate than a rocket. Liquid oxygen is *cheap.*
Past the money issue there's no actual need or requirement for that much lift capacity and there really WOULDN'T be considering the amount of in-space and on-orbit infrastructure they were supposed to support.
Going back to the video you need to keep in mind that in addition to that huge power-sat there's also a huge amount of construction, industrial and living infrastructure to back all that up. In a way it DOES come down to money because essentially space exploration is a vast hole that swallows money like candy but does not have a consummate actual 'payback' which is unlike similar historical efforts here on Earth.
You can make money in, around and using "space" but for the most part the actual "economics" don't lend themselves as of yet to regular usage. I kinda find it funny that folks bandy around statements like "Musk level of investment" when he's been pretty clear that SpaceX is NOT the cash cow and it's things like Tesla that keep SpaceX 'fat' enough to afford throwing away "prototypes" instead of taking the time and effort to actually do it right the first time. It's not easy nor is it guaranteed but there's enough money to be made supporting operations that we finally have actual 'commercial' interest beyond just that supporting role.
The other issue is actually the idea of a "lost future" because we didn't really "lose" anything. We got overly hyped for a one time situation and event (Apollo) that skewed our ideas of not only what was possible but what was probable and when all that hype returned to a more reasonable and sustainable level, (and frankly in 'reaction' to that previous over-hype dropped below those levels for far to long) we were disappointed and frustrated. The entire reason such 'lost futures' were created was trying to find a reason and 'cause' that would support a return to the over-hyped levels of the past instead of actually looking towards a working and reasonable future and that in turn only fed the discontent and disappointment. And there's still a HUGE amount of hype surrounding such 'futures' that frankly not lost but likely yet to come.
People want that 'future' now, without wanting to do the hard and serious work needed to build them up and make them happen. The 'problem' is that space exploration and even exploitation is still very much a 'niche' operation until and unless we build up capability and capacity on-orbit and that's going to be a process that will take some time and effort and most "Space Cadets" (like me
) don't really want to hear that let alone wait for it. But that's how it works, it's literally the only way it's ever worked.Randy
It might be that VTVL rocket and HTOL airbreather are equally good. It might be that one or the other will eventually prove to be long-term clearly superior. As with internal combustion, battery electric and steam power for the very first cars, nobody really *knew,* they just had arguments and opinion. What settled it was *doing* it. And so far, VTVL rocket is the only system that has made a serious effort towards getting it done. Airbreathers, despite the billions spent, have not made a serious effort; no airbreather has made it halfway to the needed velocity. And that fact that "billions spent" still equates to "not a serious effort" is a good indicator that "HTOL airbreather" may well not be that great of a system. While VTVL rockets can be built by an internet billionaire with occasionally dodgy ideas. The fact that every single vehicle to ever get to orbit has had far more in common with the VTVL rocket than with the HTOL airbreather is also an indicator.the arguments will likely continue AFTER we have a working system in place. (Not that I think either VTVL or pure rocket power is a clear winner mind you
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so. The problem you're addressing is the "all-in-one-go-to-orbit" which is exactly NOT how either VTVL or VTHL space launch is working the problem.
NASP for example was no more likely to happen than VTVL rocket powered SSTO as both were 'aimed' at very specific and 'niche' missions that had little to do with actual operation and a ton to do with politics and bias'. We have and had flying and working examples of airbreathing engines and airframes that have flown up to Mach 6 speeds (where you want to get out of the atmosphere anyway) that have been tested up to Mach 10 and are adequate to the job as long as the mission is reasonably based.
As you note we currently (and for the foreseeable future) don't need to go to space often enough in enough missions to have to really 'chose' a means at this time. Rocket's are like the steam cars in your example. Reliable and well understood technology that gets the job done. Air Breathing could be like internal combustion engines, new-ish, finicky and "cutting-edge" but may be the way of the future. Or they could be 'batteries' which are also new, limited and in need of a lot of development and may only be usable in mass far in the future. We simply don't really know at this point and have to keep our options open.
Or someone could throw a nice wrench in the works and figure out how to make anti-gravity "lifters" that do the job with no fuss or muss... Not holding out hope on that one though
Randy
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.
Indeed. But "keep our options open" is a different worldview than "I choose this untried idea. I will base all future planning on this one technology somehow working soon, when it hasn't in fifty years of trying."
Because nobody else has a requirement for such large vehicles.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 9,415
- Reaction score
- 17,152
Missed this when it came out:
Uhm, no actually. Turboramjets, ramjets, and rocket-based combined-cycle jets (both solid and liquid) have been developed and even flight tested to hypersonic speeds and really you want to get out of the atmosphere after Mach 5/6 anyway. Yes we've seen more 'subsonic' jet use (mosty carrier aircraft) but the basic technology isn't questioned.
We use rockets because of the operations and the fact we've got that infrastructure in place. High mach aircraft operations are known to be expensive but in context they are on par with rocket operations so the main question has always been who has the means, opportunity and funding to give it a try. Like booster reuse it's a known possible method but the risks for first adapters is pretty significant.
Again the same as booster reuse for context. (Or Starship for that matter ) The risk is high but so is the reward if it goes well.
Randy
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.
Uhm, no actually. Turboramjets, ramjets, and rocket-based combined-cycle jets (both solid and liquid) have been developed and even flight tested to hypersonic speeds and really you want to get out of the atmosphere after Mach 5/6 anyway. Yes we've seen more 'subsonic' jet use (mosty carrier aircraft) but the basic technology isn't questioned.
We use rockets because of the operations and the fact we've got that infrastructure in place. High mach aircraft operations are known to be expensive but in context they are on par with rocket operations so the main question has always been who has the means, opportunity and funding to give it a try. Like booster reuse it's a known possible method but the risks for first adapters is pretty significant.
Again the same as booster reuse for context. (Or Starship for that matter
) The risk is high but so is the reward if it goes well.Randy
Yes, actually. The only airbreathers that have been used for space launch are the turbofans used by NB-52's and L-1011's to Launch Pegasi, and in those cases the turbofans have stayed firmly within the atmosphere. One could argue that the turbojets used on the fighters that launched NOTSNIKs may also apply, assuming orbital *attempts* counts, but still the airbreathers stayed within the air.Missed this when it came out:
Except that in context VTHL rockets have also been serious efforts and as viable as VTVL
And airbreathers have worked into the areas of being a part of the needed velocity for orbit and in fact have reached space and are still doing so.
Yeah, but only well-understood turbofans, and well below Mach 1... and none of them integrated into the actual vehicle that goes to space.
Uhm, no actually.
So far no vehicle to go to orbit has had anything but rockets for propulsion. IIRC, nothing but rockets have gone above the atmosphere.
southwestforests
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 28 June 2012
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 1,190
A nice thing about not using air-breathing engines on craft which leave the atmosphere and return to it is that you do not need to protect the air intake pathway during reentry heating and hence the craft does not carry either the weight or the potentially malfunctioning hardware of such a system.
(there already are plenty enough potential malfunction points on a spacecraft thank you very much)
(there already are plenty enough potential malfunction points on a spacecraft thank you very much)
NavarchNicias
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 23 March 2022
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 106
Everything old is new again. This startup wants to resurrect the Star-Raker concept. Their material is a bit...preliminary, but since we're on the topic:
View: https://youtu.be/kvVEM5NKF9g
Attachments
I suspect "startup" might be overstating the case.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 9,415
- Reaction score
- 17,152
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 3,341
- Reaction score
- 3,811
HTHL TSTO with two airbreathing combined cycle propulsion system stages - what's not to like for an airbreather afficionado (which I'm not
).NavarchNicias
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 23 March 2022
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 106
Well, the kids have to learn about auto-decapitation sooner or later.
Also, that beautiful landing gear. So excited for its first trip to space! Alas, that was not to be.
Seriously though, the detail here is great. I'm excited to see more of the color scheme and painting process, so please do keep posting progress pictures.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 11,414
- Reaction score
- 13,897
It's an awesome looking thing, but I somehow suspect that the only way SSTO is going to work is with nuclear powered engines. And probably fusion, if we can get the stupid reactors to work and then light enough to stick into a shuttle. Maybe in 100 years?
It's just too damn expensive to haul all that mass up from the Earth. Or even from the Moon.
Even if you could make an Orbital Elevator beanstalk work.
More than Skylab, or maybe just more Skylabs. Actually building Space Station Freedom, not the ISS. (not going to talk about all the science missions that Freedom was supposed to do that ISS cannot, due to the required orbital inclination to be accessible to the Russians)
The only way to support SPS, I mean the BIG plans for SPS, was orbital resource extraction. Asteroid Mining.
It's just too damn expensive to haul all that mass up from the Earth. Or even from the Moon.
Even if you could make an Orbital Elevator beanstalk work.
I suspect that if the US hadn't been stuck in Vietnam with all that budget-vacuuming, it may have been possible to keep pushing to more than just "yay, we beat the Soviets to the Moon."
More than Skylab, or maybe just more Skylabs. Actually building Space Station Freedom, not the ISS. (not going to talk about all the science missions that Freedom was supposed to do that ISS cannot, due to the required orbital inclination to be accessible to the Russians)
You are going to tell us when that kit goes to production, aren't you? *gives Orionblamblam the hairy eyeball*
Yes. There have been delays due to unrelated complications, but it's coming along.
Of course, I can always be bribed to speed things along.
That was the assumption but it turns out that once you bring the cost to orbit down a "bit" the "savings" from using extraterrestrial resources is overcome by the cost of setting up resource extraction and manufacturing in space. Hence why the big lifters which would carry the parts into orbit while most of the work used already existing manufacturing on Earth to produce.
The difference was the folks behind the orbital colonies wanted to end up with justification for building and supplying those orbital colonies and due to the ongoing energy crisis they picked SPS's as the main reason for having a huge off-planet resources and industrial base with which to build those colonies.
I was highly disappointed to find out that just a "little" (it's not really a "little" but in comparison to then current costs it was) drop in the price to orbit, (which keep in mind all the space colony advocates expect as just a 'byproduct' of more space flight) and suddenly your main costs are no longer just resources but the upfront costs of building manufacturing and processing capability 'on-orbit'.
Eh the political and public support problem was exacerbated by Vietnam but had been steadily falling since the Lunar goal was chosen. At peak funding of 4.41% (in 1966) most of the public and a lot of politicians thought that NASA was getting to much money for too little "return" from the Moon race. More to the point NASA was getting all that money yet the very next year we saw everything come grinding to a halt because NASA ignored safety and other issues in their rush to the Moon and we lost three astronauts because of it.
Totally unacceptable to the public and even more so Congress saw it as a betrayal of the light oversight and handling they had been giving NASA up to that point.
At which point they began cutting back NASA's overall budget, not enough to cripple the current "program" but enough to ensure there would be no suggestion of a "grand" followup of some kind. And what did NASA do? Propose "grand" followup programs costing many times what Apollo had cost. It was a really, really bad time to make grand proposals for new programs, especially with the words "..and the on to Mars!" tacked onto every single suggestion.
As far as anyone (outside of NASA and the DoD and even there only at higher levels) could tell the Soviets had never been in a "race" for the Moon and they said as much. So that made all that effort and money look even worse and now NASA was asking for even more money? Ya it wasn't going to happen with the underlying attitude of the political and public mood.
And on the other side of the coin, well simply put from 1962 to 1970 NASA had totally rebuilt itself to reach the Moon within a little over 7 years and frankly no longer knew how to do anything BUT a major program like Apollo. So that's all they kept suggesting as a "follow on" programs. A "Catch 22" type problem that NASA has spent almost half a century trying to change.
Randy
Similar threads
-
-
McDonnell Douglas X-33 SSTO Reusable Launch Vehicle- Started by athpilot
- Replies: 0
-
Boeing / North American Rockwell Windjammer SSTO
- Started by 7Daniel13
- Replies: 6
-
-
Rockwell International MRCC (Multi Role Common Core) TAV- Started by flateric
- Replies: 24