From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #27 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 2 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 027 In this issue: SSTO See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 11:31:20 -0700 Subject: SSTO All you SSTO enthusiasts - check this out. >from: AEROSPACE DAILY, 9/28/1993 >NASA ADMINISTRATOR Daniel Goldin backs off on an aggressive timeline to >develop single-stage-to-orbit technology, saying his agency has gotten "too >far out in front" of the White House. >Goldin backs off on SSTO schedule, says NASA 'too far out in front' >NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin retreated yesterday from an >aggressive proposal to develop an experimental single-stage-to-orbit launch >vehicle by 1995, saying the Administration will determine the ultimate >timeline. > >"The White House is undergoing a study on national launch policy, >and one of the things I want to be sure everyone in the room understands is >the White House establishes policy and NASA executes it, and I think we >have ourselves a little too far out in front," Goldin said in response to a >question at an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics luncheon >at Ft. Myer, Va. > >Goldin had been pushing for release of a request for proposals for >an SSTO project by Oct. 1, hoping to award a contract within two months. He >wanted to fly an experimental vehicle by 1995 and an operational vehicle by >2000. But after Marshall Space Flight Center officials met with industry >Aug. 31 to discuss how to approach SSTO technology development, the White >House Office of Science and Technology Policy set up its own interagency >working group on space launch infrastructure and policy needs (DAILY, Sept. >13). The report is expected to be done by December, which would give >budgeteers enough time revise the FY '95 spending request to accommodate >OSTP's conclusions, a government source said. > >Top NASA and Defense Dept. officials have said the agencies are >trying to earmark money in their fiscal 1995 budgets for a joint SSTO >technology development program (DAILY, Sept. 21). > >Despite his efforts, Goldin said yesterday that it's essential for >potential civil, commercial and defense SSTO users to work within the >context of a national policy. > >"We're going to do this right," Goldin said. "We'll work with the >White House, the Defense Dept., the commercial community, and when there's >a national policy established we will get an RFP out lickety- split for the >appropriate form of capability." > >He added that's he's worried about where the support for the >capability will come from, but reassured the AIAA audience that NASA is >"very, very strong on its priorities...So I am cautiously optimistic that >after we go through this policy process with the White House, we will be >able to do the right thing." > Regarding rocket based SSTO: Why does the above worry me? Isn't it amazing that suddenly everybody has recognized that SSTO with a rocket might be possible! How many years, and how many words, did it take all the people who have investigated this, to get anybody interested in this? It's interesting that the group that finally ran with this ball has so many others now wanting to play in the same sandbox! Heck, SSTO hasn't demonstrated a SSTO vehicle yet! SSTO's have VERY critical weight management issues, and not until you actually build the real one are you going to know if it will really work! But is that a reason for not continuing to go down the SSTO path? Heck NO! Hey, there's risk! The risk limit should come from having a cheap research program. Be able to fund the next program that learns from the current program, if the current program doesn't pan out! And now that progress in SSTO is being made, why should the government (perhaps at the request of those who want a piece of the pie), which for economic reasons needs to keep as many engineering welfare programs active as possible (ie: space station), and which probably doesn't understand one bit about the TRUE nature of what Max Hunter was trying to do with SSX/SSTO, be allowed to step in and manage SSTO now and THREATEN its progress! Real innovation has always been made by a few guys out in a field somewhere (sometimes the field is actually a desert) not the ingrained SOP that has kept military airplanes flying slower than Mach 2.5, hypersonic airbreathing research mostly just a paper excersize for over 30 years, rocket research from progressing, and pleasure aircraft still using propellers. Maybe that's what NASA should do. Become a broker of government research money, and a consulting firm to small teams of engineers with fire in their minds and hearts, who want to get something new done, and who think they can do it, if only given a small subsidy. The subsidies can be small enough such that if it doesn't work, who cares! You've learned something and you can go on to the next program, if called for. Obviously you don't want to throw money away, but you don't want to be stifling as is done today. Those of us who have diddled with the rocket equation have always wondered about propellant fractions greater than .9 (assuming delta-V was adequate). When we saw/heard about the SSX concept, and then heard of SDIO-SSTO and were excited that someone was finally visiting that corner of the rocket equation, we were all amazed and disappointed that SSTO was going unnoticed! Well now I understand! We should have let it go unnoticed! Regarding airbreathing SSTO: Now, evidently, all we have to do for NASP, borrowing from the SSTO success, is to fund a small vertical takeoff/vertical landing ejector ramjet test vehicle (essentially a ducted rocket). For example, take one of Bill Escher's old vertical takeoff concepts from his Marquardt days. Jeez! an airbreathing DC-X!! That will turn em on! I think us airbreathing enthusiasts need to learn a lesson from the SAS guys! Let's get organized! Larry Smith ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #27 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).