Re: Flyback boosters

On Aug 25, 11:42 am, Monte Davis <monte.da...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aaron Lawrence <aaronlNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suppose it would be like developing a second vehicle
to boost the shuttle... almost double the effort...

Think "a lot more than double."

See Geoff Little's (quite good) "Mach 20 or Bust" in the new Air &
Space for a realistic look at what we don't know about aerodynamics of
*any* kind beyond Mach 7 or so. What we know about sustained,
airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's
rocket-driven "going up, seeya later when I'm a glider") is even less.
It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money
aimed at some sort of hyper-cruise missile, long before anything big,
reusable or manned -- to fill in the gaps

Decades of STS second-guessing and handwaving hindsight
notwithstanding, the people who looked at a wide variety of more or
less winged hypersonic first stages in 1969-1971 -- and settled for
the clunky, partly-reusable, kinda-stage-and-a-half solution we got --
were neither stupid nor unimaginative nor timid.

They were, however, budget limited. There were continous cuts in STS
R&D funding that forced the configuration to what it is now. I agree
with you, no one designing or building and ultimately flying this
thing was lacking for intelligence, imagination, or courage.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Flyback boosters
    ... Space for a realistic look at what we don't know about aerodynamics of ... airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's ... It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money ... "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches" ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Flyback boosters
    ... to boost the shuttle... ... airbreathing flight beyond Mach 3+ (as distinct from the X-15's ... It's going to take a long time and a lot of money -- military money ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)