Search This Blog

Wikipedia

Search results

Showing posts with label Philip Bono SSTO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philip Bono SSTO. Show all posts

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Philip Bono One Stage Orbital Rockets Pictures


http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/d/deimos4.jpg
Deimos Departure Credit: NASA deimos2.jpg. Deimos - MEM Descent Credit: NASA

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/d/deimos2.jpg
Deimos Departure Credit: NASA deimos2.jpg. Deimos - MEM Descent Credit: NASA

http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/Gemini%20in%20Neverland/gemini%20sassto%2003.jpg
Gemini-SASSTO dimensions and cutaway (Lowther, "Reusable Saturns," p.24)


http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/Gemini%20in%20Neverland/gemini%20sassto%2001.jpg
Gemini-SASSTO dimensions and cutaway (Lowther, "Reusable Saturns," p.24)

https://sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/space60s/deimos1.jpg

http://www.coinandstampgallery.com/Non_Num_Books/Bono%20Frontiers.jpg
Frontiers of Space The Pocket Encyclopedia Of Spaceflight In Color 
by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland Published 1969

http://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hyperion.jpg
yperion Single Stage To Orbit (Philip Bono)

https://sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/space60s/ithacusr.jpg
Douglas also proposed a military VTVL SSTO for transporting troops and cargo
the ”Ithacus.” The Ithacus plan was apparently inspired by general Wallace M. Greene,


http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/IthacusOnStand.jpg
ITHACUS VTVL SSTO Troop Carrier


http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/r/rombus1.jpg
Rombus

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/Icarusillustration.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Ithacus.jpg
Ithacus.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

http://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/pegasusithacus.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhezkhRnTJO5Ww93Nj9e2L5edrwLTxdXHlFoaCH1B6JZyEMcZQ7DWWPDygyf3wg-e0e-hruZS5FZr4ab3_njn4wM_l7HYM1ZTrnLi-7_ovdwXSM4_AYTcEaRolXlv_s7VE4D4wKIYnqGzki/s1600/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.1.gif

Philip Bono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philip Bono (13 January 1921 – 23 May 1993) was a Douglas Aircraft Company engineer. He was a pioneer of reusable vertical landing single-stage to orbit launch vehicles.
Bono pursued single-stage space launch as simpler and cheaper. He realized to do this he would need to use high specific impulse liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket engines. Afterwards he proposed to make these vehicles reusable. From his ROOST design onwards Bono advocated space launch vehicles without wings, usually using rocket assisted vertical takeoff and landing (VTVL). According to his estimates, wings consisted mostly of dead weight that decreased launch payload mass. He patented a reusable plug nozzle rocket engine which had dual use as a heat shield for atmospheric reentry. His early 1960s concepts influenced later designs like the 1990s Delta Clipper, also from Douglas.

Birth, education and career

Philip Bono was born in Brooklyn, New York on 13 January 1921.[1] He graduated from the University of Southern California in 1947 with a degree in mechanical engineering.  After graduation, Bono worked as a research and systems analyst for North American Aviation. Bono began working for Douglas Aircraft company in 1960. After the merger of McDonnell Aircraft and the Douglas Aircraft Company, he worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics from 1966 until 1988.  Philip Bono died on 23 May 1993 at the age of 72. He was a resident of Costa Mesa, California at the time of his death.[2]
Less than three months after Bono's death, the first launch vehicle based on his designs, the McDonnell Douglas DC-X (Delta Clipper) began a largely successful series of test flights. The DC-X was a vertical-takeoff and vertical landing vehicle. The series of test flights began on 18 August 1993 and continued until the launch vehicle was damaged on landing on 16 May 1995.[3]

Designs


ROMBUS
  • One Stage Orbital Space Truck (OOST) [4]
  • Recoverable One Stage Orbital Space Truck (ROOST) [5]
  • Reusable Orbital Module, Booster, and Utility Shuttle (ROMBUS)[6][7]
  • Ithacus[8][9]
  • Pegasus [10]
  • Hyperion[citation needed]
  • SASSTO [11]
Hyperion was HTVL, the others VTVL.

Bibliography

Philip Bono & Kenneth William Gatland, Frontiers Of Space, ISBN 0-7137-3504-X

Douglas SASSTO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Douglas Aircraft's SASSTO, short for "Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit", was a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) reusable launch system designed by Philip Bono's team in 1967. SASSTO was a study in minimalist designs, a launcher with the specific intent of repeatedly placing a Gemini capsule in orbit for the lowest possible cost. The SASSTO booster was based on the layout of the S-IVB upper stage from the Saturn family, modified with a plug nozzle. Although the SASSTO design was never followed up at Douglas, it is widely referred to in newer studies for SSTO launchers, notably the MBB "Beta" design, which was largely an updated version of SASSTO.

History

In 1962 NASA sent out a series of studies on post-Apollo launch needs, which generally assumed very large launchers for a manned mission to Mars. At Douglas, makers of the S-IVB, Philip Bono led a team that studied a number of very large liquid-fueled boosters as a way to lower the cost of space exploration. His designs were based on an economy of scale which makes larger rockets more economical than smaller ones as the structure accounts for less and less of the overall weight of the launcher.[1] At some point the dry weight of the launcher becomes lower than the payload it can launch, after which increases in payload fraction are essentially free. However, this point is crossed at relatively large vehicle sizes - Bono's original OOST study from 1963 was over 500 feet (150 m) long - and this path to lower costs only makes sense if there is an enormous amount of payload that needs to be launched.
After designing a number of such vehicles, including ROOST and the ROMBUS/Ithacus/Pegasus series, Bono noticed that the S-IVB stage, then just starting to be used operationally, was very close to being able to reach orbit on its own if launched from the ground. Intrigued, Bono started looking at what missions a small S-IVB-based SSTO could accomplish, realizing that it would be able to launch a manned Gemini capsule if it was equipped with some upgrades, notably an aerospike engine that would improve the specific impulse and provide altitude compensation.[2] He called the design "SASSTO", short for "Saturn Application Single-Stage To Orbit".
These same upgrades would also have the side-effect of lowering the weight of the SASSTO compared to the original S-IVB, while at the same time increasing its performance. Thus the study also outlined a number of ways that it could be used in place of the S-IV in existing Saturn IB and Saturn V stacks, increasing their performance. When used with the existing Saturn I lower stage, it would improve payload to low earth orbit from 35,000 to 52,500 lb (23,800 kg), or 57,000 lb (26,000 kg) if the landing gear were removed and it was expended like the S-IVB. SASSTO would thus give NASA a short-term inexpensive manned launch capability, while also offering improved heavy-launch capability on the existing Saturn infrastructure.
SASSTO required a number of new technologies, however, which made development risky. In particular, the performance of the aerospike engine had to be considerably higher than the J-2 it would replace, yet also offer the ability to be restarted multiple times as the single engine was used for launch, de-orbit and landing. Of particular note was the final landing burn, which required the engines to be restarted at 2,500 ft (760 m) during the descent. The vehicle's weight was also greatly reduced, almost by half, which would not have been trivial considering the relatively good performance of the S-IVB design.

Design

Although the SASSTO claimed the S-IVB as its starting point, this was a conceit, and the vehicle had little in common with the S-IVB except its size.
The internal fuel tankage was considerably different than in the S-IV. The LH2 was no longer cylindrical, but spherical, and moved to the forward location in the fuselage. The LOX tankage, originally on top of the LH2, was re-positioned into a series of smaller spherical tanks arranged in a ring below the LH2. The tanks were all moved forward within the airframe compared to the engine, all of these changes being made in order to reduce changes in the center of gravity as the fuel was burned off. The fuselage section immediately above the engine was necked down, forming what appeared to be a larger single plug. The upper section of the fuselage, over the top of the hydrogen tank, was likewise necked down.
In order to increase the amount of LH2 being carried, given the fixed dimensions, SASSTO proposed freezing 50% of the fuel to produce a slush hydrogen mixture. This improvement was not uncommon in designs of the era, although it was not until the 1990s that any serious development work on the concept was carried out.[3]
The rearmost portion of the spacecraft was a single large plug nozzle, fed by a series of 36 injectors operating at 1500 psia, producing 277,000 lbf (1,230 kN) of thrust. Since plug nozzles gain efficiency as they grow larger, the 465 sec specific impulse (compared to the J-2's 425) was not particularly aggressive. The engine also served as the primary heat shield, actively cooled by liquid hydrogen that was then dumped overboard.
Four landing legs extended from fairings on the fuselage sides, retracting to a point about even with the "active" portion of the engine area. Four clusters of small maneuvering engines were located between the legs, about half-way from front to back along the fuselage. A series of six smaller tanks arranged in the gaps between the LOX and LH2 tanks fed the maneuvering engines.
SASSTO delivered 6,200 lb (2,800 kg) of cargo to a 110 nmi (200 km) orbit when launched due east from the Kennedy Space Center. Empty weight was 14,700 lb (6,700 kg), considerably lighter than the S-IVB's 28,500 lb (12,900 kg), and gross lift off weight was 216,000 lb (98,000 kg). The typical payload was the Gemini, which was covered with a large aerodynamic fairing.
Re-entry maneuverability was through a blunt-body lifting profile, similar to the Apollo CSM. The cross-range was limited, about 230 miles (370 km), and there was basically no maneuverability at all on final approach. There was enough fuel for about 10 seconds of hovering and small maneuvers to select a flat landing spot. Because SASSTO was the same basic size as the S-IVB, Douglas proposed transporting it in the existing Aero Spacelines Super Guppy after landing at either Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, or Fort Bliss outside El Paso, Texas.

Developments

Dietrich Koelle used SASSTO as the starting point for a similar development at Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm in the late 1960s. Unlike Bono's version, Koelle used as much existing technology and materials as possible, while abandoning the need for the specific S-IVB sizing. The result was a slightly larger spacecraft, the Beta, that launched 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) of payload without the use of slush fuel, advanced lightweight construction, or a real aerospike engine. As part of the Beta proposal, Koelle pointed out that even the existing S-IVB could reach orbit, with zero payload, if equipped with a high-pressure LOX/LH2 engine of 460 Isp.[4]
Gary Hudson later pointed out that such an engine existed, the Space Shuttle Main Engine, using a SSME-powered S-IVB as a thought experiment to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of SSTO launchers.[5] This study was part of his "Phoenix" series of launchers, all similar to the SASSTO.[6]

Encyclopedia Astronautica
SASSTO



sasstoc.gif
SASSTO Comparison
Credit: NASA
sassto.gif
SASSTO
SASSTO - Saturn-derived SSTO Launch Vehicle
Credit: © Mark Wade
plugtest.jpg
Plug nozzle test
Plug nozzle test, ca. 1968
Credit: NASA
sasstcut.gif
SASSTO

SASSTO - Saturn-derived SSTO Cutaway
Credit: © Mark Wade 
American SSTO VTOVL orbital launch vehicle. Bono proposal for first step toward VTOVL SSTO vehicle - heavily modified Saturn IVB with plug nozzle engine. In late 1966, the vertical launch and landing SSTO proponents at Douglas Aircraft Co. carried out a study to determine whether ballistic VTVLs might be cost-competitive vs. winged VTHL TSTO vehicles in the small payload class. Previous NASA and USAF studies had generally assumed ballistic single-stage vehicles might make sense for unmanned heavy-lift payloads but winged TSTOs were invariably chosen for small manned near-term missions. Consequently, Douglas had to define a small VTVL SSTO manned "space taxi" to demonstrate the key elements of the concept (aerospike engine, lightweight structures, ballistic re-entry, vertical landing, actively cooled heatshield etc.)
The resulting vehicle became known as "Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit". Notable design features included an aft-mounted liquid oxygen tank to reduce the difference between vehicle centre of gravity and centre of aerodynamic pressure, and a hydrogen cooling system for the main engine to provide thermal protection during re-entry. Thermal analysis indicated that although the engine itself would be adequately protected by this system, the areas located above the exhaust nozzles would not. Consequently, the designers had to resort to an ablative, expendable material (200 kilograms of Armstrong Insulcork 2760) bonded to the aluminium structure although it would increase the maintenance cost.
The oxygen/hydrogen mixture ratio was 6:1 rather than 7:1 since the designers felt a high oxygen ratio would degrade the exhaust velocity and payload capability. 50% hydrogen slush was used to reduce the volume of the fuel tank. The 36-segment plug nozzle propulsion system would have operated at a pressure of 1500psia. It would be used for ascent, orbit insertion, de-orbit and (beginning at an altitude of 760 meters-) the final landing burn. The vehicle would carry enough propellant for hovering for 10 seconds before landing at an unprepared site, if necessary. The estimated landing accuracy of 1853 * 3700 m was not regarded as a major concern since the Gemini 6-12 flights achieved an average touchdown dispersion of only 6.85km although the capsule had essentially no manoeuvring capability below 30.5km altitude. The re-entry cross range capability was about +-370km, permitting a safe landing at El Paso, TX or Wendover Range, UT after 2-3 orbits from Cape Canaveral. Wendover was the preferred emergency landing site since SASSTO easily could have been returned from nearby Hill AFB to Cape Canaveral in a "Pregnant Guppy" S-IV-B transport aircraft.
SASSTO had a payload capability of 3,629kg to a 185km orbit and the standard payload would be a 2-man Gemini spacecraft protected by a jettisonable fairing to reduce drag losses during ascent. This would provide a safe emergency escape system for the test pilots, and the Gemini ejection seats, heatshield, parachutes etc. (1542kg in all) could later be removed as the flight test program increases confidence in SASSTO reliability. Douglas envisioned this vehicle as a "space fighter" capable of satellite inspection missions, or space station resupply flights lasting a maximum of 48 hours. It could also deliver 2,812kg of liquid hydrogen to a spacecraft in Earth orbit.
Since SASSTO was loosely based on the Saturn S-IV-B rocket stage, Douglas also proposed an expendable version for use as a more capable upper stage with the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles. The expendable SASSTO stage would have had a burnout mass of 7,400kg and carried 85,729kg of oxygen+hydrogen propellant. The stage was thus of a much more lightweight construction than the standard S-IV-B (12,949kg + 104,326kg LOX,LH2) and the new aerospike engine would have been more efficient as well (464s specific impulse vs. 426s for the J-2 engine). Consequently, the Saturn V's payload capability would have been boosted by 8-11t as well. The Saturn IB's basic 15876-kilogram payload capability to a 185km orbit would have increased to 23814-25855kg depending on whether SASSTO would be flown in expendable or reusable mode. The latter version was known as SARRA (Saturn Application Retrieval and Rescue Apparatus) and was intended for returning stranded Apollo crews from the lunar surface.
Finally, the Douglas design team also compared the cost of SASSTO with two different all-rocket VTHL TSTOs: a winged 1st stage plus lifting-body 2nd stage (centre) and winged first and second stages (right). All three vehicles were designed for a 2,812-kilogram payload although the lifting-body TSTO only was able to carry 2,086kg due to centre of gravity problems. No attempt was made to estimate the marginal launch cost since there were too many unknown factors. VTVL SSTO would however be expected to yield a significant operational advantage since only a single vehicle must be maintained and the VTVL SSTO does not require a landing runway. SASSTO was expected to cost $1.1. billion to develop (=$5.88B at 1999 rates). The winged VTHL TSTO would cost 2.2 times as much to develop as SASSTO while the smaller lifting-body TSTO variant would be 50% more expensive. The winged and lifting-body 1st unit production costs would be 4 and 2.7 times higher than the SASSTO 1st unit cost, respectively.
The general conclusion was that the complex winged or lifting-body TSTO shapes result in added lift-off and manufactured weights of a more expensive construction than ballistic wingless SSTOs. For example, the lifting-body TSTO dry mass (12,274kg + 2,086kg payload) is 2.4 times higher, and the winged TSTO weighs 3.6 times as much (18,176kg+2,812kg P/L) as SASSTO at touchdown. The gross lift-off weights bear the relationships of 1.0 (SASSTO; 97,887kg GLOW), 1.25 (lifting body orbiter TSTO; 122,245kg GLOW) and 1.91 (wing-body orbiter TSTO; 187,020kg GLOW). In that case, is the combination of lower re-entry g-loads, better manoeuvrability (landing go-around with jet engines) and improved cross range really worth the cost of carrying wings...?
Although TSTO thus appears to be uncompetitive vs. ballistic single-stage RLVs for small payloads, the authors admit that requirements for higher payloads (22.68-45.6t) may yield rapid increases in propellant mass fraction for winged two-stage vehicles, making TSTO more performance/cost-effective.
LEO Payload: 2,812 kg (6,199 lb) to a 185 km orbit at 28.00 degrees. Development Cost $: 1,100.000 million. Launch Price $: 0.030 million in 1968 dollars. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 16.100 million in 1968 dollars in 1968 dollars.
Stage Data - SASSTO
  • Stage 1. 1 x SASSTO. Gross Mass: 97,976 kg (216,000 lb). Empty Mass: 6,668 kg (14,700 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,558.100 kN (350,275 lbf). Isp: 464 sec. Burn time: 300 sec. Isp(sl): 367 sec. Diameter: 6.60 m (21.60 ft). Span: 6.60 m (21.60 ft). Length: 18.80 m (61.60 ft). Propellants: Lox/LH2. No Engines: 1. Engine: Plug-Nozzle SASSTO. Other designations: Saturn Applications Single Stage to Orbit. Status: Study 1967. Comments: Recoverable S-IVB with plug nozzle engine. 36 x plug-nozzle engines (102 atm chamber pressure, 6:1 mixture ratio).
AKA: Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit.
Status: Study 1967.
Gross mass: 97,887 kg (215,803 lb).
Payload: 2,812 kg (6,199 lb).
Height: 21.00 m (68.00 ft).
Diameter: 6.71 m (22.01 ft).
Thrust: 1,232.18 kN (277,005 lbf).
Apogee

Douglas SASSTO Rocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas Aircraft's SASSTO, short for "Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit", was a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) reusable launch system designed by Philip Bono's team in 1967. SASSTO was a study in minimalist designs, a launcher with the specific intent of repeatedly placing a Gemini capsule in orbit for the lowest possible cost. The SASSTO booster was based on the layout of the S-IVB upper stage from the Saturn family, modified with a plug nozzle. Although the SASSTO design was never followed up at Douglas, it is widely referred to in newer studies for SSTO launchers, notably the MBB "Beta" design, which was largely an updated version of SASSTO.

History

In 1962 NASA sent out a series of studies on post-Apollo launch needs, which generally assumed very large launchers for a manned mission to Mars. At Douglas, makers of the S-IVB, Philip Bono led a team that studied a number of very large liquid-fueled boosters as a way to lower the cost of space exploration. His designs were based on an economy of scale which makes larger rockets more economical than smaller ones as the structure accounts for less and less of the overall weight of the launcher.[1] At some point the dry weight of the launcher becomes lower than the payload it can launch, after which increases in payload fraction are essentially free. However, this point is crossed at relatively large vehicle sizes - Bono's original OOST study from 1963 was over 500 feet (150 m) long - and this path to lower costs only makes sense if there is an enormous amount of payload that needs to be launched.
After designing a number of such vehicles, including ROOST and the ROMBUS/Ithacus/Pegasus series, Bono noticed that the S-IVB stage, then just starting to be used operationally, was very close to being able to reach orbit on its own if launched from the ground. Intrigued, Bono started looking at what missions a small S-IVB-based SSTO could accomplish, realizing that it would be able to launch a manned Gemini capsule if it was equipped with some upgrades, notably an aerospike engine that would improve the specific impulse and provide altitude compensation.[2] He called the design "SASSTO", short for "Saturn Application Single-Stage To Orbit".
These same upgrades would also have the side-effect of lowering the weight of the SASSTO compared to the original S-IVB, while at the same time increasing its performance. Thus the study also outlined a number of ways that it could be used in place of the S-IV in existing Saturn IB and Saturn V stacks, increasing their performance. When used with the existing Saturn I lower stage, it would improve payload to low earth orbit from 35,000 to 52,500 lb (23,800 kg), or 57,000 lb (26,000 kg) if the landing gear were removed and it was expended like the S-IVB. SASSTO would thus give NASA a short-term inexpensive manned launch capability, while also offering improved heavy-launch capability on the existing Saturn infrastructure.
SASSTO required a number of new technologies, however, which made development risky. In particular, the performance of the aerospike engine had to be considerably higher than the J-2 it would replace, yet also offer the ability to be restarted multiple times as the single engine was used for launch, de-orbit and landing. Of particular note was the final landing burn, which required the engines to be restarted at 2,500 ft (760 m) during the descent. The vehicle's weight was also greatly reduced, almost by half, which would not have been trivial considering the relatively good performance of the S-IVB design.

Design

Although the SASSTO claimed the S-IVB as its starting point, this was a conceit, and the vehicle had little in common with the S-IVB except its size.
The internal fuel tankage was considerably different than in the S-IV. The LH2 was no longer cylindrical, but spherical, and moved to the forward location in the fuselage. The LOX tankage, originally on top of the LH2, was re-positioned into a series of smaller spherical tanks arranged in a ring below the LH2. The tanks were all moved forward within the airframe compared to the engine, all of these changes being made in order to reduce changes in the center of gravity as the fuel was burned off. The fuselage section immediately above the engine was necked down, forming what appeared to be a larger single plug. The upper section of the fuselage, over the top of the hydrogen tank, was likewise necked down.
In order to increase the amount of LH2 being carried, given the fixed dimensions, SASSTO proposed freezing 50% of the fuel to produce a slush hydrogen mixture. This improvement was not uncommon in designs of the era, although it was not until the 1990s that any serious development work on the concept was carried out.[3]
The rearmost portion of the spacecraft was a single large plug nozzle, fed by a series of 36 injectors operating at 1500 psia, producing 277,000 lbf (1,230 kN) of thrust. Since plug nozzles gain efficiency as they grow larger, the 465 sec specific impulse (compared to the J-2's 425) was not particularly aggressive. The engine also served as the primary heat shield, actively cooled by liquid hydrogen that was then dumped overboard.
Four landing legs extended from fairings on the fuselage sides, retracting to a point about even with the "active" portion of the engine area. Four clusters of small maneuvering engines were located between the legs, about half-way from front to back along the fuselage. A series of six smaller tanks arranged in the gaps between the LOX and LH2 tanks fed the maneuvering engines.
SASSTO delivered 6,200 lb (2,800 kg) of cargo to a 110 nmi (200 km) orbit when launched due east from the Kennedy Space Center. Empty weight was 14,700 lb (6,700 kg), considerably lighter than the S-IVB's 28,500 lb (12,900 kg), and gross lift off weight was 216,000 lb (98,000 kg). The typical payload was the Gemini, which was covered with a large aerodynamic fairing.
Re-entry maneuverability was through a blunt-body lifting profile, similar to the Apollo CSM. The cross-range was limited, about 230 miles (370 km), and there was basically no maneuverability at all on final approach. There was enough fuel for about 10 seconds of hovering and small maneuvers to select a flat landing spot. Because SASSTO was the same basic size as the S-IVB, Douglas proposed transporting it in the existing Aero Spacelines Super Guppy after landing at either Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, or Fort Bliss outside of El Paso, Texas.

Developments

Dietrich Koelle used SASSTO as the starting point for a similar development at Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm in the late 1960s. Unlike Bono's version, Koelle used as much existing technology and materials as possible, while abandoning the need for the specific S-IVB sizing. The result was a slightly larger spacecraft, the Beta, that launched 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) of payload without the use of slush fuel, advanced lightweight construction, or a real aerospike engine. As part of the Beta proposal, Koelle pointed out that even the existing S-IVB could reach orbit, with zero payload, if equipped with a high-pressure LOX/LH2 engine of 460 Isp.[4]
Gary Hudson later pointed out that such an engine existed, the Space Shuttle Main Engine, using a SSME-powered S-IVB as a thought experiment to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of SSTO launchers.[5] This study was part of his "Phoenix" series of launchers, all similar to the SASSTO.[6]

See also

Plug nozzle for rockets engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The plug nozzle is a type of nozzle which includes a centerbody or plug around which the working fluid flows. Plug nozzles have applications in aircraft, rockets, and numerous other fluid flows.

In rockets

Plug nozzles belong to a class of altitude compensating nozzles much like the aerospike which, unlike traditional designs, maintains its efficiency at a wide range of altitudes.[1]
The ideal contour of a plug nozzle is a long tapering 'spike' with a doughnut-shaped combustion chamber situated at the base, hence sometimes this nozzle is also called a "spike nozzle". To save weight, this design is shortened without a large drop in efficiency.
The exhaust is confined by atmospheric pressure so that at different altitudes the varying pressures will allow the exit area to change. This allows optimized atmospheric compensation. With the shortened (or truncated) nozzle, the recirculation of trapped gases at the base of the plug causes a small thrust which offsets the loss due to the non-ideal shape.

In aircraft

Plug nozzles are used in aircraft typically with jet engines both because of the annular shape of the turbine exhaust and for their altitude compensating characteristics. For high speed aircraft, translating the plug or external cowl provides a means of area control with relatively simple actuation. Plug nozzles have been shown to provide noise reduction compared to traditional convergent-divergent nozzles.[2] Weight and cooling are typical concerns with aircraft plug nozzles.[3]

Other applications

Plug nozzles are used as water nozzles to create a broad spray. The plug can be translated to adjust the area of the passage and thereby adjust the flow rate.

See also

Philip Bono single-stage to orbit launch vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philip Bono (13 January 1921 – 23 May 1993) was a Douglas Aircraft Company engineer. He was a pioneer of reusable vertical landing single-stage to orbit launch vehicles.
Bono pursued single-stage space launch as simpler and cheaper. He realized to do this he would need to use high specific impulse liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket engines. Afterwards he proposed to make these vehicles reusable. From his ROOST design onwards Bono advocated space launch vehicles without wings, usually using rocket assisted vertical takeoff and landing (VTVL). According to his estimates, wings consisted mostly of dead weight that decreased launch payload mass. He patented a reusable plug nozzle rocket engine which had dual use as a heat shield for atmospheric reentry. His early 1960s concepts influenced later designs like the 1990s Delta Clipper, also from Douglas.

Birth, education and career

Philip Bono was born in Brooklyn, New York on 13 January 1921.[1] He graduated from the University of Southern California in 1947 with a degree in mechanical engineering.  After graduation, Bono worked as a research and systems analyst for North American Aviation. Bono began working for Douglas Aircraft company in 1960. After the merger of McDonnell Aircraft and the Douglas Aircraft Company, he worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics from 1966 until 1988.  Philip Bono died on 23 May 1993 at the age of 72. He was a resident of Costa Mesa, California at the time of his death.[2]
Less than three months after Bono's death, the first launch vehicle based on his designs, the McDonnell Douglas DC-X (Delta Clipper) began a largely successful series of test flights. The DC-X was a vertical-takeoff and vertical landing vehicle. The series of test flights began on 18 August 1993 and continued until the launch vehicle was damaged on landing on 16 May 1995.[3]

Designs

ROMBUS
  • One Stage Orbital Space Truck (OOST) [4]
  • Recoverable One Stage Orbital Space Truck (ROOST) [5]
  • Reusable Orbital Module, Booster, and Utility Shuttle (ROMBUS)[6][7]
  • Ithacus[8][9]
  • Pegasus [10]
  • Hyperion[citation needed]
  • SASSTO [11]
Hyperion was HTVL, the others VTVL.

Bibliography

Philip Bono & Kenneth William Gatland, Frontiers Of Space, ISBN 0-7137-3504-X

Single-stage-to-orbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The VentureStar was a proposed SSTO spaceplane.
 
A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware, expending only propellants and fluids. The term usually, but not exclusively, refers to reusable vehicles. [1] No Earth-launched SSTO launch vehicles have ever been constructed. To date, orbital launches have been performed either by multi-stage fully or partially expendable rockets, or by the Space Shuttle which was multi-stage and partially reusable.
A large proportion of the cost of Earth space launches comes, not from fuel, but from damage and destruction of hardware in launch and reentry. Single stage to orbit flight from Earth with a complete return of hardware to Earth offers the promise of significant reductions in the cost of launching people, equipment and supplies into orbit.
It is considered to be marginally possible to launch a single stage to orbit spacecraft from Earth. The principal complicating factors for SSTO from Earth are: high orbital velocity of over 7400 m/s; the need to overcome the earth's gravity, especially in the early stages of flight; and flight within the Earth's atmosphere, which limits speed in the early stages of flight and influences engine performance. The marginality of SSTO can be seen in the launch of the space shuttle. The shuttle and main tank combination successfully orbits after booster separation from an altitude of 45 kilometers (140,000 ft) and a speed of 4,828 kilometers per hour (3,000 mph). This is approximately 12% of the gravitational potential energy and just 3% of the kinetic energy needed for orbital velocity (4% of total energy required).
Notable single stage to orbit research spacecraft include Skylon, the DC-X, the X-33, and the Roton SSTO. However, despite showing some promise, none of them has come close to achieving orbit yet due to problems with finding the most efficient propulsion system.[1]
Single-stage-to-orbit has been achieved from the Moon by both the Apollo program's Lunar Module and several robotic spacecraft of the Soviet Luna program; the lower lunar gravity and absence of any significant atmosphere makes this much easier than from Earth.

History

  • Early rocket pioneers believed that single stage to orbit was impossible.[citation needed]
  • In the 1960s some people (Ex. Philip Bono) began to investigate SSTOs.[2]
  • From 1965 Robert Salked investigated various single stage to orbit spaceplane concepts.[3][4][5]
  • Around 1985 the NASP project was intended to create a scramjet vehicle to reach orbit, but this had its funding stopped and was cancelled.
  • The HOTOL tried to use precooled jet engine technology, but failed to show significant advantages over rocket technology.[6]
  • Around 1992 the Skylon spaceplane concept was created.
  • 1999-2001 Rotary Rocket attempted to build a SSTO called the Roton.[7]

Approaches

There have been various approaches to SSTO, including pure rockets that are launched and land vertically, air-breathing scramjet-powered vehicles that are launched and land horizontally, nuclear-powered vehicles, and even jet-engine-powered vehicles that can fly into orbit and return landing like an airliner, completely intact.
For rocket-powered SSTO, the main challenge is achieving a high enough mass-ratio to carry sufficient propellant to achieve orbit, plus a meaningful payload weight.[citation needed] One possibility is to give the rocket an initial speed with a space gun, as planned in the Quicklaunch project.
For air-breathing SSTO, the main challenge is system complexity and associated research and development costs, material science, and construction techniques necessary for surviving sustained high-speed flight within the atmosphere, and achieving a high enough mass-ratio to carry sufficient propellant to achieve orbit, plus a meaningful payload weight. Air-breathing designs typically fly at supersonic or hypersonic speeds, and usually include a rocket engine for the final burn for orbit.[1]
Whether rocket-powered or air-breathing, a reusable vehicle must be rugged enough to survive multiple round trips into space without adding excessive weight or maintenance. In addition a reusable vehicle must be able to reenter without damage, and land safely.[citation needed]
While single-stage rockets were once thought to be beyond reach, advances in materials technology and construction techniques have shown them to be possible. For example, calculations show that the Titan II first stage, launched on its own, would have a 25-to-1 ratio of fuel to vehicle hardware.[8] It has a sufficiently efficient engine to achieve orbit, but without carrying much payload.[9]

Dense versus hydrogen fuels

Hydrogen might seem the obvious fuel for SSTO vehicles. When burned with oxygen, hydrogen gives the highest specific impulse of any commonly used fuel: around 450 seconds, compared with up to 350 seconds for kerosene.
Hydrogen has the following advantages:
  • Hydrogen has nearly 30% higher specific impulse (about 450 seconds vs. 350 seconds) than most dense fuels.
  • Hydrogen is an excellent coolant.
  • The gross mass of hydrogen stages is lower than dense-fuelled stages for the same payload.
  • Hydrogen is environmentally-friendly
However, hydrogen also has these disadvantages:
  • Very low density (about 1/7 of the density of kerosene) — requiring a very large tank
  • Deeply cryogenic — must be stored at very low temperatures and thus needs heavy insulation
  • Escapes very easily from the smallest gap
  • Wide combustible range — easily ignited and burns with a dangerously invisible flame
  • Tends to condense oxygen which can cause flammability problems
  • Has a large coefficient of expansion for even small heat leaks.
These issues can be dealt with, but at extra cost.
While kerosene tanks can be 1% of the weight of their contents, hydrogen tanks often must weigh 10% of their contents. This is because of both the low density and the additional insulation required to minimize boiloff (a problem which does not occur with kerosene and many other fuels). The low density of hydrogen further affects the design of the rest of the vehicle — pumps and pipework need to be much larger in order to pump the fuel to the engine. The end result is the thrust/weight ratio of hydrogen-fueled engines is 30–50% lower than comparable engines using denser fuels.
This inefficiency indirectly affects gravity losses as well; the vehicle has to hold itself up on rocket power until it reaches orbit. The lower excess thrust of the hydrogen engines due to the lower thrust/weight ratio means that the vehicle must ascend more steeply, and so less thrust acts horizontally. Less horizontal thrust results in taking longer to reach orbit, and gravity losses are increased by at least 300 meters per second. While not appearing large, the mass ratio to delta-v curve is very steep to reach orbit in a single stage, and this makes a 10% difference to the mass ratio on top of the tankage and pump savings.
The overall effect is that there is surprisingly little difference in overall performance between SSTOs that use hydrogen and those that use denser fuels, except that hydrogen vehicles may be rather more expensive to develop and buy. Careful studies have shown that some dense fuels (for example liquid propane) exceed the performance of hydrogen fuel when used in an SSTO launch vehicle by 10% for the same dry weight.[10]
In the 1960s Philip Bono investigated single stage, VTVL tripropellant rockets, and showed that it could improve payload size by around 30%.[11]
Operational experience with the DC/X experimental rocket has caused a number of SSTO advocates to reconsider hydrogen as a satisfactory fuel. The late Max Hunter, while employing hydrogen fuel in the DC/X, often said that he thought the first successful orbital SSTO would more likely be fueled by propane.

One engine for all altitudes

Some SSTO vehicles use the same engine for all altitudes, which is a problem for traditional engines with a bell-shaped nozzle. Depending on the atmospheric pressure, different bell shapes are optimal. Engines operating in the lower atmosphere have shorter bells than those designed to work in vacuum. Having a bell not optimized for the height makes the engine less efficient.
One possible solution would be to use an aerospike engine, which can be effective in a wide range of ambient pressures. In fact, a linear aerospike engine was used in the X-33 design.
Other solutions involve using multiple engines and other altitude adapting designs such as double-mu bells or extensible bell sections.
Still, at very high altitudes, the extremely large engine bells tend to expand the exhaust gases down to near vacuum pressures. As a result, these engine bells are counterproductive due to their excess weight. Some SSTO vehicles simply use very high pressure engines which permit high ratios to be used from ground level. This gives good performance, negating the need for more complex solutions.

Airbreathing SSTO

Some designs for SSTO attempt to use airbreathing jet engines that collect oxidizer and reaction mass from the atmosphere to reduce the take-off weight of the vehicle.
Some of the issues with this approach are:
  • No known air breathing engine is capable of operating at orbital speed within the atmosphere (for example hydrogen fueled scramjets seem to have a top speed of about Mach 17).[12] This means that rockets must be used for the final orbital insertion.
  • Rocket thrust needs the orbital mass to be as small as possible to minimize propellant weight.
  • The thrust-to-weight ratio of rockets that rely on on-board oxygen increases dramatically as fuel is expended, because the oxidizer fuel tank has about 1% of the mass as the oxidizer it carries, whereas air-breathing engines traditionally have a poor thrust/weight ratio which is relatively fixed during the air-breathing ascent.
  • Very high speeds in the atmosphere necessitate very heavy thermal protection systems, which makes reaching orbit even harder.
  • While at lower speeds, air-breathing engines are very efficient, the efficiency (Isp) and thrust levels of air-breathing jet engines drop considerably at high speed (above Mach 5–10 depending on the engine) and begin to approach that of rocket engines or worse.
  • Lift to drag ratios of vehicles at hypersonic speeds are poor whereas since acceleration is a vector, the effective lift to drag ratios of rocket vehicles at high g is not dissimilar.
Thus with for example scramjet designs (e.g. X-43) the mass budgets do not seem to close for orbital launch.
Similar issues occur with single stage vehicles attempting to carry conventional jet engines to orbit- the weight of the jet engines is not compensated by the reduction in propellant sufficiently.[13]
On the other hand LACE-like precooled airbreathing designs such as the Skylon spaceplane (and ATREX) which transition to rocket thrust at rather lower speeds (Mach 5.5) do seem to give, on paper at least, an improved orbital mass fraction over pure rockets (even multistage rockets) sufficiently to hold out the possibility of full reusability with better payload fraction.[14]
It is important to note that mass fraction is an important concept in the engineering of a rocket. However, mass fraction may have little to do with the costs of a rocket, as the costs of fuel are very small when compared to the costs of the engineering program as a whole. As a result, a cheap rocket with a poor mass fraction may be able to deliver more payload to orbit with a given amount of money than a more complicated, more efficient rocket.

Launch assists

Many vehicles are only narrowly suborbital, so practically anything that gives a relatively small delta-v increase can be helpful, and outside assistance for a vehicle is therefore desirable.
Proposed launch assists include:
And on-orbit resources such as:

Nuclear propulsion

Due to weight issues such as shielding, many nuclear propulsion systems are unable to lift their own weight, and hence are unsuitable for launching to orbit. However some designs such as the Orion project and some nuclear thermal designs do have a thrust to weight ratio in excess of 1, enabling them to lift off. Clearly one of the main issues with nuclear propulsion would be safety, both during a launch for the passengers, but also in case of a failure during launch. No current program is attempting nuclear propulsion from Earth's surface.

Beam-powered propulsion

Because they can be more energetic than the potential energy that chemical fuel allows for, some laser or microwave powered rocket concepts have the potential to launch vehicles into orbit, single stage. In practice, this area is relatively undeveloped, and current technology falls far short of this.

Comparison with the Shuttle

The high cost per launch of the Space Shuttle sparked interest throughout the 1980s in designing a cheaper successor vehicle. Several official design studies were done, but most were basically smaller versions of the existing Shuttle concept.
Most cost analysis studies of the Space Shuttle have shown that workforce is by far the single greatest expense. Early shuttle discussions speculated airliner-type operation, with a two-week turnaround. However, senior NASA planners envisioned no more than 10 to 12 flights per year for the entire shuttle fleet. The absolute maximum flights per year for the entire fleet was limited by external tank manufacturing capacity to 24 per year.[15]
Very efficient (hence complex and sophisticated) main engines were required to fit within the available vehicle space. Likewise the only known suitable lightweight thermal protection was delicate, maintenance-intensive silica tiles. These and other design decisions resulted in a vehicle that requires great maintenance after every mission. The engines are removed and inspected, and prior to the new "block II" main engines, the turbopumps were removed, disassembled and rebuilt. While Space Shuttle Atlantis was refurbished and relaunched in 53 days between missions STS-51-J and STS-61-B, generally months were required to repair an orbiter for a new mission.
Many in the aerospace community[who?] concluded that an entirely self-contained, reusable single-stage vehicle could solve these problems. The idea behind such a vehicle is to reduce the processing requirements from those of the Shuttle.

Examples

The early Atlas rocket is an expendable SSTO by some definitions.[citation needed] It is a "stage-and-a-half" rocket, jettisoning two of its three engines during ascent but retaining its fuel tanks and other structural elements. However, by modern standards the engines ran at low pressure and thus not particularly high specific impulse and were not especially lightweight; using engines operating with a higher specific impulse would have eliminated the need to drop engines in the first place.[citation needed]
The first stage of the Titan II had the mass ratio required for single-stage-to-orbit capability with a small payload. A rocket stage is not a complete launch vehicle, but this demonstrates that an expendable SSTO was probably achievable with 1962 technology.[citation needed]
It is easier to achieve SSTO from a body with lower gravitational pull than Earth, such as the Moon or Mars. The Apollo Lunar Module achieved deorbit to a soft landing, and return to lunar orbit, each with a single stage for descent and ascent.
A detailed study into SSTO vehicles was prepared by Chrysler Corporation's Space Division in 1970–1971 under NASA contract NAS8-26341. Their proposal (Shuttle SERV) was an enormous vehicle with more than 50,000 kg of payload, utilizing jet engines for (vertical) landing.[16] While the technical problems seemed to be solvable, the USAF required a winged design (for cross range) that led to the Shuttle as we know it today.
The unmanned DC-X technology demonstrator, originally developed by McDonnell Douglas for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program office, was an attempt to build a vehicle that could lead to an SSTO vehicle. The one-third-size test craft was operated and maintained by a tiny crew of three people based out of a trailer, and the craft was once relaunched less than 24 hours after landing. Although the test program was not without mishap (including a minor explosion), the DC-X demonstrated that the maintenance aspects of the concept were sound. That project was cancelled when it crashed on the fourth flight after transferring management from the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to NASA.
The Aquarius Launch Vehicle was designed to bring bulk materials to orbit as cheaply as possible.

Current development

Current private SSTO projects include the Japanese Kankoh-maru project and the Skylon.

Skylon

The British Government partnered with the ESA in 2010 to promote a single-stage to orbit spaceplane concept called Skylon.[17] This design was pioneered by Reaction Engines Limited,[18][19] a company founded by Alan Bond after HOTOL was canceled.[20] The Skylon spaceplane has been positively received by the British government, and the British Interplanetary Society.[21] Pending a successful engine test in June 2011,[22] the company will begin Phase 3 of development with the first orders expected around 2011-2013.[22]

Haas 2C

On June 1, 2012, Romanian organization ARCA announced that they are constructing an expendable rocket, named Haas 2C that will attempt to reach orbit in one stage. The rocket has 520 kg empty weight and can carry 15.5 tons of fuel. It will use kerosene as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxydizer. In Spring 2012 they have successfully tested a lightweight composite kerosene fuel tank. The liquid oxygen tank is being designed and it will also be made of composite materials. The launch is expected to take place in Spring 2013.[23]

Alternative approaches to inexpensive spaceflight

Many studies have shown that regardless of selected technology, the most effective cost reduction technique is economies of scale[citation needed] . Merely launching a large total quantity reduces the manufacturing costs per vehicle, similar to how the mass production of automobiles brought about great increases in affordability.
Using this concept, some aerospace analysts believe the way to lower launch costs is the exact opposite of SSTO. Whereas reusable SSTOs would reduce per launch costs by making a reusable high-tech vehicle that launches frequently with low maintenance, the "mass production" approach views the technical advances as a source of the cost problem in the first place. By simply building and launching large quantities of rockets, and hence launching a large volume of payload, costs can be brought down. This approach was attempted in the late ’70s, early ’80s in West Germany with the Democratic Republic of the Congo-based OTRAG rocket and might have been successful if the project was not killed following political pressure from France, the Soviet Union and other parties.
A related idea is to obtain economies of scale from building simple, massive, multi-stage rockets using cheap, off-the-shelf parts. The vehicles would be dumped into the ocean after use. This strategy is known as the "big dumb booster" approach.
This is somewhat similar to the approach some previous systems have taken, using simple engine systems with "low-tech" fuels, as the Russian and Chinese space programs still do. These nations' launches are significantly cheaper than their Western counterparts.
An alternative to scale is to make the discarded stages practically reusable: this is the goal of the SpaceX reusable launch system development program and its Grasshopper demonstrator.

See also