DOCSLIB.ORG

A Single-Stage Reusable Launch Vehicle Concept Abbos Yunusov A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Single-Stage Reusable Launch Vehicle Concept Abbos Yunusov A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics & Astronautics University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Kuen Lin Dana Andrews Adam Bruckner Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics ©Copyright 2014 Abbos M. Yunusov University of Washington Abstract A Heavy-Lift Reusable Single-Stage Launch Vehicle Concept Abbos M. Yunusov Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Kuen Y. Lin Aeronautics & Astronautics A reusable VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing), all-rocket SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit) launch vehicle is proposed to reduce the cost of space transportation. The concept vehicle is based on presently- existing or near-term technology, and incorporates several features to improve performance, including all-composite construction, lightweight pressure-stabilized tankage, and the use of a HIAD (hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator) - an inflatable heatshield - to return from orbit. Several different types of main engines, consuming various fuels, are considered. An ad-hoc MATLAB code is used to predict the empty mass of the vehicle, quantify the sensitivity of the design to empty mass growth, and the system life-cycle cost. A vehicle powered by tripropellant engines based on RD-701/RD-704 technology consuming liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and methane fuels is identified as the best performer. Table of Contents PAGE List of figures....................................................iii List of tables......................................................vi Chapter 1: Introduction............................................001 1.01: Motivation..............................................001 1.02: Focus/Scope.............................................001 1.03: Overview of methodology/objectives of study.............002 1.04: Overview of thesis......................................003 Chapter 2: Preliminary discussion..................................004 2.01: Concept of operations...................................004 2.01.01: CONOPS/Mission Description......................004 2.01.02: Implications of CONOPS..........................005 2.02: Ascent..................................................006 2.02.01: Flight physics of ascent........................006 2.02.02: Benefits of dense propellants...................008 2.02.03: Mass ratios.....................................012 2.02.04: Illustrative example............................012 2.03: Propulsion..............................................013 2.03.01: Main propulsion.................................013 2.03.02: Secondary propulsion............................015 2.04: Entry...................................................015 2.04.01: Physics of entry................................015 2.04.02: Hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators..022 2.04.03: Prediction of HIAD aerodynamic characteristics..024 2.04.04: Hypersonic glide flight phase...................027 2.04.05: Terminal flight phase...........................029 2.05: Materials/structures/manufacturing......................030 2.05.01: Material - IM-reinforced BMI laminates..........030 2.05.02: Composite cryotanks.............................030 2.05.03: Material processing and manufacturing...........031 2.06: Concept description.....................................033 2.06.01: Vehicle configuration...........................033 2.06.02: Ground handling.................................037 2.07: Historical VTVL projects................................038 2.07.01: HATV/WCSS single-stage..........................038 2.07.02: Phillip Bono....................................040 2.07.03: Chrysler SERV...................................041 2.07.04: Robert Salkeld/MAKS.............................042 2.07.05: Boeing Leo......................................043 2.07.06: McDonnell-Douglas DC-X/Delta Clipper............044 i Chapter 3: Methodology.............................................045 3.01: Mission simulation......................................045 3.02: Mass estimation.........................................047 3.03: Cost estimation.........................................048 Chapter 4: Results and analysis....................................052 4.01: Mass estimates..........................................052 4.01.01: Basic results...................................052 4.01.02: Empty mass breakdowns...........................059 4.02: Structural mass growth effects..........................063 4.02.01: Empty/gross mass and empty mass growth factor...063 4.02.02: Empty mass breakdown effects....................066 4.03: Cost predictions........................................067 4.03.01: Basic program cost information..................067 4.03.02: Program cost components.........................071 Chapter 5: Recommendations and conclusions.........................073 5.01: Conclusions.............................................073 5.02: Recommended course of action............................073 5.03: Recommendations for further research....................074 Bibliography.......................................................075 Appendix A: Propulsion/propellant data.............................082 A.01: Propellant data.........................................082 A.02: Ascent engine baselines.................................083 A.02.01: Rocketdyne RS-25 SSME...........................083 A.02.02: OKB-276/OAO Kuznetsov NK-33/Aerojet AJ-26.......084 A.02.03: OBK-476/NPO Energomash RD-704...................085 A.03: Secondary propulsion baselines..........................086 A.03.01: RL10 OMS........................................086 A.03.02: Gaseous RCS thruster............................086 Appendix B: Design mass inputs.....................................087 B.01: Airframe data...........................................087 B.02: HIAD data...............................................087 Appendix C: Detailed sample results................................088 C.01: Tripropellant hydrometholox vehicle.....................088 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.01.01-01: Illustration of CONOPS..........................005 Figure 2.02.02-01: Free-body diagram of vehicle in ascent flight...009 Figure 2.02.02-02: Ascent trajectories (to OMS circularization burn) of hydrolox and kerolox vehicles...................................011 Figure 2.02.02-03: Gross mass histories (to MECO) of hydrolox and kerolox vehicles...................................................011 Figure 2.04.01-01: Free-body diagram of vehicle in reentry flight..016 Figure 2.04.01-02: Peak heating rate as a function of ballistic coefficient according to Allan and Eggers..........................018 Figure 2.04.01-03: Time-varying peak heating rate experienced with various ballistic coefficients.....................................019 Figure 2.04.01-04: Time-varying decelerating experienced with various ballistic coefficients.............................................020 Figure 2.04.01-05: Integrated heat load as function of reentry ballistic coefficient..............................................021 Figure 2.04.02-01: General configuration of HIAD/XAC...............023 Figure 2.04.03-01: Illustration of micromechanics of Newtonian flow...............................................................024 Figure 2.04.03-02: Illustration of flow shadowing..................025 Figure 2.04.03-03: Illustration of forebody geometry...............025 Figure 2.04.03-04: Shadowgraph depicting features of real blunt-body flow...............................................................026 Figure 2.04.04-01: Isometric view of representative entry trajectory.........................................................028 Figure 2.04.04-02: Representative entry footprint..................029 Figure 2.04.05-01: Schematic of parachute descent to landing.......030 Figure 2.05.03-01: Conceptual design of tooling....................032 iii Figure 2.06.01-01: Diagram of concept vehicle......................033 Figure 2.06.02-01: MZKT-79221 ICBM transporter-erector- launcher...........................................................037 Figure 2.06.02-02: The MV Mighty Servant 2 transporting the damaged USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58).....................................037 Figure 2.07.01-01: Martin HATV concept.............................038 Figure 2.07.01-02: North American Aviation HATV concept............039 Figure 2.07.01-03: Douglas World-Circling Space Ship, single-stage variant............................................................039 Figure 2.07.02-01: Douglas SASSTO..................................040 Figure 2.07.03-01: Chrysler SERV...................................041 Figure 2.07.04-01: MAKS-OS spaceplane and drop tank attached to An-225 carrier aircraft...................................................042 Figure 2.07.05-01: Boeing Leo/"Big Onion" heavy-lift VTVL SSTO.....043 Figure 2.07.06-01: McDonnell-Douglas DC-X Delta Clipper Experimental.......................................................044 Figure 3.02-01: Schematic depiction of method of interpolation used to obtain mass growth results.........................................048 Figure 4.01.01-01: Relative sizes of vehicles using the various propulsion schemes considered......................................053 Figure 4.01.01-02: Predicted vs. empty payload mass for hydrolox vehicle with various numbers of main engines.......................054 Figure 4.01.01-03: Undiscounted transportation
Recommended publications
  • Selection of Favorite Reusable Launch Vehicle Concepts by Using the Method of Pairwise Comparison

    Selection of Favorite Reusable Launch Vehicle Concepts by Using the Method of Pairwise Comparison

    Selection of Favorite Reusable Launch Vehicle Concepts by using the Method of Pairwise Comparison Robert A. Goehlich Keio University, Department of System Design Engineering, Ohkami Laboratory, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama 223-8522, JAPAN, Mobile: +81-90-1767-1667, Fax: +81-45-566-1778 email: [email protected], Internet: www.Robert-Goehlich.de Abstract The attempt of this paper is to select promising Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) concepts by using a formal evaluation procedure. The vehicle system is divided into design features. Every design feature can have alternative characteristics. All combinations of design features and characteristics are compared pairwise with each other with respect to relative importance for a feasible vehicle concept as seen from technical, economic, and political aspects. This valuation process leads to a ranked list of design features for suborbital and orbital applications. The result is a theoretical optimized suborbital and orbital vehicle each. The method of pairwise comparison allows to determine not only ranking but also assessing the relative weight of each feature compared to others. Keywords: Pairwise Comparison, Reusable Launch Vehicle, Space Tourism Introduction The potential for an introduction of reusable launch vehicles is derived from an expected increasing demand for transportation of passengers in the decades to come. The assumed future satellite market does not justify to operate reusable launch vehicles only for satellites due to a low launch rate. Finding feasible vehicle concepts, which satisfy operator’s, passenger’s, and public’s needs, will be a challenging task. Since it is not possible to satisfy all space tourism markets by one vehicle, different vehicles that are capable to serve one particular segment (suborbital or orbital) are needed.
  • The Flight to Orbit

    The Flight to Orbit

    There are numerous ways to get there— Around the Corner Th As then–US Space Command chief from rocket The Gen. Howell M. Estes III said to launch to space defense writers just before his re- tirement in August, “This is going maneuver to come along a lot quicker than we vehicles—and the think it is. ... We tend to think this stuff is way out there in the future, Air Force is but it’s right around the corner.” keeping its Flight The Air Force and NASA have divided the task of providing the options open. US government with a means of reliable, low-cost transportation to Earth orbit. The Air Force, with the largest immediate need, is heading to up the effort to revamp the Expend- to able Launch Vehicles now used to loft military and other government satellites. Called the Evolved ELV, this program is focused on derivatives of existing rockets. Competitors have been invited to redesign or value- engineer their proven boosters with new materials and technologies to provide reliable launch services at a he Air Force would like to go Orbit far lower price than today’s bench- back and forth to Earth orbit as bit mark of around $10,000 a pound to T O easily as it goes back and forth to Low Earth Orbit. The reasoning is 30,000 feet—routinely, reliably, and that an “evolved”—rather than an relatively cheaply. Such a capability all-new—vehicle will yield cost sav- goes hand in hand with being a true ings while reducing technical risk.
  • Open-Loop Flight Testing of COBALT GN&C Technologies for Precise Soft Landing

    Open-Loop Flight Testing of COBALT GN&C Technologies for Precise Soft Landing

    Open-Loop Flight Testing of COBALT GN&C Technologies for Precise Soft Landing John M. Carson III1,3,∗, Farzin Amzajerdian2,y, Carl R. Seubert3,z, Carolina I. Restrepo1,x 1NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), 2NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), 3Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, A terrestrial, open-loop (OL) flight test campaign of the NASA COBALT (CoOper- ative Blending of Autonomous Landing Technologies) platform was conducted onboard the Masten Xodiac suborbital rocket testbed, with support through the NASA Advanced Exploration Systems (AES), Game Changing Development (GCD), and Flight Opportuni- ties (FO) Programs. The COBALT platform integrates NASA Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) sensing technologies for autonomous, precise soft landing, including the Navigation Doppler Lidar (NDL) velocity and range sensor and the Lander Vision System (LVS) Terrain Relative Navigation (TRN) system. A specialized navigation filter running onboard COBALT fuzes the NDL and LVS data in real time to produce a precise navi- gation solution that is independent of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and suitable for future, autonomous planetary landing systems. The OL campaign tested COBALT as a passive payload, with COBALT data collection and filter execution, but with the Xo- diac vehicle Guidance and Control (G&C) loops closed on a Masten GPS-based navigation solution. The OL test was performed as a risk reduction activity in preparation for an upcoming 2017 closed-loop (CL) flight campaign in which Xodiac G&C will act on the COBALT navigation solution and the GPS-based navigation will serve only as a backup monitor. I. Introduction Introduction will discuss the NASA need for Precision Landing and Hazard Avoidance (PL&HA) tech- nologies for future, prioritized solar-system destinations (robotic and human missions), as well as provide an overview for the COBALT project and how it fits within the NASA PL&HA technology development roadmap.
  • Douglas Missile & Space Systems Division

    Douglas Missile & Space Systems Division

    ·, THE THOR HISTORY. MAY 1963 DOUGLAS REPORT SM-41860 APPROVED BY: W.H.. HOOPER CHIEF, THOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DOUGLAS MISSILE & SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION ABSTRACT This history is intended as a quick orientation source and as n ready-reference for review of the Thor and its sys­ tems. The report briefly states the development of Thor, sur'lli-:arizes and chronicles Thor missile and booster launch­ inGs, provides illustrations and descriptions of the vehicle systcn1s, relates their genealogy, explains sane of the per­ fon:iance capabilities of the Thor and Thor-based vehicles used, and focuses attention to the exploration of space by Douelas Aircraf't Company, Inc. (DAC). iii PREFACE The purpose of The Thor History is to survey the launch record of the Thor Weapon, Special Weapon, and Space Systems; give a systematic account of the major events; and review Thor's participation in the military and space programs of this nation. The period covered is from December 27, 1955, the date of the first contract award, through May, 1963. V �LE OF CONTENTS Page Contract'Award . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Background • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l Basic Or�anization and Objectives • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Basic Developmenta� Philosophy . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 Early Research and Development Launches • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • 4 Transition to ICBM with Space Capabilities--Multi-Stage Vehicles . 6 Initial Lunar and Space Probes ••••••• • • • • • • •
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane

    The SKYLON Spaceplane

    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
  • The Tubesat Launch Vehicle

    The Tubesat Launch Vehicle

    TubeSat and NEPTUNE 30 Orbital Rocket Programs Personal Satellites Are GO! Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com About Interorbital Corporation Founded in 1996 by Randa and Roderick Milliron, incorporated in 2001 Located at the Mojave Spaceport in Mojave, California 98.5% owned by R. and R. Milliron 1.5% owned by Eric Gullichsen Initial Starting Technology Pressure-fed liquid rocket engines Initial Mission Low-cost orbital and interplanetary launch vehicle development Facilities 6,000 square-foot research and development facility Two rocket engine test sites at the Mojave Spaceport Expert engineering and manufacturing team Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Core Technical Team Roderick Milliron: Chief Designer Lutz Kayser: Primary Technical Consultant Eric Gullichsen: Guidance and Control Gerard Auvray: Telecommunications Engineer Donald P. Bennett: Mechanical Engineer David Silsbee: Electronics Engineer Joel Kegel: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Jacqueline Wein: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Reinhold Ziegler: Space-Based Power Systems E. Mark Shusterman,M.D. Medical Life Support Randa Milliron: High-Temperature Composites Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Key Hardware Built In-House Propellant Tanks: Combining state-of-the-art composite technology with off-the-shelf aluminum liners Advanced Guidance Hardware and Software Ablative Rocket Engines and Components GPRE 0.5KNFA Rocket Engine Test Manned Space Flight Training Systems Rocket Injectors, Valves Systems, and Other Metal components Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Project History Pressure-Fed Rocket Engines GPRE 2.5KLMA Liquid Oxygen/Methanol Engine: Thrust = 2,500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNHXA WFNA/Turpentine (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 3.0KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 3,000 lbs.
  • A Brief Review on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

    A Brief Review on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

    International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume- 5, Issue-6, Jun.-2017 http://iraj.in A BRIEF REVIEW ON ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM 1AZEEM SINGH KAHLON, 2TAAVISHE GUPTA, 3POOJA DAHIYA, 4SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract - This paper describes the basic design, advantages and disadvantages of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for aircraft carriers of the future along with a brief comparison with traditional launch mechanisms. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the feasibility of EMALS for the next generation indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vishal. I. INTRODUCTION maneuvering. Depending on the thrust produced by the engines and weight of aircraft the length of the India has a central and strategic location in the Indian runway varies widely for different aircraft. Normal Ocean. It shares the longest coastline of 7500 runways are designed so as to accommodate the kilometers amongst other nations sharing the Indian launch for such deviation in takeoff lengths, but the Ocean. India's 80% trade is via sea routes passing scenario is different when it comes to aircraft carriers. through the Indian Ocean and 85% of its oil and gas Launch of an aircraft from a mobile platform always are imported through sea routes. Indian Ocean also requires additional systems and methods to assist the serves as the locus of important international Sea launch because the runway has to be scaled down, Lines Of Communication (SLOCs) . Development of which is only about 300 feet as compared to 5,000- India’s political structure, industrial and commercial 6,000 feet required for normal aircraft to takeoff from growth has no meaning until its shores are protected.
  • Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2

    Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140002716 2019-08-29T14:36:45+00:00Z Liquid Propulsion Systems – Evolution & Advancements Launch Vehicle Propulsion & Systems LPTC Liquid Propulsion Technical Committee Rick Ballard Liquid Engine Systems Lead SLS Liquid Engines Office NASA / MSFC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, unless for course participation and to a paid course student, in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of AIAA and/or course instructor. Contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional Development Program, Suite 500, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4344 Modules 1. Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2. LRE Applications 3. Liquid Propellants 4. Engine Power Cycles 5. Engine Components Module 1: Rocket Propulsion TOPICS Fundamentals • Thrust • Specific Impulse • Mixture Ratio • Isp vs. MR • Density vs. Isp • Propellant Mass vs. Volume Warning: Contents deal with math, • Area Ratio physics and thermodynamics. Be afraid…be very afraid… Terms A Area a Acceleration F Force (thrust) g Gravity constant (32.2 ft/sec2) I Impulse m Mass P Pressure Subscripts t Time a Ambient T Temperature c Chamber e Exit V Velocity o Initial state r Reaction ∆ Delta / Difference s Stagnation sp Specific ε Area Ratio t Throat or Total γ Ratio of specific heats Thrust (1/3) Rocket thrust can be explained using Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws of motion. 2nd Law: a force applied to a body is equal to the mass of the body and its acceleration in the direction of the force.
  • An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions

    An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions

    Post-Exit Atmospheric Flight Cruise Approach An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions February 13, 2016 National Aeronautics and Space Administration An Assessment of Aerocapture Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California and Applications to Future Missions Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology for Planetary Science Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Work Performed under the Planetary Science Program Support Task ©2016. All rights reserved. D-97058 February 13, 2016 Authors Thomas R. Spilker, Independent Consultant Mark Hofstadter Chester S. Borden, JPL/Caltech Jessie M. Kawata Mark Adler, JPL/Caltech Damon Landau Michelle M. Munk, LaRC Daniel T. Lyons Richard W. Powell, LaRC Kim R. Reh Robert D. Braun, GIT Randii R. Wessen Patricia M. Beauchamp, JPL/Caltech NASA Ames Research Center James A. Cutts, JPL/Caltech Parul Agrawal Paul F. Wercinski, ARC Helen H. Hwang and the A-Team Paul F. Wercinski NASA Langley Research Center F. McNeil Cheatwood A-Team Study Participants Jeffrey A. Herath Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Michelle M. Munk Mark Adler Richard W. Powell Nitin Arora Johnson Space Center Patricia M. Beauchamp Ronald R. Sostaric Chester S. Borden Independent Consultant James A. Cutts Thomas R. Spilker Gregory L. Davis Georgia Institute of Technology John O. Elliott Prof. Robert D. Braun – External Reviewer Jefferey L. Hall Engineering and Science Directorate JPL D-97058 Foreword Aerocapture has been proposed for several missions over the last couple of decades, and the technologies have matured over time. This study was initiated because the NASA Planetary Science Division (PSD) had not revisited Aerocapture technologies for about a decade and with the upcoming study to send a mission to Uranus/Neptune initiated by the PSD we needed to determine the status of the technologies and assess their readiness for such a mission.
  • Streng Geheim? Seit 28 Jahren Vorstandsmitglied Des GHK

    Streng Geheim? Seit 28 Jahren Vorstandsmitglied Des GHK

    Von Dr. Ferdinand Stegbauer Streng geheim? seit 28 Jahren Vorstandsmitglied des GHK sen wurde, ist OTRAG mit dem Hauptsitz ab 1981 in Münschen weiter. Die OTRAG Neu-Isenburg, Herzogstraße 61, urkund- wurde 1986 von Gesellschaftern liqui- lich erfasst. diert, wobei die OTRAG-Aktionäre Millio- nenverluste erlitten. Lutz T. Kayser ging OTRAG gründete zunächst das Subun- nach seinem Aufenthalt in Libyen in die ternehmen Stewering-OTRAG und USA, beruhigte die CIA und beteiligte baute einen eigenen Flughafen in Zaire. sich an verschiedenen Raumfahrtfirmen. Es folgte die ORAS (Otrag Range Air Ser- Im Jahr 2007 zog Lutz T. Kayser auf eine vice), die zwei Hawker Siddeley-›Argosy‹- Marshallinsel und starb am 19.11.2017 Transportmaschinen für den Transport auf Bikendrik Island, einer Insel zwischen von Material- und Raketenteilen kaufte. Neueste Quizfrage: »Welche Rakete Neu-Seeland und Hawaii. Ihn erreichte Die beiden Flugzeuge pendelten zwi- trägt den Namen des weltweit ersten pri- kein politisches Gewitter mehr. vaten Raumfahrtunternehmens mit Sitz schen München-Riem und dem von in Neu-Isenburg?« Die richtige Antwort OTRAG errichteten Airport ›Luvua‹ (Flie- Der Regisseur Oliver Schwehm recher- lautet ›OTRAG-Rakete‹! – Hätten Sie’s gercode). Am 17.5.1977 gab es den ers- chierte seit 2014 zu OTRAG, schrieb ein gewusst? – Vermutlich nicht, obwohl ten Start einer OTRAG-Rakete in Zaire, Drehbuch und führte Regie für seinen OTRAG nie geheim war. Natürlich umgab natürlich mit dem Hoheitszeichen von Film ›Fly Rocket Fly‹ unter Einbeziehung sich OTRAG auch mit Geheimnissen, die Zaire. Am 20.5.1978 erfolgte der Start von originalen OTRAG-Filmdokumenten. nach und nach enthüllt wurden. von OTRAG 2 ebenfalls mit dem Hoheits- Ab dem 27.9.2018 lief ›Fly Rocket Fly‹ in zeichen von Zaire.
  • Adventures in Low Disk Loading VTOL Design

    Adventures in Low Disk Loading VTOL Design

    NASA/TP—2018–219981 Adventures in Low Disk Loading VTOL Design Mike Scully Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help September 2018 This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed. NASA STI Program ... in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. to the advancement of aeronautics and space Collected papers from scientific and science. The NASA scientific and technical technical conferences, symposia, seminars, information (STI) program plays a key part in or other meetings sponsored or co- helping NASA maintain this important role. sponsored by NASA. The NASA STI program operates under the • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, auspices of the Agency Chief Information technical, or historical information from Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for NASA programs, projects, and missions, archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The often concerned with subjects having NASA STI program provides access to the NTRS substantial public interest. Registered and its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one of • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. the largest collections of aeronautical and space English-language translations of foreign science STI in the world. Results are published in scientific and technical material pertinent to both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA’s mission. NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include organizing and publishing research results, distributing • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of specialized research announcements and feeds, completed research or a major significant providing information desk and personal search phase of research that present the results of support, and enabling data exchange services.
  • Up, Up, and Away by James J

    Up, Up, and Away by James J

    www.astrosociety.org/uitc No. 34 - Spring 1996 © 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 390 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112. Up, Up, and Away by James J. Secosky, Bloomfield Central School and George Musser, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Want to take a tour of space? Then just flip around the channels on cable TV. Weather Channel forecasts, CNN newscasts, ESPN sportscasts: They all depend on satellites in Earth orbit. Or call your friends on Mauritius, Madagascar, or Maui: A satellite will relay your voice. Worried about the ozone hole over Antarctica or mass graves in Bosnia? Orbital outposts are keeping watch. The challenge these days is finding something that doesn't involve satellites in one way or other. And satellites are just one perk of the Space Age. Farther afield, robotic space probes have examined all the planets except Pluto, leading to a revolution in the Earth sciences -- from studies of plate tectonics to models of global warming -- now that scientists can compare our world to its planetary siblings. Over 300 people from 26 countries have gone into space, including the 24 astronauts who went on or near the Moon. Who knows how many will go in the next hundred years? In short, space travel has become a part of our lives. But what goes on behind the scenes? It turns out that satellites and spaceships depend on some of the most basic concepts of physics. So space travel isn't just fun to think about; it is a firm grounding in many of the principles that govern our world and our universe.