Military Review

Project Rascal - air launch commissioned by US Air Force

41
Project Rascal - air launch commissioned by US Air Force



In an article from 04.02.2017 Multimode hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle "Hammer"
there was a link to the Rascal project:

Since the topic seems to be interested readers, I propose to consider this project in a separate article.

The US Air Force issued an MNS application * in 2001 (hereafter the terms and abbreviations are marked with an asterisk, which are explained at the end of the article) outlining the requirements for an “Operationally Adaptive Space Launch System” (ORS *).


The MNS requirements included the following basic tasks:
- fast response time of the mission (launch);
- the possibility of launching (launch of spacecraft *) from any latitude of the territory of the United States and its allies;
- accessibility (cost of output of 1 kg MO * per LEO *) both on the basis of each mission and the overall low cost of the program (R & D).



/ forecast of the needs of the launch market /


In response to the MNS, as well as taking into account the anticipated commercial needs of the space launch market, several concepts were proposed that meet these requirements.


The most realistic was the project based on the principle of "air" start.

Rascal-Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch, which was supported by the financing of DARPA.




Air launch (BC) - a method of launching rockets or airplanes from a height of several kilometers, to which the launch vehicle is delivered. The delivery vehicle most often serves as another aircraft, but a balloon or airship can also be used.

The main advantages of the aircraft:
- As a rule, this system (or its part) is reusable, with a fairly low cost of withdrawal of PN * to the LEO. This is due to the fact that the most technically complex first stage is the most expensive;
- It uses the fact that the "freebie" is given to us by the universe, and specifically the atmosphere. Rather, the properties of the atmosphere when physical bodies move or are in it: lift force and / or Archimedean force, i.e. those factors that for conventional vertical launch launch vehicles are a nuisance;
The aircraft system is not tied to the launch complex (SC) or the launch position (SP), roughly speaking, to the expensive cosmodrome with all the infrastructure. And accordingly, there is no reference to the launching latitude (headache of the USSR and now Russia).


The fact is that there is such an unpleasant physical law:

The initial inclination of the orbit cannot be less than the width of the cosmodrome.

It is costly and sometimes impossible to build a SC (SP, cosmodrome) everywhere. On the other hand, airfields (WFP) cover almost the entire globe.


Theoretically, you can use and aircraft carrier. Some kind of combination of "Sea Launch" and the sun (air-launched spacelift).

In the Armed Forces system, in fact, any runways, both military and civilian, of the necessary category can be used:


Example:
The total take-off weight of the VKS system is not more than 60 tons. The Boeing 737-800 has a total take-off weight of 79 tons. WFPs capable of accepting Boeing 737-800, only civilians in the US for 13000 (we have around 300), and with military runways, more 15 000 airports.

- The airborne space launch system is several times less critical to weather conditions than the vertical launch PH (cannot maneuver in range, sensitive to wind, speed 500 t. Vertical engines from 0 km / s reaches 5 km / s at altitudes in 120 km, pressure atmosphere (nozzle cut) affects the thrust / UI, etc.);
-Logistics (all elements, including aircraft and carrier-air transport), the fuel components - the usual fuel components for aircraft of our time;

Even more than that: the aircraft (carrier) itself can arrive at the factory, there it is PROFESSIONALLY and in greenhouse conditions that the product is installed, tested, checked, the aircraft returns to the starting point (WFP) and there, having reached the height, at the level 12-15 performs refueling, then acceleration, the "slide" maneuver and the launch of the orbital stage.

The VKS system, in fact, does not need to “bring” a rocket, do the PI / TEAS, and the MIC itself, in fact, is not needed:


- Start up speed;
- The cheapness of the system components and the well-established commercial production of them;
-Ecological aspect (exclusion zones under falling steps of the PH);
- There is a category of satellites that cannot leave the territory of the country of origin of the satellites, or the customer (even if a certain launch latitude is required);
-Miniaturization of satellites (less and less in size and mass).


Cube-Sat platform as an example.


-Any university (or individual) can afford to run here and now, when he needs, and not then "when we collect enough payload";
etc.


There are disadvantages:
- The small mass of the displayed MON and the limitations on the size of the spacecraft;
- Practically (due to the mass and size limitations of the carrier) only HOO or higher orbits are achievable, with a significant decrease in the mass of the PN;
- Difficulties of both calculations and the performance of a carrier capable of withstanding near - and hypersonic speeds (heating, thermal protection, aerodynamics, etc.);
- Constantly transportable ballast (fuel stock for returning and landing the first stage);
-Other;


Launched in March of 2002, the RASCAL project is an attempt, with the support and under the auspices of TTO * DARPA, of developing a partially reusable air-launched space launch system that can quickly and regularly deliver payloads to NOU at a very economical price.

Phase II (18-month program development phase) was launched in March 2003, with the choice of the space rocket corporation SLC (Irwin, California), as the general contractor and system integrator.



The RASCAL concept is based on the air-based Spacelift architecture, consisting of a reusable aircraft:


and a single-use rocket (upper stage) (ELV *), which in this case is called ERV *:


In a complex form at that time it was represented as follows:




Turbojet engines of a reusable vehicle are made in a forced version, known from 50-ies as MIPCC *.

MIPCC technology is perfect for achieving high Mach numbers when flying in the atmosphere.







After reaching about hypersonic velocities in horizontal flight aerodynamic carrier makes maneuver type "dynamic slide» (Zoom Maneuver) and produces the exo-atmospheric (more with heights 50 km) disposable launch vehicle (the booster).





The high power available from MIPCC turbofan technology not only allows for a simplified two-tier structure ERV, but also significantly reduces the structural requirements for the ERV, which in this profile, the withdrawal does not experience any significant aerodynamic loads.

The subsequent cost start-up is projected to be below $ 750 000 for delivering an 75 kg payload to an NOU.





Due to its flexibility, simplicity and low cost RASCAL architecture can support ring runs between missions duration less than 24 hours.

In the future, it is intended to use the variant with a reusable second stage system.



Interesting fact: in 2002, the president of Destiny Aerospace, Mr. Tony Materna, inspired by the money and prospects of DARPA, set on fire to use the existing and retired American single-seater, single-engine, delta-wing Convair F-106 Delta Dart fighter .



Tony Matern based on the Davis Monthan AFB AZ when inspecting the "applicants".


The idea was quite robust and easily implemented.


In fact, the modification of Convair F-106B in 60-s has already been tested with the MIPCC technology. If I am not mistaken, it was developed and tested on it.


It is a pity (from an engineering point of view), that cheap and rapidly implemented RASCAL project based on the F-106 never got off the ground after almost two years of research.
Read the Final Draft of that proposal

A small fleet of seven remaining flyable F-106, available on the basis of Davis Monthan AFB AZ, was first reduced to 4-x units (three F-106 were transferred to the museum exhibitions in the Castle CA, Hill AFB, UT & Edwards AFB, CA) and Tony Matern did not wait for interest and investment.

Read more about the F-106 here:
Fighter-interceptor F-106 and Su-15 "Keepers of the sky"

It reminds me of our two MIG-XNUMHD, which "got" to Kazakhstan and just finished their life cycle.


Ishim was based on Kontakte, which was practically embodied in hardware:


The first successful test of a domestic carrier aircraft: an experienced ed "07-2" suspension "79M6" standard missiles with ranges over the group aer.Saryshagan Beth-Pak Dala.. 26 July 1991.


And the discs, without putting the rocket on the intercept trajectory, were shot around 20 units.

Note: Tomi Matern's idea is not "sunk into oblivion." StarLab CubeCab company and plan to establish the delivery of small satellites into low Earth orbit by 3D-printing technique air missiles and launch. The main task of CubeCab will be to increase the speed of launching miniature spacecraft through the use of old F-104 Starfighter interceptor fighters and low-cost 3D launch vehicle.

Although the F-104 first flew back in 1954 year career that deserved the aircraft can be extended, and not for the first time. Due to the high accident rate, the aircraft began to be massively removed from service in the 70's, but the high flight characteristics allowed the car to hold out as a test platform and NASA flight simulator until the middle of the 90's.

Several F-104s are currently operated by Starfighters Inc. private operator.


Excellent rate of climb and high ceiling make the F-104 a suitable platform for launching sounding rockets.


The estimated cost per run is $ 250 000. This is far from cheap, but much more profitable than the use of large launch vehicles with incomplete payloads.

RASCAL DARPA project was canceled in favor of ALASA project, which was also closed in favor of the project 2015 XS-1.
DARPA release- November 2015

Terms and abbreviations marked with "*":
MNS - Mission Need Statement= Official requirement (application)

ORS - Operationally Responsive Spacelift = spacecraft launch system with quick response

Sun - air launch, VKS (air-space spacelift) = aerospace launch.
Rascal - Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch = An affordable air-based spacecraft launch system with fast response times.

KA - spacecraft
LEO (NOE)
to click LEO (NOE) - low earth orbit (Low Earth orbit)

Mon - payload
Runway - runway
ELV - expendable launch vehicle = one-time launch system

expendable launch vehicle (ELV)
ERV - Expendable Rocket Vehicle
ELR — Expendable Rocket Vehicle = one-time launch vehicle (low launch mass- small LV

Mipcc - Mass Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling
The technology consists of spraying water only at the front of the J-75 engine compressor blades as soon as the aircraft approaches Mach 3. This leads to a cooling of superheated air in the engine inlet as to deceive the engine by simulating its performance at a lower Mach number.

Water injection also increases the density of the flow through the engine, as well as its volume (second consumption). Result-TRD gives the more traction, the faster the aircraft moves.
Increased thrust is theoretically possible to 100%, 200% and 300%, depending on the amount of injected water. This method also allows the J-75 TRD to operate at much higher altitudes than its design estimates.

TTO - Tactical Technology Office (DARPA)

Used documents, photos and videos:
www.nasa.gov
www.yumpu.com
en.wikipedia.org
www.faa.gov
www.space.com
www.darpa.mil
robotpig.net
www.456fis.org
www.f-106deltadart.com
www.aerosem.caltech.edu
www.universetoday.com
www.spacenewsmag.com
www.geektimes.ru (my page is Anton @AntoBro)
Author:
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 11 February 2017 06: 54 New
    +5
    Anton! It’s a pleasure to read your articles! (A small amendment, I gave a link to our website to one specialist in aviation materials, people do not agree with some nuances, but he also rated your articles very highly (! Thank you! hi
    1. opus
      11 February 2017 12: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: Expelling Liberoids
      (A small correction, I gave a link to our website to one specialist in aviation materials, people disagree with some nuances, but he also rated your articles very highly

      danke schön /
      I hope you are no longer offended by me for "persecution of liberoids" drinks
      -aviamaterials, then I didn’t have such a special guard, more and more ablative, but single crystals for TNA blades

      Quote: Expelling Liberoids
      I gave one specialist in aviation materials

      Hope this is not gridasov?

      what
      -A seriously, please ask him to "disagree" to unsubscribe, well, or an article with criticism.
      It would be great.
      And then we already discussed with Falcon5555:
      -the weather
      -Federal Law "On Personal Data" from 27.07.2006 N 152-FZ (latest revision)
      - "left roads"
      - now we are actively discussing mushrooms (No, not what you thought, we are not discussing psilocybin mushrooms, but all sorts of boletus, white)
  2. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 11 February 2017 07: 47 New
    +2
    Thank you for another interesting article, I really hope that this is not the last of the cycle, because the topic is really interesting and there is something to write about. Crossing two 747s to create the largest aircraft for an “air launch,” Virgin Galactic is testing the third suborbital aircraft.
    I think it is obvious to everyone that in the pursuit of efficiency, humanity will not linger for a long time on one-time launch vehicles.
  3. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 11 February 2017 08: 06 New
    +1
    The old MiG-25 would be a good fit due to its performance.
  4. fa2998
    fa2998 11 February 2017 08: 13 New
    +3
    An air start-up business is good and promising. A reusable LA (airplane) is used as the first stage. This allows you to somewhat relate the launch to the south (from the northern hemisphere), to win (due to the possibility of the LA) speed and height of the launch. The Americans launched their Pegasus from subsonic B-52, and if you adapt the Tu-160 to it.
    And this is already 2M, and the upgraded Tu-160 can climb up to 20 km. Yes, and its carrying capacity is large, you can suspend (a half-sunken in the fuselage) a normal rocket and PN.
    So it can be used when launching hypersonic rockets. The initial speed and altitude are already there. First put a ramjet engine and a hypersonic suborbital part on the rocket. Everything is real. hi
    RS-if not right-correct! I'm not an astronaut. yes
    1. opus
      11 February 2017 12: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: fa2998
      The Americans launched their Pegasus from the subsonic B-52, and if you adapt the Tu-160 to it.

      launch
      1.Tu-160 we have little left, but if we hadn’t cut it then .... VKS is not enough, motor resources are limited, remote control is not produced. Shoigu will not give good for this pampering.
      MIG-25, MIG-31 = the same story, we do not know how to store
      2: Launching from the internal compartments of a supersonic aircraft is many times more difficult than using a subsonic (B-52).
      We are still at the stage of numerical simulation.
      3. Most importantly, there are no orders for easy starts:
      -Cube Sat we lag behind and so far only in the bud
      - the satellite manufacturing industry is LAGING behind the needs of industry, science of the RF Ministry of Defense, and 3 of the latter organizations are limited in financing.
      “There” universities have already launched for 1000 satellites probably.
      And we have? "Lomonosov"?
      Real-time Satellites in Google Earth in 2008

      At a press conference held in London on 25 on June 2015 of the year, the British company OneWeb announced that it had concluded contracts for 60 rocket launches that would launch the spacecraft from space 648 small satellites, reports the BBC

      Quote: fa2998
      PC-if not right, correct!

      You are right.
      -Satellites nanothey are lowering, the number of customers is growing, the GEO orbit is full (Airbus satellites weighing no more than 150 kilograms each, for Internet communication, they will already be put into orbit about 1200 kilometers high, and not GEO, which is not typical - there is simply no place)
      - for air-launched spacelift systems the future for NOU


  5. srha
    srha 11 February 2017 09: 34 New
    +4
    Auto RU. Count in physical units — the moment and energy — the energy that a plane gives to a satellite during an air launch. If you get about 5% (depending on the orbit), then you correctly counted. The remaining 95% is given by a rocket. For doubters and those who do not want to calculate for themselves (and a school program is enough to estimate energy), I’ll inform you that the Americans threw monkeys into space back in 1946, on the captured Fau, to a height of 100 km, but these were not orbital flights - that the energy itself was not enough - enough to climb, but not to accelerate to 8 km / s. So, these 5% this very additional air stage itself eats. Therefore, an air launch is not economically viable and all attempts to fulfill it (there were dozens of them - all aerospace companies and countries, even Israel and Japan tried) at some stage (the better the calculators, the earlier this stage arrives) stop, remaining only for special goals where they don’t count money, or for disposing of decommissioned military missiles (well, there’s practically free carrier, and that was a little expensive).
    1. opus
      11 February 2017 13: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: srha
      Auto RU. Count in physical units — the moment and energy — the energy that a plane gives to a satellite during an air launch.

      To the participant. What "moment" do you mean?
      Moment of momentum;
      Moment of inertia;
      Moment of power;
      Magnetic moment.
      ?
      Or glue "Moment"?
      Quote: srha
      there is enough school curriculum to estimate energy) I’ll inform you

      - And where are the monkeys and the FAA? Tsiolkovsko and Meshchersky bring me?
      -Well, let's count. Rather, you will calculate, on the basis of "school calculations," that I will provide.
      Ku
      1.Take the Flying
      Pegasus (HD)
      Number of steps 3
      Length 16,9 m (Pegasus)
      17,6 M (Pegasus XL)
      Diameter 1,27 m
      Starting weight 18 500 kg (Pegasus)
      23 130 kg (Pegasus XL)
      Payload mass
      - on NOO 443 kg (1,18 × 2,13 m)
      + Lockheed L-1011 TriStar aerial platform
      Empty weight 101,867 kg
      Maximum take-off weight 195,000 kg
      Maximum speed 0,95 M
      Cruising Speed ​​0,9 M
      Maximum flight range 7,419 km
      Practical ceiling 10,670 m
      Engines (3x) Rolls-Royce RB211-22 (note here you will find fuel efficiency
      The primitive start sequence is as follows:

      it is readable, but speed is not indicated. But the basis can be taken.
      Reset to 900 km / h
      DOE 7,98 km / s
      Or rummage on the Internet
      2. What do we need to achieve
      Quote: srha
      time and energy - that energy
      ?
      H = 512 and V = 8 km / s for m = 443 kg, g = 9,82 m / s ^ 2 (forget about the change in time from height)
      Those.
      Ek = m * V ^ 2 / 2
      +
      Ep = m * g * H
      This is your "energy", of course it is "on the knee"
      4. Count for "Pegasus"
      5. Now it’s the same, but for PH verticals.
      Oops ... trouble there are no launch vehicles that can launch at NOU 400-500kg.
      There is Aldan launch vehicle (proct) for launching into space cargo weighing up to 100 kg.
      In France there was “Diamant” (80kg), SLV-3 (India) = 63 kg, Safir (Iranian) = 25-60kg. All DPRK I do not bring
      And?
      И
      Vega (Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata) from EEC. The LARES satellite weighing 400 kg per 1450 km with the inclination of the 71,5o orbit and the typical 1 500 - 2 000 kg per DOE
      You will find and recalculate the calorific value of fuels yourself.
      Note RDTT use HTPB (Akhtung-energy efficiency, MDI is 30% lower than RDTT
      ==================================
      What do we have?
      vertical: the most expensive and most difficult stage (however, like everything else), except for the launch vehicle "dragon" -BURNS
      from SVS-no, this is a banal serial aircraft, possibly withdrawn from service
      The turbofan engine does not carry an oxidizer on board, but uses atmospheric oxygen for free.
      The stoichiometric ratio of 16 (40): 1 = oxidizing agent: fuel
      about the efficiency of turbofan engines against rocket engines (solid propellant rocket engines) boom talk?

      Coordinates of Russian and largest foreign spaceports
      Cosmodrome min coordinates and orbit inclination check
      Baikonur (rent) 45 ° 57'58 "n. 63 ° 18'28" c. 49 ° - 99 °
      Clear 50 ° 48'00 "n. 59 ° 31'00" c. 51 ° - 99 °
      Kapustin Yar 48 ° 33'55 "n. 46 ° 17'42" c. 48 ° - 51 °
      Plesetsk 62 ° 57'36 "S. W. 40 ° 4Г00" c. d. 62 ° -83 °
      Free 51 ° 42 's. w. 128 ° 00 'c. 51 ° - 110 °
      Vandenburg (USA) 34 ° 43'47 "N W 120 ° 34'36" W d. 51 ° -145 °
      Tanegashima (Japan) 30 ° 23'58 "n. 130 ° 58'13" c. d. 29 ° -75 °
      Courou (France) 5 ° 9'54 "n. 52 ° 38'46" s. 5 ° - 100 °
      Cape Canaveral (USA) 28 ° 29'20 "S. W. 80 ° 34'40" W d. 28 ° -57 °
      Jiuquan (China) 40 ° 57'28 "n. 100 ° 17'30" c. d. 40 ° -56 °

      And that’s it. and runway (aerodromes)? wherever you spit, you get

      6. For SHS - the efficiency of the LV engine increases, since it is launched in a rarefied atmosphere; Achtung back pressure at the nozzle exit, the atmosphere no longer plays such a role (aerodynamics of the upper stage), there are no such vibrational and power loads, g actually already decreased
      You can chew for a long time, but it’s better to fix it here:

      I briefly described the remaining benefits in an article.
      ==========================================
      I look forward to your calculation of "moments and energy" at least on the basis of your school curriculum.

      And further :
      as a rule, now the conclusion is for military purposes (take NRO)
      NRO-55 Launch at 2015
      The 15 satellites in total will be deployed into a 1,000 x 1,200 km. (621 x 745) mile orbit, inclined 63.4 degrees to the equator.
      rest two NRO satellites weighed 4 tons
      From 15 little things 9 NRO and 4 NASA = Cube Sat (for 1 -4 kg)
      AeroCube-5C AeroCube-7 for tracking laser systems (communications and in general)
      SNaP-3 seems to be for communication in difficult places
      PropCube - removes pulses in the ionosphere
      Sinod-D development of SRI (infrared)
      etc.
      here is such a platform, and on it a bunch of all sorts of rubbish on 3-4 kg each

      Will we wait for Atlas-5 and Proton or?
      1. opus
        11 February 2017 13: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: opus
        The stoichiometric ratio of 16 (40): 1 = oxidizing agent: fuel
        about the efficiency of turbofan engines against rocket engines (solid propellant rocket engines) boom talk?

        Damn did not fit.
        isho.
        SHS (1 daypen) GETS Ep (height 10-20km) using speed (Ek) and "freebie": atmosphere, gravity, friction of the medium. All that for the vertical axis is a parasitic (negative) "moment (factor).
        talk about the angle of attack boom?
        And also, when you recalculate the calorific value of fuels into momentum / thrust (Ek and Ep), take the primitive for 2x cases: all the energy of the fuel and oxidizer ---> in Ek and Ep.
        This will not change anything for understanding.
        1. opus
          11 February 2017 13: 32 New
          +3
          Quote: opus
          .All that for the vertical vertical is-is a parasitic (negative) "moment (factor).

      2. srha
        srha 11 February 2017 15: 12 New
        +1
        Cunningly-cunningly - forward the question to the asker, such as count yourself. Counted. Even laid out somewhere. The question is clear to me. I just didn’t understand, well, did you bring the formulas and pictures with the covers of smart books, a bunch of clarifying data, but there is no calculation? Where are the numbers calculating the balance of necessary energy (more precisely, fuel) at the start, after practicing the air start, and at BUT? What is the problem? Or banter about glue the moment took all the forces?
        1. opus
          11 February 2017 16: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: srha
          Counted. Even laid out somewhere.

          So put it out.
          Quote: srha
          Cunningly cunning

          Not "cunningly" but laziness.
          It's like fighting windmills
          Quote: srha
          but no calculation?

          E sum = Ek = m * V ^ 2 / 2 + Ep = m * g * H.
          For the "school course" is enough.
          Well, here you are.

          Mixed fuels:
          The oxidizing agent is ammonium perchlorate according to OST in 6-02-62-86.
          Polydivinyl isoprene rubber with terminal epoxy groups according to TU 003326-86.
          Hardeners - polybutadiene rubber with terminal carboxyl groups according to TU 00393-99,
          aniline according to GOST 5819-78,
          para-aminobenzoic acid (p-ABA) according to TU 6-09-08-1871-86.
          Plasticizers - low molecular weight polydivinylisoprene rubber (PDI-0) according to GOST 8728-86,
          Tributyl phosphate (TBP) according to TU 2435-305-05763458-01,
          Di- (2-ethylhexyl) -sebacinate (DOS) according to TU 003215-88.
          The curing catalyst is zinc stearate according to TU 6-09-17-316-96.
          Metallic fuel - dispersed aluminum according to OST in 84-1841-80.
          Combustion modifier - OSF product according to OST 6-02-17-78.

          taking into account that UI of solid propellant solid rocket engine is 30% less, I can safely put the calorific value for solid rocket motor: 1540cal / kg

          1 J = 0.0002388458966275 kcal, 1 kcal = 4186.8 J
          Let us assume (for simplicity) that the whole heat of the comparison passes into Ek and Ep
          here is the scoreboard
          Cope further? Or?

          PLEASE NOTE:
          1. That SHS (the "first stage" of the launch vehicle is the heaviest and the most "energetic) - this will be about 70% of the energy (fuel) expenditures for the output
          2. Note the efficiency of the turbofan engine (approx. 55%) and the jet engine for mass ejection (30%) for the first stage

          3. Consider the stoichiometric ratio for air 16: 1 (20: 1)
          Those. The VKS DOES NOT NEED TO DRAW ONLINE THE OXIDIZER'S RESERVE (16 parts to one fuel supply).
          And?
          And conclude, calculations.
          Can I help you with anything else?


          Quote: srha
          calculating the balance of necessary energy

          Energy Balance - the first principle of good nutrition

          Quote: srha
          Or banter about glue the moment took all the forces?

          I do not complain about potency
          / PS I did the given tablets myself, and not
          Quote: srha
          smart book cover pictures
          = you can easily trust
          1. srha
            srha 12 February 2017 10: 42 New
            0
            Quote: opus
            Can I help you with anything else?
            Have you helped with something? So far, there are only a lot of letters from you, and often off topic, which is demagogic deviations, and I have not noticed the algorithm for estimating and "numbers" in terms of energy consumption ... And I will not give you the calculation - not my article.
            By the way, have you heard about the fact that the efficiency of the WFD decreases with increasing speed, is it to capture oxygen from the air (which also requires costs)? And about "WFD is significantly inferior to a rocket engine in specific gravity by weight" (VIKI)? Imagine, with such parameters how much harder and more indefinite ...
            1. opus
              12 February 2017 13: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: srha
              Have you helped with something? So far, there are only a lot of letters from you, and often off topic,

              specifically where?
              Quote: srha
              But I didn’t notice the algorithm for estimating and "digits" in terms of energy consumption ..

              I don’t understand what else is needed if the subject is not a victim of the USE?
              Esum = Ek + Ep
              Esum / Q = M fuel component.
              M fuel component = oxidizer + M combustible
              Oxidizer = x * M combustible
              E- energy (potential in the gravitational field, kinetic of velocity)
              Q - specific heat of combustion
              M-masses
              What is there to consider?
              Quote: srha
              And I won’t give you a calculation - not my article.

              well it is clear.

              is it kirbism or psakism (Russian troops in Ukraine, but I will not give facts, maybe they are in my office or are secret)
              Quote: srha
              By the way, have you heard about the fact that the efficiency of the WFD decreases with increasing speed, is it to capture oxygen from the air (which also requires costs)?

              what
              What type of WFD is it about?
              1.VPDR: the engine cannot work at zero and at low speed; for its operation requires the presence of oncoming air flow;
              the most promising supersonic ramjets work effectively only in narrow speed ranges (3-5М)
              2. The disadvantage of turbojet engines is low thrust at low speeds, relative to the rocket engine and internal combustion engines.

              P = G (c - v), here P is the engine thrust, G is the air flow through the engine (kg / s), c is the velocity of the gas stream from the engine (m / s), v is the flight speed (m / s ) From this formula it is clearly seen that the greater the speed of the jet, the higher the thrust of the engine.

              η = 2 / (1 + с / v), here η is the flight efficiency. You can compare these two formulas, and then an interesting fact is visible. The higher the exit speed of the gas-air jet from the engine (s), the higher its thrust (P), but at the same time the lower the efficiency (η).

              a dual-circuit turbojet engine eases this task.
              and in order to solve the joint by speed, a combined power plant is used, see Hammer Project
              https://topwar.ru/108251-mnogorezhimnyy-giperzvuk
              ovoy-bespilotnyy-letatelnyy-apparat-molot.html
              or SR-71 SU


              Quote: srha
              is it to capture oxygen from the air (which also requires cost)?

              Who is it "captures" oxygen from the air?
              Psaki?
              Quote: srha
              And about "WFD is significantly inferior to a rocket engine in specific gravity by weight" (VIKI)?

              Compare UT WFD and UT RD is stupid
              U. t.jet engine - ratio draft to second mass air flow. For rocket engines, the thrust assigned to the second mass flow rate of the working fluidspecific impulse

              And in terms of the specific impulse, the taxiway is as far from the WFD as it is to some reason

              Quote: srha
              Can you imagine

              no.

              the thing is different.
              1. PRICE OF LAUNCHING RN WITH RD:
              LV Proton 60-90 million $
              PH Falcon = 65 million $
              LV Energia + ISS Buran = 220 mln rubles + 490 mln rubles (0,85 R rate for 1 $)
              Shuttle systems under 500mln $
              all outputting 20-24 t
              2.SU-35 price for 70mln $
              F-22 price under 240 million $
              The price of F-35 under 120 million $ let them have 40% of the price is avionics
              then
              IL-76MD-90A ”(the end of 2012 year contract for a solid party for the native Ministry of Defense) already pulled 139,42 billion rubles, which gives 3.57 billion rubles or 119 million $ apiece.
              Turbojet engine of roads, aircraft production is the same
              ------------------------------------------
              You are aware of your distorted logic by the brain about the "effectiveness" of RD ...
              if this were so, then Boeing, Airbus, Ily, etc. would move between continents on rocket engines, and not on turbofan engines
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 12 February 2017 21: 54 New
        0
        What are you talking about the largest air launch aircraft being created in the USA - silent in the article
        1. opus
          12 February 2017 22: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          What are you talking about the largest air launch aircraft being created in the USA -

          Vadim, I wrote about RASCAL (in relation to the "Hammer").
          you won’t fit everything.
          I’m better (hopefully soon) will write about our rather interesting and forgotten development.
    2. Operator
      Operator 11 February 2017 13: 13 New
      +1
      To reach a low reference orbit around the Earth, located at an altitude of 200 km, it is necessary to expend energy equivalent to the acceleration of the payload to 10 km / s in a gravitational field. The MiG-31-based air launch system accelerates a launch vehicle to 1 km / s, which is 10% of the required, not five.

      The problem of air launch is another - its efficiency can be clearly increased by accelerating the launch vehicle above 1 km / s, however, starting from the speed of 1,5 km / s, it is required to use (instead of the exhausted turbojet engines and supersonic ramjet with a subsonic combustion chamber) hypersonic ramjet with a supersonic camera combustion. This engine has so far turned out to be too tough for NASA and DARPA, and for Roskosmos with NPO Molniya.

      In addition, almost all of the designed and developed projects of air-launched systems with ramjet ramps suffer from technocretinism - for some reason, heavy turbojet engines, rather than light rocket ones installed on the domestic X-22 / X-32.

      After using the optimal propulsion system, it will be possible to obtain a relatively cheap carrier rocket that accelerates a single-stage launch vehicle to a speed of 3 km / h (30% of effective speed) at an altitude of 100 km (50% of orbit).
      1. srha
        srha 11 February 2017 14: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Operator
        up to 10 km / s in a gravitational field. The air launch system based on the MiG-31 accelerates the launch vehicle to 1 km / s, which is 10% of the required, not five.
        Hmm. If the speed is about 10 to 1, then really 10% of the speed. But I wrote about energy, and there is a quadratic dependence - look, the author of the post above even brought the formula. And then, I wrote about.
        1. Falcon5555
          Falcon5555 11 February 2017 16: 44 New
          +2
          For quadratic will be more than 20%? Or am I missing something? Reluctance to delve into the details of your discussion. But in general it is necessary to apply the Tsiolkovsky formula. Something I did not notice above. According to it, the initial mass of the characteristic velocity grows exponentially for a single-stage rocket. Harder for multi-stage. In principle, it is clear that purely for energy, the benefits of an air launch are small.
          1. opus
            11 February 2017 17: 26 New
            +2
            Quote: Falcon5555
            But in general it is necessary to apply the Tsiolkovsky formula.


            Quote: Opus
            - And where are the monkeys and the FAA? Tsiolkovsky and Meshchersky should I bring?

            The point is not in the formula and steps.
            E satellite = Ek + Ep
            Equate it to the calorific value (For simplicity, we assume that all the calorific value goes to E).
            Specific heat of course.
            we get kilograms of fuel components, they will be needed to get E (orbit)
            Oops.
            At VKS (SVS - air-launched spacelift) the first, most voracious and costly stage works for:
            1. Oxygen from the air, which DO NOT be dragged on board.
            This is an objective reality given to us in sensation. Note: stech.coe. 16 (or 20): 1 = 16 * Oxidizing agent: 1 * Fuel
            2. The linear speed that the spacecraft needs to gain relative to the Earth (8 km / s)
            SHS spends energy not only to overcome resistance (like a vertical), but also to climb (Ep).
            The vertical has air parasite, the SHS has a useful helper.
            Well, and so on.
            Everything. Srha bit map.
            Well, if only
            Quote: srha
            Counted. Even laid out somewhere. The question is clear to me.

            will not find and the calculation will not repeat.
            1. Falcon5555
              Falcon5555 11 February 2017 17: 46 New
              +2
              we get kilograms of fuel components, they will be needed to get E (orbit)

              Something is not right. The energy of combustion will be spent, in fact, not on the acceleration of a rocket, but on the acceleration of the working fluid, i.e., exhaust gases. Then it is necessary to equate the momentum of the working fluid, i.e., gases, and the increase in momentum of the rocket with the remainder of the fuel. From where and find an increase in its speed.
              1. opus
                11 February 2017 19: 29 New
                +2
                Quote: Falcon5555
                Something is not right. Combustion energy will be consumed

                Yes, we spit on it. For simplicity, on the knee
                Quote: srha
                (and for cursing energy, a school program is enough) I’ll inform you

                And there and there momentum (mass ejection), well, multiply this by the efficiency

                and more ...

                I give such a primitive to evaluate "in principle".
                On account of this, E = Ek + Ep, for a body with mass m, velocity in orbit V, at height H, with g = equal, no objections?
                Now, theoretically, imagine that all the energy received during combustion fuel components (oxidizer + fuel) will turn into impels
                And that's all.
                Does SHS have an oxidizer on board? Due to what does the SHS gain height H (with a thrust-weight ratio less than 1, much less)?
                Well hotts you dig then


                All the same, reduce everything to energy.
                Or glue "Moment" good
                Srha never answered me what moment he had in mind.
                Maybe Angular Momentum (Orbital Moment) ...
                Trouble. Current is for vigorous physics.
                Or the moment of momentum of the body?
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 12 February 2017 22: 12 New
                  0
                  Here's the problem - how much fuel do I need to bring a single-stage spaceship weighing 1700 tons to a height of 200 kilometers, if we take into the design all the best ramjets and rocket engines.
                  1. opus
                    12 February 2017 22: 40 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    Here's the problem - how much fuel do I need to bring a single-stage spaceship weighing 1700 tons to a height of 200 kilometers

                    Orbital speed?
                    1.Sum = use formula
                    So substitute in the formula, break down into steps (where the turbofan engine, ramjet and separately the rocket engine), tons KSU.
                    2. Warmth of combustion (in atmospheric air and with an oxidizing agent for LRE)
                    3.GET KILLS
                    4. Consider efficiency (flight
                    This will be on the knee "" without taking into account friction losses.
        2. Operator
          Operator 11 February 2017 23: 21 New
          0
          srha

          The output of the payload on the NOO using SHS depends on many factors - the number of steps, the time each step was in the Earth's gravitational field, the economy of the carrier aircraft due to the refusal to store oxidizer reserves on board, the aerodynamic quality of the carrier aircraft, the height of the rocket compartment - carrier, etc.

          Therefore, to assess the effectiveness of this type of start, as a first approximation, it is advisable to take into account the contribution of each stage, expressed in increase in speed. A specific calculation is performed by an iterative method.

          At the moment, a specific calculation of the SHS is impossible due to the lack of a real hypersonic ramjet, without it the SHS economically loses to a multi-stage launch vehicle.
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 11 February 2017 16: 18 New
        0
        3 km / s ...
        Rocket? Then atmospheric oxygen will not be used, and it is necessary to carry an oxidizing agent. A dubious idea.
        1. Operator
          Operator 11 February 2017 22: 58 New
          0
          The rocket engine should accelerate the carrier aircraft to approximately 1 km / s, then the hypersonic ramjet will start working, after typing 3 km / s, the launch vehicle will be separated, which will accelerate with the help of its rocket engine to the first space speed and bring the payload to the LEO.
        2. jonhr
          jonhr 12 February 2017 10: 50 New
          0
          the engine of the first stage will return to the ground. Americans for this and began this venture with the return of the first stage. in my opinion it is more promising than carrying an airplane on an engine. or vice versa. it's too confusing for us ordinary people laughing
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 12 February 2017 22: 19 New
        0
        In the UK, a combined scramjet plus LRE is made for Skylon.
        1. Operator
          Operator 12 February 2017 22: 28 New
          0
          The British pulled ahead, though so far at the R&D stage.

          They really have an innovative engine, not only dual-mode (rocket / jet), but also when operating in the direct-flow propulsion mode, a kind of “boost” is carried out in the engine due to cooling of the incoming air with liquid hydrogen.

          Against the background of the British, NASA and the Lightning NGO, decades depicting dances with tambourines - archaic combined propulsion systems, are in a deep ass.
          1. opus
            12 February 2017 22: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            The British really pulled ahead, though so far at the R&D stage.

            There are even calculations stalled

            Quote: Operator
            They have a truly innovative engine.

            "vague doubts torment me"
            Quote: Operator
            Against the backdrop of the British, NASA and the NGO Lightning, for decades depicting dances with tambourines - archaic combined propulsion systems,

            What about “Lightning”, what about Rascal-chip: using existing technologies and existing aircraft and remote control.
            Not any "soap bubbles" and start-ups
            1. Operator
              Operator 12 February 2017 22: 56 New
              0
              I just appreciated the beauty of the engineering solution of the British engine, no more.

              I myself support the idea of ​​a single-stage launch vehicle with an encapsulated rocket engine returning to Earth (for output of nanosatellites to the NOU, of course).
              1. opus
                13 February 2017 02: 27 New
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                I myself support the idea of ​​a single-stage launch vehicle with an encapsulated rocket engine returning to Earth.

                unreal.
                - The fittings will not withstand the gap of the pyro-bolts (the landing connector of the remote control "holds" the double weight of the entire system + vibration)
                -combustion chamber and nozzle, work, like all bodies of revolution tokostenny only in the selective direction.
                when landing, I probably remember it will be damaged
                1. Operator
                  Operator 13 February 2017 12: 01 New
                  0
                  The system for separating the fuel tank and the rocket engine can be based not on pyro-bolts, but on micro-solid propellant rocket engines, pneumatics, or bleeding of boost gas through the nozzles of the fuel tank.

                  I specifically made a reservation - "encapsulated rocket engine", i.e. retracted into the descent capsule such as the descent module of the Soyuz spacecraft with ablation coating and a parachute system. The capsule can also be used to place the payload before it is brought to the DOE.
  6. demiurg
    demiurg 11 February 2017 12: 25 New
    +1
    Thank:))
    Visually, interestingly, informatively. What should be all the articles.
  7. Old26
    Old26 11 February 2017 14: 40 New
    +3
    Anton, Thanks for the second article! As always at the highest level, intelligibly and clearly. The main thing is that there is no time to track everything, so I think many people "parasitize" on your knowledge, including myself.

    Quote: opus
    3. Most importantly, there are no orders for easy starts:
    -Cube Sat we lag behind and so far only in the bud

    Right now, many have come to their senses and started feverishly developing carriers for micro- and nanosatellites. By 2020 EMNIP, the possible market size will be about 500. Now our development of Aldan, Taimyr, Adler missiles in various versions may be in demand.
    1. opus
      11 February 2017 16: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      so I think many "parasitize" on your knowledge, including myself.

      Hello my friend.
      Come on "parasitize." I'm "almost a pensioner"
      + father of <del> four </del> two children (I remember the children)

      And my name is not Louis, though not Lenaeus.
      Therefore, I "help you" wink

      Quote: Old26
      Now our development of missiles such as Aldan, Taimyr, Adler in various versions may be in demand

      Have you missed so much time, but money, and the resources available?
      I squeezed an evil libel

      I don’t know whether they will print it.
      You can sharpen the "lyasy", in any case: not on the "TopVar" interest is good
  8. Old26
    Old26 11 February 2017 19: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: opus
    Quote: Old26
    Now our development of missiles such as Aldan, Taimyr, Adler in various versions may be in demand

    Have you missed so much time, but money, and the resources available?

    Many Both time and resources. If my sclerosis does not fail me, then they received a patent for the engine in 2006, and they tested it only in 2016. Some people threw them, some put them at a price that made it easier to make your fire stand. God grant that everything went well with them. The range of carriers is quite wide, especially Taimyr
  9. jonhr
    jonhr 12 February 2017 10: 47 New
    0
    the only way to reduce the cost of spacecraft launches into space is to build an electromagnetic catapult. in my opinion even Tsiolkovsky dreamed about it.
  10. CT-55_11-9009
    CT-55_11-9009 28 February 2017 16: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: opus
    1. Oxygen from the air, which DO NOT be dragged on board.
    This is an objective reality given to us in sensation. Note: stech.coe. 16 (or 20): 1 = 16 * Oxidizing agent: 1 * Fuel

    In turbojet engines it’s not strong, but they drove us along the taxiway, and not weak. So, AIR as an oxidizing agent in rocketry is NOT USED NEVER! Liquefied oxygen is used, and when used with kerosene, the stoichiometric ratio is not 16: 1, but 3: 1. The difference is weighty. It is much more efficient to use a hydrogen-oxygen pair, and it has a 6: 1 ratio. But not 16: 1! Do not distort the facts, please.
  11. CT-55_11-9009
    CT-55_11-9009 28 February 2017 16: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: opus
    1. Oxygen from the air, which DO NOT be dragged on board.
    This is an objective reality given to us in sensation. Note: stech.coe. 16 (or 20): 1 = 16 * Oxidizing agent: 1 * Fuel

    In turbojet engines it’s not strong, but they drove us along the taxiway, and not weak. So, AIR as an oxidizing agent in rocketry is NOT USED NEVER! Liquefied oxygen is used, and when used with kerosene, the stoichiometric ratio is not 16: 1, but 3: 1. The difference is weighty. It is much more efficient to use a hydrogen-oxygen pair, and it has a 6: 1 ratio. But not 16: 1! Do not distort the facts, please.