… again.
And
The Air Force today said it would launch a program that would bring it reusable rockets that could carry military payloads into space and return to Earth.
Known as the Reusable Booster System (RBS) Pathfinder, the spacecraft would consist of an autonomous, reusable, rocket-powered first stage with an expendable upper stage. The reusable first stage would launch vertically and carry the expendable ship to a particular point in orbit.
This basic concept dates back to the late 1950’s, with practical designs emerging in the early/mid 1960’s. The USAF could have *easily* had such reusable boosters by 1970 or so if they’d just stuck with the damned program, rather that starting up and then cancelling studies every few years.
12 Responses to “Air Force wants a reusable booster…”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I like their timescale on this… it’s supposed to be operational sometime after 2035.
To me, a good time to get this program rolling would have been around 2025 rather than 2010, as by the time it’s envisioned to be in operation there could have been major advances in aerospace materials and propulsion science that would render work done now pointless and wasteful.
Wow, too bad there is not some sort of “system” to launch things into space INSIDE a vehicle which could also carry people, AND come back to the ground. Really, it is just too bad no one has ever thought of building something like that.
Funny how Lock/Mart has been “playing” with this idea the past couple of years:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/23/223201/lockheed-flight-tests-a-scale-model-flyback-first-stage.html
As though it’s a “new” idea…
Bet the Air Force doesn’t consider the StarBooster concept:
http://www.starbooster.com/aboutsb.htm
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/starbooster_sum.shtml
ALSO “intesively” studied and with a longer history to boot!
http://users.centtech.com/~wizard/starbooster.html
Oh and THEY TOO have done scale testing:
http://buzzaldrin.com/files/pdf/2001.CAL_POLY_SPACE_SYSTEMS.StarBooster_Project.pdf
http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr030517.html
http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr020520.html
http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr011208.html
http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr010523.html
But then again, I don’t suppose this is anything NEW to you Scott 🙂
http://www.up-ship.com/blog/AandE/SBcad1.jpg
http://www.up-ship.com/blog/AandE/SBcad2.jpg
Randy
> the time it’s envisioned to be in operation there could have been major advances in aerospace materials and propulsion science
And what are you basing that on? What major advances in propulsion science have there been in the *last* 25 years?
Holding off on building the future because *maybe* something better’ll come along is *stupid.*
If you really want that space tether or warp drive, the best way to get it is to build a launch vehicle *now* using technolgoies available *now.* Run the hell out of it until you can operate it cheaply, then begin incorporating new technolgies into it.
Hmph. It’s real hard for me to take any panic about this sort of thing seriously. It’s not like it’s never been studied or done in the past.
Why not now?
Scott,
So *say* that. This is a comments request not a RFI or RFP.
> So *say* that.
Er… say *what?*
Well, as far as propulsion goes, they maybe could get a plug nozzle engine actually working right by then. Our last crack at that for the X-33 suffered heat damage when it was run up.
What I can see happening in 25 years is major improvements in exotic materials coming along, like composites that are even lighter and stronger than today’s, as well as new types of lighter and more robust TPS.
As far as those pictures of the Lockheed test vehicle go, that looks a _lot_ like what the Brilliant Buzzard TSTO fly-back first stage was supposed to look like, right down to the canards and wingtip fins:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4301-4400/gal4374_Sr-75_StClair/00.shtm
(that’s the Testors kit from several years back.)
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Lockheed pulls something out of storage from the mid-late 1980’s in a modified form, and the pre-solicitation notice is just a formality to let them do that.
They’ve still got a problem though in regards to making this work in a economical manner, and that’s the TPS on it is going to need a going over after every flight, even if it’s not as fragile as that used on the Shuttle; of course that assumes it is going to get up to very high Mach on the way up, rather than just getting up to around Mach 3-4 and then requiring another stage to finally put the payload stage into orbit.
A three stage-to-orbit with a expendable stage two doesn’t sound all that impressive (this would basically be the Soviet Spiral concept reborn) but if you could use some sort of big drop tank(s) on the orbital stage it might make sense.
> they maybe could get a plug nozzle engine actually working right by then … major improvements in exotic materials coming along …
That’s fine. But here’s the thing: what the USAF wants could have been built with mid-1960’s propulsion and materials technology. Advanced propulsion and materials might make the vehicle better, but they wouldn’t make it *possible.* It’s *already* possible.
So build the damn thing using established technology. As newer technologies come along, incorporate them into the design. Replace the engines with better ones. Replace the TPS with better TPS. Improve the electronics. And so on. In this case you’ll have a vehicle and a capability twenty years sooner.
Is the starting up and cancelling studies every few years related to the habit in the military to constantly revise program requirements, leading to massive budget overruns?
I know this is a particular problem in naval shipbuilding.
Admin said:
>That’s fine. But here’s the thing: what the USAF wants could have been built >with mid-1960’s propulsion and materials technology. Advanced propulsion >and materials might make the vehicle better, but they wouldn’t make it >*possible.* It’s *already* possible.
Yeah, for that matter if you didn’t need it to go all the way into orbit, VentureStar with an aluminum-lithium LH2 tank and the orbital stage or vehicle strapped on top would work just fine.
The thing I was remarking on is why they have set the operational date so far in the future. If they think that Delta IV and Atlas V will work fine till then, there’s really no reason to get working on a replacement this soon.
Everyone seems to assume that since the Lockheed test model is launched vertically, the actual vehicle based on it will take off that way also, like the old Faget shuttle concept.
But the wings shown on the model look too large for something that only needs glide-land with its propellant tanks empty, so I suspect the real one takes off horizontally also, and the vertical launch is just to simplify things for the tests, like has been done with a lot of “flying wind tunnel models” of other aircraft that were boosted aloft by solid-fueled rockets.
Echos of the design shown in the model go way back in Lockheed designs, like this three-stage-to-orbit concept from the early 1960’s:
http://dreamsofspace.nfshost.com/gifs/1965orbitingstations7.jpg
Although in that case, the canards are actually the wings on the orbital spaceplane part.
*That* that:
> the time it’s envisioned to be in operation there could have been major advances in aerospace materials and propulsion science
“And what are you basing that on? What major advances in propulsion science have there been in the *last* 25 years?
Holding off on building the future because *maybe* something better’ll come along is *stupid.*
If you really want that space tether or warp drive, the best way to get it is to build a launch vehicle *now* using technolgoies available *now.* Run the hell out of it until you can operate it cheaply, then begin incorporating new technolgies into it.”