Where are the Spaceplanes?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2023
- There have been many single-stage spaceplane designs but none of them have been built. What's keeping us from having spaceplanes?
@Eager_Space on Twitter
Triabolical_ on Reddit
/ eagernetwork
/ eager-space-1038430522... - Наука та технологія
I have always hoped for something like the original shuttle proposals, a two stage design of a small spaceplane launching off a huge spaceplane.
I understand the desire, and the two-stage designs for shuttle would likely have been superior to the actual design. Probably double the cost, however.
I'm not convinced that the weight of the airframe, wings, and landing gear are going to be worth it.
@@EagerSpace>>> I have read there was a potential issue with the original straight-wing orbiter TSTO shuttle design by Max Faget. The straight-wing orbiter would have difficulty shedding all the reentry heat.
Although I have worked in aircraft maintenance, I am NOT an aeronautical engineer. So I do not know if this heating problem was a valid concern or not.
I read the USAF had a greater cross-range re-entry glide requirement than a straight-wing orbiter could provide, hence the choice of the Space Shuttles we got.
The Indian space agency has a prototype of exactly that. It's called the RLV-TD and, as I understand it, it will be a space shuttle on a first stage reusable like super heavy.
So to build an SSTO vehicle you would have to construct the vehicle out of Fullerene composite and power it with unobtaneum. Okay. Works for me.
Can I at least have a multi-stage spaceplane?
Sierra Space's Dream Chaser Spaceplane is designed to be launched on a first stage. It's a spaceplane version of a capsual.
@@jbullforg The X-37B is functionally similar to DreamChaser in it's unmanned configuration, and it's already flying.
Neither are 'Spaceplanes' in the context of this video however, which is really talking about 'Winged launch vehicles'.
You had shuttle...
@@EagerSpace Your argument is this video is false with fasle premies. Trasnforming engine has been designed which makes first stage spaceplanes possibility, its currently being built and worked on in private sector.
«Δ» is the capital of «δ» which is the lower case.
I always liked the idea of a vertical maglev system providing the initial energy to launch an SSTO vehicle from a deep silo.
You might like this:
ua-cam.com/video/mjbuaY-psS0/v-deo.html
A bit like Buck Rogers.
Spaceplane and SSTO (single stage to orbit) are not synonymous. We have at least two operational spaceplanes today, the X-37 and the SpaceShipTwo, with Dreamchaser probably joining them in less than a year.
And historically we've had many more, such as the X-15, Buran and of course the Space Shuttle.
YES, thank you for this, this video is interesting but the amalgamation of spaceplane and SSTO particularily annoyed me. I mean one of the most iconic spaceplanes out there, the Orion, from 2001, is the 2nd stage of a TSTO, with it's first stage being a massive upscaled verion of it. BTW, Technically there are 3 operational spaceplanes, as the Chinese have an analogue to the X37B, the CSSHQ, which has flown twice and is currently in space on it's third mission. (but i wouldn't really count spaceship 2 as is has absolutely no control of itself when outside the atmosphere, contrary to the others, which means it barely qualifies as a spaceplane)
@soleenzo893 Yeah, my bad, I forgot about China. I am, however, fairly certain that SpaceShipTwo does have a reaction control system to control its orientation while in space.
@@plainText384 oh you're right, forgot it had RCS. then it barely qualifies as a spaceplane (by a hair lol compared to the ones that actually go to orbit)
Regarding booster recovery: I was honored to meet Francis M. Rogallo about four different times at events hosted by *KITTY HAWK KITES* in the North Carolina Outer Banks in the latter 1990s. {I moved to N.E. NC in 1995, and Kite Flying is one of my hobbies.}
Based on what I heard Mr. Rogallo say, and with access to the early internet, I became aware there were proposals to recover spent rocket boosters -- including the SATURN V FIRST STAGE -- by having them glide to runway landings using Rogallo Flexwings/Parawings. {There was also research into recovering manned Gemini & Apollo capsules to avoid splashdowns, but due to the goal of getting to the Moon _"Before this decade is out"_ recovering manned capsules this way was abandoned.}
I am still somewhat surprised, although knowing how government works also not surprised, that this was never implemented at all.
Interesting - thanks for sharing.
We actually already have SSTO rockets, Apollo, Luna, OSIRIS, Hayabusa, and Chang'e
The problem is, earth sucks.
Still, I can't wait to see the Deamchaser of sierra Nevada fly. Not all space planes are SSTO.
The trade-off between capsules and winged designs is interesting and I'm looking forward to it as well.
Wait we can petition to repeal physical laws?
Oh boy do I have a whole laundry list of issues to take to my local representative.
Not with that sort of attitude, no.
Fight the physics. I'm working against that quantum mechanics stuff as well...
@@EagerSpaceThese replies reveal all. "Not with that attitude" You mean Reality? MuskCult member.
I thought that the supposed principle behind the spaceplane as a concept was that "flying" up to altitude on wing lift is a lower delta-v launch profile than a typical gravity turn, and that's why they all have big heavy wings and lifting bodies. How that plays out in reality I don't know, but it feels like it should have been worth a mention, especially as it obviously requires much less initial thrust to weight.
Exactly. HOTOL and the X-30 were intended to be operated out of extended runways.
yeah, following a constant dynamic pressure path up to orbital velocities would allow a lower thrust flight to orbit, and with the increased specific impulse of using airbreathing engines (which will be able to use the air given the constant dynamic pressure) the mass fraction is way lower and more practical.
I think I ran some maths on a craft I was crappily designing and it was as good as fuel making up only 50% of the gross mass on the runway, and payload being around 10%. This was with multi-mode turbo-scramjets that varied geometry of the intake to ensure the best flow, a nuclear thermal orbital insertion engine, liquid hydrogen fuel and a waverider airframe design.
of course there was a big problem with actually trying to figure out a trajectory and the fact the craft needed quite a lot of engines relatively speaking, as scramjets have terrible thrust to weight ratios (like barely 2, relative to their engine mass let alone the rest of the craft) and quite a lot of thrust is needed to accelerate whilst climbing - I think it was around 0.6 or so, so 30% of the spaceplane would have to be ramjet. a 10% dry weight sans engines would be a bit of a reach; at about the point I came to that number I gave up lol.
13:36 fun tidbit: I believe modified rl10s have fired with “slush” LH2 since the 80s. Very fun way to add some performance.
Repeal the rocket equation was originated from the Good-Luck-With-That Dept. Anyway, nice short presentation explaining why we don't have single stage to orbit rockets. Dale Myers associate administrator or acting deputy administrator of NASA in 1970 when companies presenting ideas for the Space Shuttle. He immediately dismissed SSTO concept which saved much time. Fast forward to the X33 Venturestar with hope it would be a SSTO but had developmental problems of could it even fly to Utah from Calif before becoming too expensive. Some reason people thought they can overcome the Rocket Equation. The real downside was loss of testing aerospike engines and thermal projection systems for real even if suborbital flight.
Radian's sled launch is basically just a second stage without calling it a second stage lol.
Yep. They'd be better off just admitting that they need two stages and fully committing to it, which lets you balance the mass ratio properly to get the full benefit.
I.E something like the SpaceLiner: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceLiner
Yes. It's similar to air launch - like Pegasus or Virgin Orbit - but without the simplicity.
The idea is that you have big tanks on the rocket sled that feed both the rocket sled and the spaceplane during that period so that the spaceplane hits the end of the sled track with full tanks and engines at full thrust.
@@EagerSpace Asparagus staging too? It will increase the performance, sure, but given how SpaceX abandoned it for Falcon Heavy I'm not so sure Radian can pull it off.
Check out the presentation about Rotational Detonation Engines and the proposed Cochrane Exploration spaceplane that starts 1hr into video z_06OhH6Hj0 titled "APEC 7/8: Warp-Drives, Detonation Engine & TR-3B". Sooner or later someone will find the funding for some kind of runway-to-orbit spaceplane like these.
I've spent a little time looking at rotational detonation rocket engines. The ones that I found have low thrust and unimpressive specific impulse, but that might change in the future.
I never got Radians plan of using a rocket sled for takeoff, one of the advantages of a HTHL spaceplane would be the ability to launch from somewhat modified airports without a need for extensive ground infrastructure...
I'm a bit skeptical about the various plans for SSTO spaceplanes. A lot of companies get around this by making the spaceplane the first stage and then getting the satellite to orbit on an expendable second stage, but what I'd personally like to see happen would be an HTHL with flyback boosters to actually get the spaceplane itself into orbit. Structurally challenging, I know...
Flyback boosters in a plane seems to be logistically difficult in terms of wingspan. It would be a little like the triamese shuttle concept but flattened out.
@@EagerSpace Absolutely, the boosters would either need a short wingspan or some sort of foldable wings. Alternatively, perhaps it would be doable to have the boosters land vertically like the F9 first stage, then they wouldn't need wings at all.
Thank you for including Reaction Engines concepts (led by the visionary Sir Alan Bond) - the engine design is gaining interest both by ESA and abroad. There must be another way gain to economical access to space - even Musk's Falcons have a finite life !
Great channel!
Thank you!
Where can i sign that appeal. Ill bring all my friends to sign it aswell
I demand they repeal this law and it’s equation. California is just the place for such political vision and action! If we can manage global weather, then the rocket equation doesn’t stand a chance.
Repeal the rocket equation! (By living in space)
Eager Spaxe being a Halo fan is not something I saw coming
Eager Space worked at a large redmond software company when XBox was released. Played lots of CE multiplayer in conference rooms. Play a bunch up through 5.
Great video...👍
The USAF and DARPA looked at a two stage spaceplane were the stages launched separately. The first stage is a tanker. The second would take off lightly loaded with fuel and meet the tanker fuel up and head for LEO. If workable imo this would be ideal as a crew transfer taxi. But not a cargo vehicle.
Interesting. Do you happen to know what the project was called?
@@EagerSpace
Black Colt and Black Horse.
I remember the DC X. If only it had been funded properly we might have been closer to cheap reusable launchers a lot sooner.
Neither Lockheed Martin nor McDonnel Douglas were interested in funding development using their own money, and that's been an ongoing pattern with SSTO designs.
The DC-Y might have been an interesting vehicle, but I don't think they would ever have gotten to the orbital version.
LOL. This is hilarious. No admission that Musk lied about inventing the concept and a deranged brattiness that you've been denied something. MuskCult is so lost.
for a plane to go to orbit you need: reacción engine like the ones on fiter planes,bigger wings so you can get more fuel and no much heat on reentry, landing gears will have to be light so take of will be with only a 10% of fuel the rest will be transfer in mid air ,aereal refuling is a prove TEC,and allow to take dowble the fuel that will be possible on take of because you will be traveling at tou times the speed, rockets need push at least a porcent more than the weight of the rocket the plane can do the same with one fith of the trust,so 2 engine instead of 10 and will be at least 10to 15 km higher, afterburner will be a great,is like a rocket that don't need oxigen and can go up to 30 km, that is a great head star.
Spaceplanes will go extinct like the X-20 Dyna-Soar 🤣
Shhhh.... don't let the MuskCult know Reality exists.
Hahah physics hates hummans. It's a good summary of the situation.
It's the same issue with faster-than-light drives. We'd all love to have them because they allow so much fun in science fiction, but AFAWCT, physics hates us.
@@EagerSpace I Would GO FURTHER Than That & Say That The Universe HATES Humans AND Offers Humans NO HOPE ! ! !😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@EagerSpaceI REALLY LIKE Your Channel & It Is ONE Of THE BEST Out There ! ! !
Military tries to monopolize since even with my MIT work bureaucrats hysterical about "weapons proliferation" have Walter Pecked anyone who attempts to purchase isotopic fuels,
Although a 2CV is pretty awesome, it hasn't a range of 800+ km and it's restricted to roads
ua-cam.com/video/jt9g5e1kTig/v-deo.html
But I'm a bit biased as I used to own a DS19 Safari when I was young.
I stand corrected@@EagerSpace
The design brief for the 2CV did specify it should be able to drive in a field and not break eggs caried inside, so i think we can considered it ISN't restricted to roads. also the "roads" it drove over in the post war period were barely roads lol.
Japan Nitrogen's Noguchi of early 1940s Hamgyong Province was developing a rocket plane engine comprised of a Dewar of cryogenic liquified deuterium fuel connected to a beryllium alloy reaction chamber nozzle coiled in around electromagnet coils to focus cosmic ray muons while cryogenic fuel prevented exceeding of Curie Point.
Therefore deuterated diborane fuel in Xcor's Lynx with a 9 volt battery powered electromagnet should be considered.
Patents of Mutsuro Bundo and Hector D"Auvergne could be improved with Robert L Morrison's patented lighter than air solids "SEAgel" or "biofoam" sealed in foil.
I love this channel ! why dont you have 300k subs ? Try seo, adding hashtags, discription, etc.
Not everyone wants to do this for fame and subs. Some people just like sharing ideas and if people want to listen and watch and share with their friends that's well and good and if not so be it.
@@roc8179 more subs means more views. It seems like a hobby channel but explains complex stuff in plain english and clear accent
Unfortunately the audience for this type of stuff is pretty niche so while people like us find it great, other people might have a lower attention span
I've played around with hashtags and from what I can tell it doesn't make a difference. If you have suggestions for any of these, please let me know.
I know very little about SEO.
I think I may already have had my 15 minutes of fame and I'm not interested in changing how I do things (much) to pull in more subs and views, but I'd be happier to reach more people.
Wow I like that physics hates humans idea, like if this was a rpg humans would be getting a negative bump to their chances of becoming spacefaring, if Earth was much heavier we'd probably evolve alright, bit stumpier fine, but right as the space race was beginning we'd be running tests on the best fuel possible and finding it required sci-fi levels of material tech to even get into orbit and completely give up on that part of the tech tree o.o
Or maybe like they'd settle for like, an eight stage rocket that puts a metal retroreflector pebble into orbit for a few hours and they track it and it takes their entire science budget to do so and they cheer and then space tick done
Considering the space and atomic age were pretty coincident, I have a feeling the hypothetical high-g dwarves would find a way...
another amazing video! great work
Any ideas on the feasibility of the Boeing X-37 sent out of spinlaunch? Also, a video talking Spinlaunch versus a standard sled would be interesting.
(Just subscribed because I love your sense of humor and approach to delving into details…. Thanks for what you do!)
I did a video on spinlaunch.
The feasibility of the X-37 on spinlaunch is zero.
a) It's not a second stage and spinlaunch requires a second stage to get to orbit.
b) Any payload on spinlaunch has to take 10,000 gs. I would be surprised if the X-37 is rated for higher than 15 gs, and it could be less.
Thanks for the response, @@EagerSpace ! Just watched the spinlauinch video; thanks for being you.
For the X-37, it would not be _"SpinLaunch,"_ it would be _"Spin-RUD."_ 😉
Too bad we can't use stuff like pentaborane and chlorine trifluoride together. Chemistry is mean!
Once again very good
There are other factors like aerospikes to keep an engine optimized from sea level to vacuum like the venture star would’ve used, but I’ve heard that’s not worth it either. I think rockwell’s X-33 realistically could’ve worked
Maybe the solution is a 2 stage full reuse space plane though
I talked about aerospikes in the rocket nozzle video I used.
It's hard to come to a conclusion about the XRS-2200 - and the follow-on RS-2200 - because there are no published engine mass figures, but based on what I've seen it's not a game-changer.
This video is actually wrong with fasle premise. Spaceplane does not exist cuz technology was not advanced enough to have transforming engines. Spaceplane Riker plan is under way currently is actually feasible.
Not sure what you mean by "spaceplane riker" - can you give me a link?
@@EagerSpace Spaceplane Star Raker. Technology is advanced enough to actually make space planes one stage possible.
This is an interesting video but your title is misleading and not a good representation of your subect. You've amalgamated a Spaceplane and an SSTO. Those are 2 different and completely unrelated concepts. There have been concepts for non spaceplane shaped SSTOs and for non SSTO Spaceplanes (Space Shuttle, Buran, X37B, Chinese GSSHQ?). You've made a video that adresses why we don't have SSTOS and you've explained why very well: The rocket equation is a harsh mistress. If you wanted to make a video about where all the spaceplanes are you should have looked at the other main reason why spaceplanes have been made: Their advantages in reuse, Crossrange during reentry and precision landing, among other things. I think you should revisit this video with 2 separate ones: one about SSTOs in General and one about spaceplanes in general (with a section about SSTO spaceplanes if you like).
Yes. I limited the topic because putting together SSTO spaceplanes and winged orbital vehicles like shuttle, buran, x37b, dream chaser tends to make people confused.
@@EagerSpace i understand but in the end treating ssto and spaceplane as synonyms is just lore confusing i find. each concept is pretty different to the other. here you clearly focus on SSTOs and Spaceplane SSTOs, i think the title isn't adequat, but also some of the points in the video are incomplete by bot adressing the wider appications of both concepts.
I love the channel and I very much like this video, but the complaint is valid, I was expecting a space plane video and got an SSTO instead.
I’m not complaining too hard, It did strike me as odd.
Starship' 120 ton version doesn't work as an SSTO, but it might work as a single-stage suborbital space launch system. If SpaceX ever wanted to get into the suborbital tourist business, Starship-only launches could probably give them quite a ride.
It also works for point-to-point transportation, though there are many other issues with that.
@@EagerSpaceLOL. It doesn't work yet. And point to point is not possible at all. Thank you for revealing you're a member of the MuskCult and not a reliable source at all. Couldn't tell at first, you've all gotten a lot quieter as Musk's insanity was revealed.
Imagine if dragon was a space plane instead of a capsule.
The It wouldn't be Dragon. Do you understand:
Dragon is the exact same concept as the Apollo system? Do you understand Musk is tricking you by calling different things "Starship" so you think it's a super ship that does everything? Do you even understand Musk lies about everything and he's a racist sociopath? No. By saying "Imagine if Dragon was .." you reveal your membership in the deranged MuskCult.