"SERV-ing" up another concept... (Ok, I'll stop... maybe
)
A vehicle in the range I'm thinking about was the General Dynamic/Aerojet "Millennium Express" mentioned here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...d_landing_concept_technology_challenges.shtml
Which 'lost' out to the DC-X/Delta Clipper concept but was arguably the better, if a bit more speculative, design. Pretty much checks all the same boxes but I note it starts off with a 'modular' payload ability which the competing designs lacked. (They both had dedicated 'cargo bays') And it also uses the 'plug nozzle' to it's best advantage whereas DC was planned to enter 'nose first' with all the aerodynamic issues that entails. Would like to see more study on 'alternative' propellants, (for example methane) but given the time period (still at the peak of "hydrogen-uber-alles" after all) I can understand the lack. Funny enough it was in fact 'known' at the the time that the RL-10 (for example) could be run on methane but given how disparate and scattered the information was, (and lets face it the RL-10 was tested with such godawful stuff as FLOX!) it's also understandable that the 'common knowledge' was there were no engines available other than kerolox of hydrolox.
Still as noted it checks enough boxes for consideration, but SDIO and NASA, (reluctantly) choose different so what might make them change their minds?
Oh and on the general subject of SSTO's and "other" developers I ran across this little item:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(SSTO)
Anyone else familiar with it?
Randy
A vehicle in the range I'm thinking about was the General Dynamic/Aerojet "Millennium Express" mentioned here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...d_landing_concept_technology_challenges.shtml
Which 'lost' out to the DC-X/Delta Clipper concept but was arguably the better, if a bit more speculative, design. Pretty much checks all the same boxes but I note it starts off with a 'modular' payload ability which the competing designs lacked. (They both had dedicated 'cargo bays') And it also uses the 'plug nozzle' to it's best advantage whereas DC was planned to enter 'nose first' with all the aerodynamic issues that entails. Would like to see more study on 'alternative' propellants, (for example methane) but given the time period (still at the peak of "hydrogen-uber-alles" after all) I can understand the lack. Funny enough it was in fact 'known' at the the time that the RL-10 (for example) could be run on methane but given how disparate and scattered the information was, (and lets face it the RL-10 was tested with such godawful stuff as FLOX!) it's also understandable that the 'common knowledge' was there were no engines available other than kerolox of hydrolox.
Still as noted it checks enough boxes for consideration, but SDIO and NASA, (reluctantly) choose different so what might make them change their minds?
Oh and on the general subject of SSTO's and "other" developers I ran across this little item:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(SSTO)
Anyone else familiar with it?
Randy