...
I know this may be a little late, but have you considered using a mass driver instead of a laser? It would seem that a railgun would fit in with your realistic setting (no FTL, etc) much better than a giant laser projector.
Just my $0.02
The Scharnhorst is constructed to be a flagship. Her mission profile is to fight other capital ships. In her role she acts as a heavy drone carrier (the primary weapons used in ship to ship combat) and uses her secondary armament to defend her fleet against enemy drone attacks and smaller enemy combatants e.g. frigates and corvettes. Her energy weapons are adapted for this role. They can change their firing mode from short high energy bursts (for smaller and more agile targets) to armor slicing and penetrating beams with a longer-lasting medium energy output (for armored and less agile targets). Mass driver or heavy railguns will be used on planetary assault vessels that will provide space marine troops with fire support during landing operations.
And BTW, the bridge and other interiors are planned for the Thetis first...
that shuttle is awesome, always loved your uber realistic approach to spaceships. When are we going to see an animation of the warships blowing each other up?
The mobil launching platforms are built to support bigger shuttles as well. The size of the actual (military) shuttle is limited by the volume of my spaceships' hangar bays and the opening width of the bay doors.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, makes the whole mobile launch pad a much more flexible system if it can accommodate a variety of craft. Cool looking model!
I know this may be a little late, but have you considered using a mass driver instead of a laser? It would seem that a railgun would fit in with your realistic setting (no FTL, etc) much better than a giant laser projector.
Eh, I don't know about that- we are about as close to weapon-ized directed energy weapons as we are to weapon-ized coil or rail guns.
Over the holidays I built a new VTOL-shuttle from scratch for the Thetis and my new battleship. During the work I had an idea for a cool scene on the surface of the Prussian's homeworld the ice moon Boreas. But for this future project of a launch site/ space port I need some additional models...
You did a much better job on that shape than I did.
I'm not sure the single engine is a safe design. Judging only by the look of the shuttle, it seems it's chemically fueled and chemical rockets are failure prone. That's why the real space shuttle has three main engines. One engine failing won't compromise a launch. At minimum I'd go with two main engines on your shuttle.
I'm not sure the single engine is a safe design. Judging only by the look of the shuttle, it seems it's chemically fueled and chemical rockets are failure prone. That's why the real space shuttle has three main engines. One engine failing won't compromise a launch. At minimum I'd go with two main engines on your shuttle.
You are right, that's a good point. But I'm not sure if a chemical rocket would have the required single stage to orbit capability. Currently I'm facing a bit of a dilemma. The shuttle has to be able to land on the inhabitable planets as well as on the rocky surfaces of the airless moons or asteroids. It has to be small enough to fit into the hangarbays - hence the folding wings - and it has to be powerfull enough to fulfill a mission profile that includes one safe landing on a 1 to 1.2 G world and a following lift-off (without refulling) to a low orbit for the rendezvouz with its mother ship.
I could alter the design to house two scramjets/scramrockets - the required space is there - and I have already an air intake for two ordinary jet engines, which I would abondon then. Further suggestions of the aviation pros are welcome!
I'm not sure the single engine is a safe design. Judging only by the look of the shuttle, it seems it's chemically fueled and chemical rockets are failure prone. That's why the real space shuttle has three main engines. One engine failing won't compromise a launch. At minimum I'd go with two main engines on your shuttle.
The flip side is that we have a very limited number of shuttles, and no real way to replace them- so maximum redundancy is the rule. For the civilization that built this shuttle, presumably they are cranking them out in somewhat larger numbers so one going down every so often isn't as big a deal. If you can make it to orbit on one engine then the second engine is just cutting into your useful payload. However, I am sure the pilots would appreciate a backup.
I'll poke around with numbers this week if someone else doesn't get to it first- I don't think the numbers are totally unreasonable, though some sort of scram-rocket would probably be a good idea....
inhabitable planets as well as on the rocky surfaces of the airless moons or asteroids
But if your shuttle lifts and lands vertically, are those wings really necessary?
In all the atmosphere-less situations, I'm quite sure they're not... and with the atmosphere, if you're flying around, how could you [safely] land?
But if your shuttle lifts and lands vertically, are those wings really necessary?
In all the atmosphere-less situations, I'm quite sure they're not... and with the atmosphere, if you're flying around, how could you [safely] land?
Good point. But that would be a matter of the avionic systems. The shuttle would have to slow down until there is no ascending force. With its tail down it would then hover with the engines' thrust. The landing maneuver would be similar to the landing maneuver of the Convair XFY-1 Pogo. Using an advanced flight control system landing on the tail after a horizontal flight phase should be possible.
I'm not totally convinced.. your shuttle is quite big and it has to bring the propellant to lift-off and reach the low orbit, that means that during the landing it would be heavy.. such a maneuver will request a lot of propellant...
How about a simpler land-&-lift rocket? The landing phase could be helped by some parachute and detachable little rockets. Then the exploration could be left to drones [like UAVs].
Alnair, what you are wrestling with here is the reason we don't have a true spaceplane today. It's that under current propulsion technology, it's frankly just not feasible. Personally, I don't think chemical propulsion will ever get us spaceplanes much more advanced than the shuttle. Suborbital joyrides like Rutan's insult to sexy aircraft is about all we can muster in a single stage to orbit, aerodynamically flown shuttle and the Spaceship 1 can't even make orbit and likely never will. Chemical rocket propulsion is more or less mature. The bottom line here, and this is my opinion only, is that until an alternate form of propulsion, i.e. fusion, anti-matter powered engines or in the case of long off super science such as anti-gravity, shuttle concepts like yours will be hard pressed to come to fruition without a booster and tank system such as we have on the STS. Sure, you could sacrifice payload for the sake of getting three or four people into orbit in a single stage shuttle, but if you can't take cargo why bother with anything reusable or has complicated aerodynamic systems such as flight control surfaces, airfoils and all the necessary supporting systems to get back down via winged flight when parachutes and braking rockets work just as well and are much more simple.
I wonder how large a balloon would have to be to take it to a high enough altitude to allow it to reignite the main thrusters and take it to a low orbit? Don't laugh, dirigibles have launched aircraft.
A sufficiently powered magnetic rail, like what's used on roller coasters and being developed for launching aircraft from a carrier, could be used to launch a vessel to altitude. However if you want something to land and take off from a world without such infrastructure, then you'll need to develop a different sort of vehicle.
At school, i bet every other spaceship called him Fatty ^^ But i like him anyway
Can't wait to see more of the Scharnhorst.
Also, considering the problem raised by I.g.(. about the way your shuttle lands, maybe designing something which can descend from orbit the same way Spaceship 1 and 2 does, a feathered reentry system, but located at the nose of the ship so that it reenters atmosphere tail and motor first, is the solution.
I can totally see this performing a vertical landing after entering atmosphere, waaaaay better than a pogo maneuver. You 'd need to retract it in some way before lift off. That wouldn't be very elegant and that would be quite complicated, but it would work. You can also consider discarding it after landing.
The single-motor design looks alright to me, see the Ariane 5 rocket, the idea behind the single motor first stage is to minimize the number of things which can go wrong, considering that it just need one motor out of many to break for a launch to fail. It didn't worked bad so far. It depends if the technology of your setting is advanced enough for a shuttle being able to perform a lift off with bad conditions or if it need everything to be perfectly alright. If not, then, no need for redudancy and multiple motors.
Upon further reflection, I think I agree with the concerns about weight and take-off ability. You might want to take a look at something like this for simple surface-to-orbit 'truck' instead: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
You all are right (from an engineers point of view ). I'm totally aware of the fact that this kind of shuttle is absolutely impractical with todays technology (maybe even with "conventional" future tech). The concept depends on the available engine systems. I think an advanced atomic rocket e.g. an atomic light bulb with heavy containment that limits radiation or radioactive waste or an electric arc jet that produces extremly hot high-energy plasma could be a possible (artistic) solution. I'm not constructing the next generation of realtech spacecrafts but a fictional puddle jumper for an even more fictional mother-ship. If one gets the impression that the shuttle could do its job (with the "scifi" idea in mind) it will be good enough for me.
I think an advanced atomic rocket e.g. an atomic light bulb with heavy containment that limits radiation or radioactive waste or an electric arc jet that produces extremly hot high-energy plasma could be a possible (artistic) solution.
Actually, thinking about this, if a lot of your work is on airless moons and such radiation isn't as big a concern (you are being bombarded with cosmic background radiation anyway) then a fairly simply nuclear thermal rocket could be a workable solution- high thrust, manageable weight, also serves as the power plant at the same time.
I'm not sure the single engine is a safe design. Judging only by the look of the shuttle, it seems it's chemically fueled and chemical rockets are failure prone. That's why the real space shuttle has three main engines. One engine failing won't compromise a launch. At minimum I'd go with two main engines on your shuttle.
For rockets, I believe fewer engines are safer than more engines, contrary to aircraft. The reasoning is that more engines mean more points of failure; with a rocket, if you don't have all your thrust then you won't make it to orbit. With an aircraft, redundant engines--at least two--are good because you can continue to fly on less than full power for long periods. NASA actually argued against a design alternative to the Ares on those grounds, it's also why the crew orbiter would have had only one engine. If it weren't safe, they would have given it at least two engines.
A sufficiently powered magnetic rail, like what's used on roller coasters and being developed for launching aircraft from a carrier, could be used to launch a vessel to altitude. However if you want something to land and take off from a world without such infrastructure, then you'll need to develop a different sort of vehicle.
I would think it possible to put the shuttle into a cradle, so you wouldn't need specially designed craft. Although, it's really only useful for given a kickstart to a ramjet.
I would like to see it with one or two all in one high bypass/ram/scram engines, and a chemical rocket. What about an aerospike instead of a bell? Here's a beautiful nozzle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndgvIbtZ5hU
Also, I like the original inlet, and Russian style infrared sensor. It makes me think it shouldn't have two guns, but instead lasers. Check the picture in the link.
The fighter has laser blister windows, two on the cheeks, one below the nose, and at least one tail blister. You could do a similar setup. It would keep it very aerodynamic, and the ship wouldn't have to dogfight to defend itself.
Maybe it could also have more cameras, like the F-35's Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. Instead of fixed cameras, you could do it with a bunch of Russian style balls.
These are great links! I for myself thought already about a toroidal aerospike engine for the shuttle. The tripple engines are artistically quite pleasing but I think a more futuristic look would be better. I will give it a try!
I found another option for the engines. I've been getting the name wrong, the round type is actually a toroidal aerospike, and the N1 rocket had a similar setup.
To achieve the required amount of thrust, it was proposed that a large number of NK-15s would be used in a clustered configuration around the outer rim of the lower-stage booster. The "inside" of the ring of engines would be open, with air piped into the hole via inlets near the top of the booster stage. The air would be mixed with the exhaust in order to provide thrust augmentation, as well as additional combustion with the deliberately fuel-rich exhaust. The ring-like arrangement of so many rocket engine nozzles on the N1's first stage could have been an attempt at creating a crude version of a toroidal aerospike engine system; more conventional aerospike engines were also studied.
but if you can't take cargo why bother with anything reusable or has complicated aerodynamic systems such as flight control surfaces, airfoils and all the necessary supporting systems to get back down via winged flight when parachutes and braking rockets work just as well and are much more simple.
Why not use those airfoils to help get the craft up to orbital velocity? You only need rocketry for the final insertion, when you're travelling too fast and the atmosphere is too rarefied for any type of Jet. Why not a multimode power plant that can switch over from relatively efficient jet propulsion, to ScramJet and finally Rockets?
It'll take a lot less propellant to put a craft in orbit if it's already travelling at high mach and on the cusp of space when the rockets light up.
It'll take a lot less propellant to put a craft in orbit if it's already travelling at high mach and on the cusp of space when the rockets light up.
That was my idea when i designed the shuttle. As a military shuttle it must have the ability to work under different and extrem conditions. That includes even the possibility of a landing on the surface of one of the inhabitable planets. That reminds me on the fact that I have to put together a data sheet for the binary star system...
Posts
The Scharnhorst is constructed to be a flagship. Her mission profile is to fight other capital ships. In her role she acts as a heavy drone carrier (the primary weapons used in ship to ship combat) and uses her secondary armament to defend her fleet against enemy drone attacks and smaller enemy combatants e.g. frigates and corvettes. Her energy weapons are adapted for this role. They can change their firing mode from short high energy bursts (for smaller and more agile targets) to armor slicing and penetrating beams with a longer-lasting medium energy output (for armored and less agile targets). Mass driver or heavy railguns will be used on planetary assault vessels that will provide space marine troops with fire support during landing operations.
And BTW, the bridge and other interiors are planned for the Thetis first...
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, makes the whole mobile launch pad a much more flexible system if it can accommodate a variety of craft. Cool looking model!
Eh, I don't know about that- we are about as close to weapon-ized directed energy weapons as we are to weapon-ized coil or rail guns.
-Will
I think so.
I'll drink to that.
You are right, that's a good point. But I'm not sure if a chemical rocket would have the required single stage to orbit capability. Currently I'm facing a bit of a dilemma. The shuttle has to be able to land on the inhabitable planets as well as on the rocky surfaces of the airless moons or asteroids. It has to be small enough to fit into the hangarbays - hence the folding wings - and it has to be powerfull enough to fulfill a mission profile that includes one safe landing on a 1 to 1.2 G world and a following lift-off (without refulling) to a low orbit for the rendezvouz with its mother ship.
I could alter the design to house two scramjets/scramrockets - the required space is there - and I have already an air intake for two ordinary jet engines, which I would abondon then. Further suggestions of the aviation pros are welcome!
The flip side is that we have a very limited number of shuttles, and no real way to replace them- so maximum redundancy is the rule. For the civilization that built this shuttle, presumably they are cranking them out in somewhat larger numbers so one going down every so often isn't as big a deal. If you can make it to orbit on one engine then the second engine is just cutting into your useful payload. However, I am sure the pilots would appreciate a backup.
I'll poke around with numbers this week if someone else doesn't get to it first- I don't think the numbers are totally unreasonable, though some sort of scram-rocket would probably be a good idea....
-Will
But if your shuttle lifts and lands vertically, are those wings really necessary?
In all the atmosphere-less situations, I'm quite sure they're not... and with the atmosphere, if you're flying around, how could you [safely] land?
Good point. But that would be a matter of the avionic systems. The shuttle would have to slow down until there is no ascending force. With its tail down it would then hover with the engines' thrust. The landing maneuver would be similar to the landing maneuver of the Convair XFY-1 Pogo. Using an advanced flight control system landing on the tail after a horizontal flight phase should be possible.
How about a simpler land-&-lift rocket? The landing phase could be helped by some parachute and detachable little rockets. Then the exploration could be left to drones [like UAVs].
Can't wait to see more of the Scharnhorst.
Also, considering the problem raised by I.g.(. about the way your shuttle lands, maybe designing something which can descend from orbit the same way Spaceship 1 and 2 does, a feathered reentry system, but located at the nose of the ship so that it reenters atmosphere tail and motor first, is the solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
I can totally see this performing a vertical landing after entering atmosphere, waaaaay better than a pogo maneuver. You 'd need to retract it in some way before lift off. That wouldn't be very elegant and that would be quite complicated, but it would work. You can also consider discarding it after landing.
The single-motor design looks alright to me, see the Ariane 5 rocket, the idea behind the single motor first stage is to minimize the number of things which can go wrong, considering that it just need one motor out of many to break for a launch to fail. It didn't worked bad so far. It depends if the technology of your setting is advanced enough for a shuttle being able to perform a lift off with bad conditions or if it need everything to be perfectly alright. If not, then, no need for redudancy and multiple motors.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
-Will
Actually, thinking about this, if a lot of your work is on airless moons and such radiation isn't as big a concern (you are being bombarded with cosmic background radiation anyway) then a fairly simply nuclear thermal rocket could be a workable solution- high thrust, manageable weight, also serves as the power plant at the same time.
-Will
For rockets, I believe fewer engines are safer than more engines, contrary to aircraft. The reasoning is that more engines mean more points of failure; with a rocket, if you don't have all your thrust then you won't make it to orbit. With an aircraft, redundant engines--at least two--are good because you can continue to fly on less than full power for long periods. NASA actually argued against a design alternative to the Ares on those grounds, it's also why the crew orbiter would have had only one engine. If it weren't safe, they would have given it at least two engines.
I would think it possible to put the shuttle into a cradle, so you wouldn't need specially designed craft. Although, it's really only useful for given a kickstart to a ramjet.
I would like to see it with one or two all in one high bypass/ram/scram engines, and a chemical rocket. What about an aerospike instead of a bell? Here's a beautiful nozzle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndgvIbtZ5hU
This one has a great exhaust plume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRvYA2dTi7g&feature=related
Diagram.
http://davidszondy.com/future/space/aerospike.gif
Also, I like the original inlet, and Russian style infrared sensor. It makes me think it shouldn't have two guns, but instead lasers. Check the picture in the link.
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-05/attack-speed-light
The fighter has laser blister windows, two on the cheeks, one below the nose, and at least one tail blister. You could do a similar setup. It would keep it very aerodynamic, and the ship wouldn't have to dogfight to defend itself.
Maybe it could also have more cameras, like the F-35's Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. Instead of fixed cameras, you could do it with a bunch of Russian style balls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvnhFgzIKI&feature=player_embedded
Here's the helmet that goes with that sensor system.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg
I found another option for the engines. I've been getting the name wrong, the round type is actually a toroidal aerospike, and the N1 rocket had a similar setup.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Booster_N1_3.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
However, it's an extremely complex design.
It'll take a lot less propellant to put a craft in orbit if it's already travelling at high mach and on the cusp of space when the rockets light up.
That was my idea when i designed the shuttle. As a military shuttle it must have the ability to work under different and extrem conditions. That includes even the possibility of a landing on the surface of one of the inhabitable planets. That reminds me on the fact that I have to put together a data sheet for the binary star system...