Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Stages and booster

Stages and booster

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:58 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 10 posts ] 
Stages and booster 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Stages and booster   Posted on: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:58 am
As far as I know stages and boosters are cylndircal up to now and I suppose that this is due to aerodynamics.

Now the CXV won't be cylindrical but washtub-shaped for reentry as one measure to achieve reusability.

What about the idea of stages and boosters which can reshape for reentry and which are equipped by a cooling system like that of the CXV? They would be reusable that way I think.

Regarding stages and booster which are used for interplanetary flights - if they would return to orbit they could be made reusable easyly. What about making them spherical instead of cylindrical in that case? Are there arguments against spherical stages that never would reenter? They would have the advantage of requiring a minimized amount of material and thus investment.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post Re: Stages and booster   Posted on: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:22 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
As far as I know stages and boosters are cylndircal up to now and I suppose that this is due to aerodynamics.


You got it.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Now the CXV won't be cylindrical but washtub-shaped for reentry as one measure to achieve reusability.


Also due to aerodyamics. The actual vehicles (as opposed to the rocket, or "stack") tend to be non-cylindrical, so they are easily controllable on reentry.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
What about the idea of stages and boosters which can reshape for reentry and which are equipped by a cooling system like that of the CXV? They would be reusable that way I think.


Yup, but you wouldn't have any room for the fuel or the engines, what with all the equipment you'd need to implement a variable-geometry structure (something that changes shape) at the insane speeds that a returning orbiter experiences, and keep it sturdy enough not to disintegrate.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Regarding stages and booster which are used for interplanetary flights - if they would return to orbit they could be made reusable easyly. What about making them spherical instead of cylindrical in that case? Are there arguments against spherical stages that never would reenter? They would have the advantage of requiring a minimized amount of material and thus investment.


Once something is consigned to stay in space permanently, you open up whole new worlds of design possibilities. The trick lies in getting all this stuff to orbit in the first place, which is why most current satellites are still roughly cylindrical -- that's the easiest shape to put on top of a stack. Otherwise, you incur brand-new weight penalties by having to fair the thing into the rocket that's launching it.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:11 am
The spheres could cosnist of segments which could be delivered by hardare available already. What about that? ...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:36 pm
In the current issue of AV WEEK, the cover art shows the air launch rocket.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:50 pm
I'm so glad to know that I'm two weeks behind in AW&ST again. Well, just think of all those back issues that I'll have to look forward to...... Idiots.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:47 am
The segments of the spheres could be seperated chambers of one tank partially. Which problems would that involve?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:55 pm
I think that interorbital have already thought of all this and have designed their Neptune with spherical tanks covered by a cylindrical cover that can be reused as living space for astronauts.

Whether it would work is another matter and I still have reservations about all that sea water.

http://www.interorbital.com/Neptune%20Page_1.htm

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:47 am
If spherical tanks used during alaunch from ground to orbit can be reused for launches from the orbit to HEO, GEO or interplanetary destinies this is a kind of reusability which has significant potentials to reduce costs.

Several spherical tanks could be placed in orbit for later use this way and perhaps scalability could be achieved by having available several small spherical tanks instead of one large only. But several spherical tanks instead of one only could mean suboptimal investment costs.

The segments of a larger spherical tank could be put together at an orbital assembly yard - what about that?

Could such a tank be inflatable like Bigelow's Nautilus? Is it possible to avoid the problems of reshapable tanks then?

It would be sufficient, if the tanks would be approximately spherical only - they could be made of several hexagons for example.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:24 pm
One of the important things to understand is the need to separate boosters safely. If you look at pages 56-59 of the Oct. 24, 2005 issue of AW&ST, you will see, for example, how the second stage engine of the AirLaunch rocket is submerged in the inside the first stages propane fuel tank!

"For stage separation, Quick Reach I is to have a pyrotechnic cord sever the first stage tank wall 2 ft. below where it transitions to the second stage tank wall....The submerged upper-stage engine is a clever idea used in the Russian R-27/SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missile, which is also pressed to fit in a small space."

And we all know how reliable those SLBMs are.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:35 pm
Here are some propulsion links of interest:

(http://www.geocities.com/nielspapermodels/

More on NTR
http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/projects/ntp/index.shtml
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/E ... dum/A5.htm

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/searc ... ght?&rn=57


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use