Aerospike
Paul J.M. Schmoelz
Hi Folks !
Having read several threads on SSTO & aerospike engines & the new
aerospike homepage (I love it), I started to wonder why
(1) nobody ever uses these engines, especially since prototypes
have aparently been tested decades ago.
(2) DC-(X,n) prefers bell-noozels to aerospikes.
I came up with a short list of ideas which might answer these questions,
but I do not think them to be satisfying.
(a) There have been no new launchers since the shuttle, offering no
compelling reason to develope a real engine.
- Several generations of Ariane-launchers are post - shuttle
( how secret was aerospike technology until recently ?)
(b) Aerospike demands good integration of body & engine, for aerodynamic
reasons. This possibly rules out all solution but those with central
symmetry (with round launchers; with flat launchers linear symmertry
might suffice). Thus a multi-engined DC-(X,n) may be undoable with
aerospike engines.
(c) Though shalt not build a vehicle using new airframe AND new engines.
'nough bandwidth wasted ... Servus
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J.M. Schmoelz
organisation: Technische Universitaet Wien / Inst.f.Allgemeine Physik
=: Vienna Institut of Technology / Dept.o.Physics(general)
email: schm...@eapv38.tuwien.ac.at
snail mail: Huettelbergstr.17-4 / A-1140 Wien / Austria / EUROPE
phone: ++43 1 9148711
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Any correletion of the text above with reality is purely
coincidential and represent neither mine nor any other's views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ward Burrows
> Having read several threads on SSTO & aerospike engines & the new
>aerospike homepage (I love it), I started to wonder why
>
>(1) nobody ever uses these engines, especially since prototypes
> have aparently been tested decades ago.
>(2) DC-(X,n) prefers bell-noozels to aerospikes.
> I came up with a short list of ideas which might answer these questions,
>but I do not think them to be satisfying.
>(a) There have been no new launchers since the shuttle, offering no
> compelling reason to develope a real engine.
> - Several generations of Ariane-launchers are post - shuttle
> ( how secret was aerospike technology until recently ?)
>(b) Aerospike demands good integration of body & engine, for aerodynamic
> reasons. This possibly rules out all solution but those with central
> symmetry (with round launchers; with flat launchers linear symmertry
> might suffice). Thus a multi-engined DC-(X,n) may be undoable with
> aerospike engines.
>(c) Though shalt not build a vehicle using new airframe AND new engines.
Not sure I agree with this one. I can see why the aerospace powers that be
implement it, but personally, I feel they're being excessively timid.
(d) Aerospike engines also are more massive than an equivalent engine using
a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike designs I've seen used
an _annular_ combustion chamber which was significantly more massive than
that used with a conventional bell nozzle. There might be a way around
this, however, it would imply redesigning the engine. The mass penalty
might be sufficient to offset the gain in efficiency.
-Ward.
Ward Burrows "TB or not TB, that is congestion!
wa...@alumni.caltech.edu consumption be done about it?
Of koff! Of koff!"
frank...@delphi.com
>(d) Aerospike engines also are more massive than an equivalent engine using
> a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike designs I've seen used
> an _annular_ combustion chamber which was significantly more massive than
> that used with a conventional bell nozzle. There might be a way around
> this, however, it would imply redesigning the engine. The mass penalty
> might be sufficient to offset the gain in efficiency.
out capability) discrete combustion chambers on the circumference of the
aerospike, closely approxamating a continuous annular chamber. (Which, I
understand, are rather hard to cool, too. Seperate, small chambers are
individually cooled in the usual manner.
I know Rocketdyne has long tested linear aerospikes with seperate
combustor segments (this wold probably be the basis of the engine for
Lockheed-Martin's lifting body SSTO design), and I believe their
circular aerospike is similarly designed. I have a little literature
on both that a friend picked up at the Dayton Air Show, a few years ago.
Frank
Jim Glass ; JF ; GLASS ; x586-0375 ; (W) ; 634-000
|> schm...@eapv38.tuwien.ac.at (Paul J.M. Schmoelz) writes:
|>
|> > Having read several threads on SSTO & aerospike engines & the new
|> >aerospike homepage (I love it), I started to wonder why
|> >
|> >(1) nobody ever uses these engines, especially since prototypes
|> > have aparently been tested decades ago.
|> >(2) DC-(X,n) prefers bell-noozels to aerospikes.
|>
|> > I came up with a short list of ideas which might answer these questions,
|> >but I do not think them to be satisfying.
|>
|> >(a) There have been no new launchers since the shuttle, offering no
|> > compelling reason to develope a real engine.
|> > - Several generations of Ariane-launchers are post - shuttle
|> > ( how secret was aerospike technology until recently ?)
|>
|> >(b) Aerospike demands good integration of body & engine, for aerodynamic
|> > reasons. This possibly rules out all solution but those with central
|> > symmetry (with round launchers; with flat launchers linear symmertry
|> > might suffice). Thus a multi-engined DC-(X,n) may be undoable with
|> > aerospike engines.
|>
|> >(c) Though shalt not build a vehicle using new airframe AND new engines.
|>
|> Not sure I agree with this one. I can see why the aerospace powers that be
|> implement it, but personally, I feel they're being excessively timid.
|>
|> a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike designs I've seen used
|> an _annular_ combustion chamber which was significantly more massive than
|> that used with a conventional bell nozzle. There might be a way around
|> this, however, it would imply redesigning the engine. The mass penalty
|> might be sufficient to offset the gain in efficiency.
|>
|>
|> Ward Burrows "TB or not TB, that is congestion!
|> wa...@alumni.caltech.edu consumption be done about it?
|> Of koff! Of koff!"
|>
|>
Right. They are heavier because it is HARD to hold an annular gap
(throat) at high-pressure and high radius.
Add to that that they are hard to cool.
Add to THAT that they perform worse than conventional bells;
i.e. their losses are higher.
Jim Glass
*********************************************************************************
* gl...@rdyne.rockwell.com * "The Earth is the cradle of the Mind, *
* Jim Glass * But you cannnot stay in the cradle forever." *
* Member of Technical Staff * - Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky *
* Systems Architecture *************************************************
* Rocketdyne Division * *
* Rockwell International * The opinions expressed here *
* Mail Stop IB-59 * are my own and do not reflect *
* 6633 Canoga Avenue * those of my employer! *
* P.O. Box 7922 * *
* Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922 * (But then, you knew that!) *
* (818) 586-0375 * *
*****************************************************************
George Bunk
wa...@alumni.caltech.edu says...
>
>
>Not sure I agree with this one. I can see why the
aerospace powers that be
>implement it, but personally, I feel they're being
excessively timid.
>
>(d) Aerospike engines also are more massive than an
equivalent engine using
> a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike
designs I've seen used
> an _annular_ combustion chamber which was
significantly more massive than
> that used with a conventional bell nozzle. There
might be a way around
> this, however, it would imply redesigning the
engine. The mass penalty
> might be sufficient to offset the gain in
efficiency.
>
>-Ward.
>
>Ward Burrows "TB or not TB, that is
congestion!
>wa...@alumni.caltech.edu consumption be done
about it?
> Of koff! Of koff!"
>
>
I'm afraid I have to completly disagree with you
there. For several reasons.
1) Usage of the aerospike would allow for maximum
thrust from sea level to vacuum.
2) Using the vector thrusting technique in an
aerospike. (i.e. cutting off fuel to one or several of
the combustion chambers) allows the engine to be used
without a gimbal system. This would save a
considerable amount of weight.
3) Since the combustion chambers are around the
perifery of the rocket body there is no need for a
major force transmission structure that is required
for a bell nozzle. This also is a major weight
savings.
4) The majority of designs that I have seen use a 2%
to 25% length aerospike as oppossed to a full length
aerospike which I think is what you are comparring the
bell to.
George
Henry Spencer
> Having read several threads on SSTO & aerospike engines & the new
>aerospike homepage (I love it), I started to wonder why
>(1) nobody ever uses these engines, especially since prototypes
> have aparently been tested decades ago.
The most fundamental problem is that all large launcher projects in recent
times have been bet-your-agency national-prestige-critical megaprojects,
in which failure was absolutely unacceptable. This produces a strong bias
toward conservative solutions to engineering problems.
The biggest problem with the aerospike is simply that nobody has *flown*
one, which necessarily causes some uncertainty about how well it will
work. General Dynamics proposed an aerospike design for the SDIO SSTO
competition, and lost to McDD... at least partly because GD relied on the
aerospike working, and had no backup plan in case it didn't. McDD's
proposal had an aerospike too, but they had a backup plan, which later
became their main plan because of lingering worries.
>(2) DC-(X,n) prefers bell-noozels to aerospikes.
Apparently they've cited three specific reasons:
1. Concerns about how well an aerospike would perform if one segment
had to be shut down, e.g. because of a pump failure.
2. Worries about having adequate thrust vectoring for landings in poor
conditions.
3. Uncertainty about flow interactions at low supersonic speeds.
>(a) There have been no new launchers since the shuttle, offering no
> compelling reason to develope a real engine.
> - Several generations of Ariane-launchers are post - shuttle
> ( how secret was aerospike technology until recently ?)
Aerospike technology hasn't been particularly secret for a long time.
On the other hand, some of it was covered by patents for a while. And
again, in Ariane we're talking about a national-prestige megaproject,
the sort of project which goes out of its way to avoid risks.
The most fundamental decision about Ariane was that it would be a
three-stage vehicle. This was a safe, conservative decision, drawing on
past French rocketry experience. It was also a decision that eliminated
any possibility of any of the Ariane stages having particularly impressive
performance. Engineers don't get brave when they don't have to. Ariane's
structural mass fractions are inferior to those of the Atlas, despite
Atlas being a 1950s design with 1950s materials and technology, because
the Atlas designers *were* under great pressure to make things light, and
so they did.
In a similar vein, Max Hunter has commented that the decision to put SRBs
on the shuttle killed all incentive to save weight. Several of the early
shuttle proposals were near-SSTOs (in fact, one *was* an SSTO, but that's
another story...), but the decision to use large boosters resulted in a
dramatic retreat to more conservative engineering. Perhaps this was an
improvement in some ways, but it also closed off possible evolution toward
a more SSTO-like system.
>(b) Aerospike demands good integration of body & engine, for aerodynamic
> reasons. This possibly rules out all solution but those with central
> symmetry (with round launchers; with flat launchers linear symmertry
> might suffice). Thus a multi-engined DC-(X,n) may be undoable with
> aerospike engines.
No, aerospikes can work with linear symmetry -- as witness Lockheed's
X-33 proposal -- or even other possibilities. People have proposed
clustering aerospikes just like they cluster bell nozzles.
In any case, the way you get the *effect* of multi-engining with an
aerospike is to make the individual engine segments independent, so
you can carry on even if one shuts down. (You do have to worry a little
about the effect of this on the gas cushion that forms the spike.)
>(c) Though shalt not build a vehicle using new airframe AND new engines.
This is much closer to the mark, although it's something that has been
done. The reason why aerospike has never flown is that nobody has been
building *experimental* launchers, to try out new ideas in an environment
forgiving of failure (or incomplete success).
--
There is a difference between | Henry Spencer
cynicism and skepticism. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Henry Spencer
>(d) Aerospike engines also are more massive than an equivalent engine using
> a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike designs I've seen used
There have been plenty of aerospike designs which used a ring of essentially
conventional combustion chambers. The annular chambers are cute, and they
don't have to be overwhelmingly massive, but they aren't necessary.
Colin Brown
"aerospike" from time to time. I think its is time to admit my ignorance
and ask if some kind person would post an explanation. What is an
aerospike engine? Why is it so called, and what might its advantages be
over "conventional" engines? There were a few tantalising hints in this
thread but not enought to really enlighten me.
I guess some of the answers might come from the aerospike home page that
was referred to. What's its url?
Colin Brown
George Bunk
writes:
>
>> Having read several threads on SSTO & aerospike
engines & the new
>>aerospike homepage (I love it), I started to wonder
why
>>
>>(1) nobody ever uses these engines, especially since
prototypes
>> have aparently been tested decades ago.
>
answer these questions,
>>but I do not think them to be satisfying.
>
shuttle, offering no
>> compelling reason to develope a real engine.
>> - Several generations of Ariane-launchers are
post - shuttle
>> ( how secret was aerospike technology until
recently ?)
>
engine, for aerodynamic
>> reasons. This possibly rules out all solution
but those with central
>> symmetry (with round launchers; with flat
launchers linear symmertry
>> might suffice). Thus a multi-engined DC-(X,n)
may be undoable with
>> aerospike engines.
>
airframe AND new engines.
>
aerospace powers that be
>implement it, but personally, I feel they're being
excessively timid.
>
equivalent engine using
> a bell nozzle. This is because all the aerospike
designs I've seen used
> an _annular_ combustion chamber which was
> that used with a conventional bell nozzle. There
might be a way around
> this, however, it would imply redesigning the
engine. The mass penalty
> might be sufficient to offset the gain in
efficiency.
>
>-Ward.
>
>Ward Burrows "TB or not TB, that is
congestion!
>wa...@alumni.caltech.edu consumption be done
about it?
> Of koff! Of koff!"
>
>
Aerospike system should be beter than a bell for the
following reasons:
1) Thrust Vectoring System.
In an aerospike you can provide guidance by
controlling fuel flow to the individual combustion
chambers. This allows you to eliminate the gimbaling
system common to most bell nozzle designs. This also
eliminates the weight of the added hydralic systems
(APUs) required for the gimbaling system.
2) Atmospheric Compensation
Use of aerospike allows you to operate at full thrust
all the way to altitude instead of designing for
midlevel thrust from sea level thru altitude.
Although some bell engines have been designed with
extended bells that fall into place at altitude, these
add complexity to the system.
3) No Thrust transmission structure required.
Since Aerospike thrust chambers are integrated to the
edges of the rockets body, they do not require a large
heavy thrust transmission structure to transfer the
force of thrust to the sides of the vechicle.
I believe that you are comparing the bell nozzles to
an ideal aerospike engine with 100% of length. Most
aerospike designs only use 2-25% of the full length
spike. This makes for a very compact design and a
much lighter engine.
George
BRUCE GRANT
In article <schmoelz-160...@eapmc2.tuwien.ac.at>,
schm...@eapv38.tuwien.ac.at (Paul J.M. Schmoelz) said:
> (a) There have been no new launchers since the shuttle, offering no
> compelling reason to develope a real engine.
> - Several generations of Ariane-launchers are post - shuttle
> ( how secret was aerospike technology until recently ?)
To my knowledge, it wasn't secret, just very rarely heard of.
Many years ago (maybe 25 years? Too many...) I remember seeing an
illustration in a book of speculative spacecraft designs. Among
several TSTO designs and BAC's MUSTARD was a design study of a big fat
cone-shaped rocket with an aerospike engine. Does anyone out there
have a better memory of this book? In retrospect, I think it might
have been one of Philip Bono's designs.
> (b) Aerospike demands good integration of body & engine, for
> aerodynamic reasons. This possibly rules out all solution but
> those with central symmetry (with round launchers; with flat
> launchers linear symmertry might suffice). Thus a multi-engined
> DC-(X,n) may be undoable with aerospike engines. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Something to keep in mind -- in an aerospike, the entire bottom of the
rocket _is_ the thrust chamber, so it only has "one" engine.
The DC-X uses four more-or-less conventional RL-10 rocket engines.
According to the March 1993 article in _Spaceflight_, a production
DC-1 would have 10 or 12 engines, or one aerospike. (Does anyone know
if this has changed recently?)
Disclaimer -- my memory that far back isn't perfect. Any facts I've
got right must have crept in by accident...
Bruce.
|----------------------- PGP 2.6 key available ----------------------|
| EMail: bruce...@fonix.org | ICBM: 02. 06' 48" W |
| Fido: 2:252/171 | 57. 10' 23" N |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| I'm not flying fast... just orbiting low. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Jim Kingdon
> was referred to. What's its url?
George Bunk
cbr...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>
>I have been reading this topic for a while now and
keep seeing the term
>"aerospike" from time to time. I think its is time
to admit my ignorance
>and ask if some kind person would post an
explanation. What is an
>aerospike engine? Why is it so called, and what might
its advantages be
>over "conventional" engines? There were a few
tantalising hints in this
>thread but not enought to really enlighten me.
>
aerospike home page that
>was referred to. What's its url?
>
Check out
http://paris.lerc.nasa.gov/kdavidian/aerospike.html
Enjoy!
George
frank...@delphi.com
>work. General Dynamics proposed an aerospike design for the SDIO SSTO
>competition, and lost to McDD... at least partly because GD relied on the
>aerospike working, and had no backup plan in case it didn't. McDD's
1993, ISBN 0-89464-039-9. Not a cheap book, BTW. The one I read was
a loaner.) It shows on p. 665 two fallback designs from the basic
aerospike engine, including one using straight bell nnozzles.
Indeed, it says a great deal about this design and the development
path GD would've taken. In a slightly different universe, we might now
be following the tests of their SX-109 demonstrator, rather (or in an
ideal world, in *addition* to) test flights of the DC-X. (Of course,
if they had been the ones picked by SDIO, who knows if GD would've still
sold off its missile and space divisions, and what effect it would've had
on continued development of its `Milennium Express' design...?)
Frank
George Allegrezza
>Many years ago (maybe 25 years? Too many...) I remember seeing an
>illustration in a book of speculative spacecraft designs. Among
>several TSTO designs and BAC's MUSTARD was a design study of a big fat
>cone-shaped rocket with an aerospike engine. Does anyone out there
>have a better memory of this book? In retrospect, I think it might
>have been one of Philip Bono's designs.
The book is titled either _Frontiers of Space_ or _Frontiers of Spaceflight_,
by Bono and Kenneth Gaitland (BIS), published by Macmillian in the late 1960s and
early '70s. There are two American editions that I know of, plus a British
edition, which you can get through interlibrary loan (I have). All have a
slightly different mix of artwork. The later US edition contains the authors' rant
against the MSC-040 shuttle design and a proposed solution involving a recoverable
first stage for the Rockwell orbiter.
Bono proposed a family of launchers that would be used for everything
from suborbital passenger transport to super-heavy-lift ETO operations.
They were all VTO blunt cones with LH2/LOX aerospike propulsion. Re-entry
would be tail-first, with cooling of the aft body by LH2 circulation.
Landing would be vertical, DC-X style. In fact the DC-X is a spiritual
descendant of the Bono designs, not suprising as Bono worked for Douglas
(later McD-D).
Elsewhere, Bono proposed some wild stuff. Somewhere I have an AAS document
in which he seriously discussed NTR-powered SSTOs with 1 million pound payloads.
These vehicles were intended to provide logistical support for a 1000-person
lunar base. One of the designs was a 454-foot diameter *lenticular* SSTO.
I think every space enthusiast of a certain age owns or at least has read
the Bono and Gaitland book.
George
George Bunk
frank...@delphi.com says...
>
>Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> writes:
>
>>work. General Dynamics proposed an aerospike design
for the SDIO SSTO
>>competition, and lost to McDD... at least partly
because GD relied on the
>>aerospike working, and had no backup plan in case it
didn't. McDD's
>
>
>
(Krieger Publishing,
>1993, ISBN 0-89464-039-9. Not a cheap book, BTW. The
one I read was
>a loaner.) It shows on p. 665 two fallback designs
from the basic
>aerospike engine, including one using straight bell
nnozzles.
>
>
> Indeed, it says a great deal about this design and
the development
>path GD would've taken. In a slightly different
universe, we might now
>be following the tests of their SX-109 demonstrator,
rather (or in an
>ideal world, in *addition* to) test flights of the
DC-X. (Of course,
>if they had been the ones picked by SDIO, who knows
if GD would've still
>sold off its missile and space divisions, and what
effect it would've had
>on continued development of its `Milennium Express'
design...?)
>
>
> Frank
>
actually build and fly a demonstrator vechicle. The
others GD included, only promised to "study" a
demonstrator vechicle to see if it was feasible.
GB
Josh Hopkins
>Something to keep in mind -- in an aerospike, the entire bottom of the
>rocket _is_ the thrust chamber, so it only has "one" engine.
Yes and no. While an aerospike may have only one nozzle, there's no
reason the plumbing and combustion components (i.e. just about
everything that might fail) should be limited to one set. There
can be (and in fact, should be) a number of different injectors around
the perimeter, for example.
--
Josh Hopkins jbho...@uiuc.edu
"Software is like Entropy: it's hard to grasp, weighs nothing and
obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. it always increases"
-Norman Augustine
Michael P. Walsh
to orbit vehicles. They were very large vehicles, at least
partly because the structural fractions required to achieve orbit
were easier to achieve in large than small vehicles using the
technololgy available then. The propulsion system was a type of
aerospike which had a series of bell nozzles all around a plug
nozzle at the base. The altitude compensation of the plug nozzle
was important in achieving good performance. The plug nozzle
doubled as a re-entry heat shield and the vehicle landed
tail-first using throttled rocket engines for landing.
This is very similar to the DC-X concept and I think it is a
clear example of Phil Bono's ideas being remembered. While they
did not work directly on the Phil Bono studies both William
Gaubatz and Paul Klevatt currently on the DC-X program were in
the Advanced Propulsion Department at that time at
McDonnell-Douglas. Actually Paul Klevatt was directly involved
as he was my department manager. The studies were "paper" design
studies and no hardware was ever involved.
GCHudson
>actually build and fly a demonstrator vechicle. The
>others GD included, only promised to "study" a
>demonstrator vechicle to see if it was feasible.
>GB
I have the GD proposal, and worked on the GD team as a contractor, and am
pretty sure that GD proposed building a demonstrator. In fact, it was
pretty well a requirement for Phase II award that the chosen contractor
build a demonstrator, otherwise the proposal would have been
non-responsive.
Gary C. Hudson
Hudson Engineering
Ben Muniz ; /home/auspex_d0/usr2/yqq7121
Josh Hopkins <jbh5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>everything that might fail) should be limited to one set. There
>can be (and in fact, should be) a number of different injectors around
>the perimeter, for example.
I believe all the (aero)spike engines that Rocketdyne has tested (both 1-d and
2-d [aka linear]) have had segmented injectors and combustion chambers.
As far as the past history of spike engines, I've heard unconfirmed reports
that the Germans looked at something similar during WWII.
Also, "Design of Liquid Rocket Propellant Rocket Engines" (NASA SP-125) was
published in 1971 and discusses various annular nozzles on p. 92-95.
Ben Muniz yqq...@rs0200.rdyne.rockwell.com w(818) 586-3578
International Space Station Alpha: Structural Loads and Dynamics
Views/Commitments expressed do not represent Rockwell Aerospace/Rocketdyne
"Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901
BRUCE GRANT
In article <3seb57$4...@sousa.tay1.dec.com>, George Allegrezza
<alleg...@ljo.dec.com> said:
> bruce...@fonix.org (BRUCE GRANT) wrote:
>
> >Many years ago (maybe 25 years? Too many...) I remember seeing an
> >illustration in a book of speculative spacecraft designs.
> >[...]
>
> The book is titled either _Frontiers of Space_ or _Frontiers of
> Spaceflight_, by Bono and Kenneth Gaitland (BIS), published by
> Macmillian in the late 1960s and early '70s.
That title sounds vaguely familiar... but then, I was (AFAIR) only
about ten years old at the time.
> They were all VTO blunt cones with LH2/LOX aerospike propulsion.
> Re-entry would be tail-first, with cooling of the aft body by LH2
> circulation. Landing would be vertical, DC-X style.
The one I remember most clearly was a big cargo hauler, maybe a bit
bigger than the DC-1 concept but much shorter and fatter.
> One of the designs was a 454-foot diameter *lenticular* SSTO.
Hmm... was it anything like the jet-powered "flying saucers" proposed
(and possibly test-flown) by the Germans just before the end of WWII?
> I think every space enthusiast of a certain age owns or at least has
> read the Bono and Gaitland book.
Well, this one will certainly try to find it again and refresh a few
of his fading brain cells! Thanks for the info.
Bruce.
|----------------------- PGP 2.6 key available ----------------------|
| EMail: bruce...@fonix.org | ICBM: 02. 06' 48" W |
| Fido: 2:252/171 | 57. 10' 23" N |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Inel: he Penium bug only affecs floaing poin calculaions! |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Sparks
>In article <3seb57$4...@sousa.tay1.dec.com>, George Allegrezza
><alleg...@ljo.dec.com> said:
>> bruce...@fonix.org (BRUCE GRANT) wrote:
>> >Many years ago (maybe 25 years? Too many...) I remember seeing an
>> >illustration in a book of speculative spacecraft designs.
>> >[...]
>> The book is titled either _Frontiers of Space_ or _Frontiers of
>> Spaceflight_, by Bono and Kenneth Gaitland (BIS), published by
>> Macmillian in the late 1960s and early '70s.
It's called Frontiers of Space - I pointed this out a while back
(smug grin *hehe* - wow ! I got referenced ! :) My first time ever !:)
>> They were all VTO blunt cones with LH2/LOX aerospike propulsion.
>> Re-entry would be tail-first, with cooling of the aft body by LH2
>> circulation. Landing would be vertical, DC-X style.
>The one I remember most clearly was a big cargo hauler, maybe a bit
>bigger than the DC-1 concept but much shorter and fatter.
Lets see - there was pegasus, the commercial variant, Icarus, a troop
transport, Rombus, an alternative SSTO design, whose fuel tanks would be
shipped to the moon for use as lunar shelters for the colony there.
But the Pegasus was the one with the aerospike engine.
There was another that didn't have any name I can remember,
but scared me silly when I saw the DC-X for the first time
'cos it is almost _EXACTLY_ the same :)
>> One of the designs was a 454-foot diameter *lenticular* SSTO.
Hmmm ... don't remember that one !
>> I think every space enthusiast of a certain age owns or at least has
>> read the Bono and Gaitland book.
:)
This space enthusiast became a space enthusiast 'cos of that book.
Odd -every kid wants to be an astronaut at some age, me - I always
wanted to be a space _engineer_ :)
--
Mark "Sparks" Dennehy Ham Radio : EI5EDB (2m FM only) :-(
Engineering Undergrad Internet : mden...@tcd.ie
Trinity College Dublin
Henry Spencer
>Lets see - there was pegasus, the commercial variant, Icarus, a troop
>transport, Rombus, an alternative SSTO design, whose fuel tanks would be
>shipped to the moon for use as lunar shelters for the colony there.
>
>But the Pegasus was the one with the aerospike engine.
Actually, they all had aerospike engines. That was a standard feature of
Bono's SSTO designs.
Some minor notes... It's Gatland, not Gaitland. And for enthusiast
purposes, the first edition of the book is about as good as the second;
the second has only a little bit of new material, and is a sloppy and
superficial revision. (For example, the first was pre-Skylab and the
second post-Skylab, but the Skylab coverage was updated only by adding
a few paragraphs about the actual mission events -- much of the second
edition's Skylab coverage still speaks of it as a future mission.)
Sparks
>In article <DB1rv...@news.tcd.ie> Sparks <mden...@tcd.ie> writes:
>>Lets see - there was pegasus, the commercial variant, Icarus, a troop
>>transport, Rombus, an alternative SSTO design, whose fuel tanks would be
>>shipped to the moon for use as lunar shelters for the colony there.
>>
>>But the Pegasus was the one with the aerospike engine.
>Actually, they all had aerospike engines. That was a standard feature of
>Bono's SSTO designs.
Whoops. Sorry, it's just been one of those weeks where my fingers did
were typing without the assistance of all of my brain :)
Henry Gordon Chatroop
>In <8AC3090.0B67...@fonix.org> bruce...@fonix.org (BRUCE GRANT) writes:
>>> The book is titled either _Frontiers of Space_ or _Frontiers of
>>> Spaceflight_, by Bono and Kenneth Gaitland (BIS), published by
>>> Macmillian in the late 1960s and early '70s.
>It's called Frontiers of Space - I pointed this out a while back
>(smug grin *hehe* - wow ! I got referenced ! :) My first time ever !:)
To settle it once and for all it was
"Frontiers of Space"
by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland (NOT Gaitland)
Blandford Press (London) 1973
ISBN 0-7137-3504-X
>>> They were all VTO blunt cones with LH2/LOX aerospike propulsion.
>>> Re-entry would be tail-first, with cooling of the aft body by LH2
>>> circulation. Landing would be vertical, DC-X style.
>Lets see - there was pegasus, the commercial variant, Icarus, a troop
>transport, Rombus, an alternative SSTO design, whose fuel tanks would be
>shipped to the moon for use as lunar shelters for the colony there.
>But the Pegasus was the one with the aerospike engine.
I think all of the above had aerospike engines.
>There was another that didn't have any name I can remember,
>but scared me silly when I saw the DC-X for the first time
>'cos it is almost _EXACTLY_ the same :)
I think this would have been the Hyperion passenger transport (which
also had an aerospike engine).
>>> One of the designs was a 454-foot diameter *lenticular* SSTO.
>Hmmm ... don't remember that one !
I was not in the book.
>>> I think every space enthusiast of a certain age owns or at least has
>>> read the Bono and Gaitland book.
>:)
>This space enthusiast became a space enthusiast 'cos of that book.
>Odd -every kid wants to be an astronaut at some age, me - I always
>wanted to be a space _engineer_ :)
I too was most impressed by this book and always wondered what happened
to all these designs. Several years ago when a NASA expert was giving
a talk locally I brought it up. He knew of the designs (however he did
show some surprise that anyone knew/remembered) but did state that the
aerospike engine was too complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry G. Chatroop
"Interested in the applications of technology - past, present, future
and proposed - especially unusual!"
FBronner
Kenneth Gatland & Anthony Kunesch, Philosophical Library 1953. This is a
very cool book.
Does anyone have an extra copy of the Bonestell - Conquest of the Moon
and
the book Exploration of Mars?
It can be in avg condition...
-Fritz