Rand:
Ok, I’ll bite: what additional design and program risk?
Bill
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 18:08, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In other words, an insignificant advantage, not worth the design or
program risk.
On 2019-05-28 15:52, William Claybaugh wrote:
Henry:
A careful like-to-like analysis of the DC-Y and the WB001 SSTO designs
found a very slight (circa 1%) payload advantage for the wing body if
the wings were used to loft the trajectory to get out of the
atmosphere faster.
Bill
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 16:21, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019, Nels Anderson wrote:
... It seems perfectly reasonable that air breathers would havelower
gravity losses. What's not clear to me is that they 1) would be*much*
lower (in the context of a total delta-V budget of 9000+ m/s), and2)
would not eaten up by larger drag losses.
Note, there are actually two separate issues here: airbreathing
engines,
and wing lift. Winged rockets are a reasonable possibility, as
witness
Pegasus and various unflown designs like RASV (the Shuttle doesn't
count
because it made no attempt to exploit wing lift during ascent).
Wingless
airbreathers are also possible in theory, although pretty useless in
practice because the T/W of airbreathing engines is so dismal.
One might think that, other things being equal, wing lift should
show a
net gain even with typically-poor hypersonic L/D values, given that
they
are still well in excess of 1. Unfortunately, wings incur not only
a drag
penalty, but also a mass penalty, especially when they have to be
protected against high-speed heating. That makes the gain much more
arguable, and also rather harder to estimate. You might get some of
that
mass back if it lets you reduce your engine thrust and hence engine
mass;
you might get more back if you believe you want wings for
reentry/landing
anyway. Maybe.
A more subtle issue with both wings and airbreathing engines is that
they
tempt you to modify your ascent trajectory to stay in the atmosphere
longer, to exploit them more. That often seems to produce a death
spiral
of escalating drag and heat and mass, in which the design never
closes.
Henry
