Air launch to LEO works better if you take into account the
three top items in their order of importance:
(1) staging speed, (2) path angle
at staging, and (3) staging
altitude. These three items are not even
close to equal importance, speed is simply
everything (an unfortunate technological fact-of-life). You get do-able second stage mass ratios
starting about Mach 5 to 6, and
reasonable second-stage mass ratios at about Mach 10, for two-stage vehicles.
Speed at staging figures directly into the delta-vee
requirements associated with the rocket equation for the second stage. Path angle at staging gets you to a second
stage trajectory that needs no lift (and no drag-due-to-lift) for a simple
non-lifting ballistic trajectory to orbit.
Altitude at staging gets you some extra energy in the flight vehicle
energy-management equations, but is the
weakest of the three effects, by
far.
An all-rocket first stage airplane can do this job, but it is of enormous size, with some very serious structural issues
having to do with landing gear loads that start to resemble a water balloon
resting on nails. That’s a common sense
thing, as well as a structural design
thing. On the other hand, you can save weight by using airbreathing
propulsion to the greatest extent possible in that first stage. “Greatest extent” simply means the widest-possible
range of speeds. That’s just common
sense.
Scramjet is neither ready-for-prime-time technologically, nor a wide speed-range type of propulsion just
yet (X-51 flew in scramjet at Mach 5 +/- 0.1).
It takes over at about Mach 4 ,
minimum, so going for Mach 10
capability, you cover only a delta-Mach
of 6. If your scramjet system really only
gets you to Mach 7 or 8 as currently seems practical, well,
the delta-Mach drops to 3 or 4.
That’s a lot more likely outcome for the next few decades.
The fastest turbines that ever were (those powering the SR-71), were good only to about Mach 3.6-ish, which is woefully short of an adequate staging
speed. So such a first stage would
require rockets as well, and also some
protection for the engines against overheated inlet air, at speeds above Mach 3.6-ish, which the SR-71 never had. If the turbine-powered stage can take off on
only-turbine power, then the
airbreathing delta-Mach is about 3.6-ish at maximum, since turbine supplies static (Mach 0)
thrust.
Plain ramjet technology has been well-proven in flight for many
decades now, and can be arranged to work
from Mach 1.8-ish to Mach 6 quite easily.
That's a delta-Mach of 4.2-ish. That
figure is at least as good as the more realistic scramjet concepts, and better than any of the turbine
concepts. So, of the choices, it’s quite simply the best, especially when you look at technological
readiness-for-application. That’s just basic
common sense plus the facts of technological readiness.
If one were to do a combined rocket-ramjet propulsion
airplane for a first stage, we would take
off on rocket at Mach 0 and accelerate to about Mach 1.8, then transition to ramjet and climb-and-accelerate
to Mach 6 as high as is feasible, then
go back on rocket power, pull up sharply, and accelerate exoatmospheric to speeds that
would have been near Mach 10 in the air.
And, with ramjet, there’s less susceptibility to overheated
inlet air (no turbomachinery to damage).
That switching back and forth between rocket and ramjet
requires either combined-cycle or parallel-burn (with separate engines). Combined cycle is quite simply not technologically
ready for prime time, and has always very
seriously compromised the performance of both propulsion cycles, because of the incompatible engine geometries. So parallel-burn with separate engines really
is the way to go! Basic common
sense.
The hardest part of the design is packaging the rocket
engines somewhere in the airframe,
because the ramjet will essentially fill the fuselage (a hard technological
fact-of-life). But the rocket thrust
chambers are actually quite small, and will
fit inside the aft portions of the wing strakes or fillets. Plus, there
is now aerospike nozzle technology to eliminate drag-inducing huge engine bells. The next hardest part of the design will be
inlet and combustor heat protection-as-reusable devices, not one-shot ablatives as in missile
work.
This could have been done at least 2 decades ago. It was not.
GW
"ramjet will essentially fill the fuselage" Why? Cannot be outside? Like boosters or on pylons?
ReplyDeleteAt hypersonic speeds, there is unsurvivable shock-impingement heating in parallel-mounted nacelle configurations. A shape like the SR-71 will not survive at Mach 5 or 6. A shape like the X-15 will, as long as it stays very "clean". -- GW
DeleteUnderstood, thx
Delete