The World War 3 Cannon ?: Blitzer Railgun by General Atomics - Electric ...

Missile Defense Agency - Ballistic Missile Defense Upgrade Successfully ...

SUPERCOMPUTER SIMULATION OF UNIVERSE

BOEING LEO VTVL SSTO

                             Leo would generate so much noise that it would have to be launched from an artificial lagoon located a few kilometers from the existing Shuttle launch pads at Cape Canaveral. It would have been towed into a water-filled lock and then lowered to the launch pad to undergo servicing, fueling and launch. The turnaround time was estimated to be four days.

       

The landing site would have consisted of a 5km diameter pond adjacent to the launch area. The dark circle in the background is a receiving antenna, to which power generated in space would be beamed.

Leo's base heat shield would be water-cooled and the engine nozzles were to be protected by steam ejection. A normal mission would last only one orbit to avoid reentry phasing problems since the vehicle would have a relatively limited crossrange capability.

"Leo" landing. 16 of the LOX/kerosene engines are ignited during terminal descent to decelerate the vehicle. The final low-speed, low-thrust landing maneuver is performed by four engines.

Heavy-lift RLVs probably will have to land vertically due to the weight of the propulsion system. Boeing's "Leo" VTVL SSTO

baseline would have a mass of (841t/10306t), cost $9B to develop [1976] and the cost of launching a 228t payload would be

$9.7M. For this vehicle, the base heat shield and supporting thrust structure, penetrated by 48 rocket engine exit openings, would require intensive work to provide adequate thermal protection during reentry. The "Space Transportation Systems 1980-2000" study claimed an advanced VTVL SSTO version might be made 50% smaller and cheaper if tripropellant dual-expander engines and other advanced technologies were used . However, VTVL TSTO still appeared to be more attractive since the lower propellant cost appears more important than operational complexity for such missions.

Estimated development cost [1976 $s]: $9-12 billion. Cost per flight: $9.7 million (including $2.7 million for propellants) nominal cost; $7 million at 500 flights/year [1976 $s]

Liftoff thrust: 160,200KN (sl). Total Mass: 10,423t.

Payload capability: 228t to a 92.6km x 500km low Earth orbit; Payload bay: 23m diameter.

Stage 1 : 24 x LOX/LH2 rocket engines & 24 x LOX/kerosene motors. Liftoff thrust: 24 x 2,225KN + 24 * 4,450KN. Isp: Gross Mass: 10,306t. Empty Mass: 841t. Length: 64-76m depending on payload fairing. Diameter: 41m. Propellants: LOX/LH2+kerosene.

"Reusable Rocket Transports" -- SPACEFLIGHT, 1977/p.172

"Overview of the Satellite Power System Transportation System" -- Hanley & Bergeron, AIAA 1978-975

"Space Transportation Systems 1980-2000" -- Salkeld,Patterson & Grey, AIAA Aerospace Assessment 1978/Vol.1

BOEING LANGLEY S.S.T.O

Boeing investigated HTHL SSTO rocketplanes that would either utilize in-flight propellant transfer or a launch sled to reduce the mass of the landing gear, which then would not have to support the weight of a fully fueled vehicle. Sled-launched HTHL SSTO (128t/1216t) appeared to be the more attractive option since they weigh less than an in-flight fueled vehicle (150t/1257t) , which also would require the development of a very large subsonic tanker aircraft capable of transferrring 76t/minute of propellant. The HTHL design would have required a relatively large wing and efficient tankage but the propulsion mass and re-entry wing loading would also be less than for the VTHL. The HTHL SSTO launch mode (sled assist, in-flight propellant transfer or rolling takeoff

gear) also reduces the T/W requirement and vehicle mass, but VTHL nevertheless appears to be most attractive as long as limitation to 1-2 launch sites is not detrimental.

            

The gross liftoff mass of this sled-launched 66-meter long vehicle would have been 1180t and the dry mass 117t. The structure consists of a relatively advanced brazed honeycomb, internally braced hot structure which serves the multipurpose role of tankage, load-carrying structure and thermal protection system. The metallic TPS is a relatively poor insulator which nonetheless appears feasible for a HTHL SSTO. An advanced technology sled-launched all-rocket HTHL SSTO would cost $5B and $1.6M/flight and have a mass of (99t/1140t) according to Robert Salkeld. The propellant costs for the advanced HTHL SSTO would still be higher ($0.3 million vs. $0.140M for the VTHL) since it uses all hydrogen fuel. VHTL SSTOs, on the other hand, would clearly benefit from tripropellant propulsion.

  

A larger 3438-tonne version was proposed for heavy-lift missions; it could have carried a payload of 113.4t. The total length was

102m, the wingspan was 70m and the vehicle weighed 376.4t empty. Boeing claimed HTHL SSTO would be practical e.g. if tripropellant (LH2,LOX, hydrocarbon) engines were used)

"Looking Beyond the Space Shuttle" -- Dooling, SPACEFLIGHT 1976/p.68 & p.367 "Advanced Launch Vehicle Systems and Technology" -- Bell, SPACEFLIGHT 1978/p.135

"Advanced Technology and Future Earth-Orbit Transportation Systems" -- Henry & Eldred, Space Manufacturing Facilities II (Proceedings of the Third Princeton/AIAA Conference, May 9-12 1977) p.43

"Space Transportation Systems 1980-2000" -- Salkeld,Patterson & Grey, AIAA Aerospace Assessment 1978/Vol.1