1
$\begingroup$

We now have flyable, recoverable suborbital boosters, which would be the first stage.

The second stage of the Saturn V rocket was able to hurl the 100 ton Skylab into an orbit over 250 miles high.

The spent 49 ton Saturn V S-11 stage that launched Skylab in 1973 remained in orbit for almost 2 years

With current technology, this stage could have been de-orbited and flow home as a gliding lifting body for re-use.

The Nike Hercules made use of a slender delta wing for its Mach 3+ second stage. Without the Space Shuttle's military requirement for extended lateral glide range, needing only to land along the path of its orbit, could a wing of this type help recover the second stage?

Again, the third stage would be whatever you like in 100 tons.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

The Nike Hercules made use of a slender delta wing for its Mach 3+ second stage. Without the Space Shuttle's military requirement for extended lateral glide range, needing only to land along the path of its orbit, could a wing of this type help recover the second stage?

Prior to the Air Force's high-crossrange requirement, most of the shuttle concepts proposed a short straight wing arrangement, rather than a highly swept wing:

enter image description here

This was favored by designer Max Faget in order to improve glide performance and handling at landing. The narrow delta wings of a missile like Nike-Hercules favor high-speed atmospheric flight, but for reentry, gliding descent, and landing, high speed isn't a goal.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Let's put a lifting body in there. I'd be happy to pave a little more runway. The Saturn V 2nd stage was 1/2 the empty weight of the Shuttle. That (and the strap on solid boosters of the new SLS) should give us some room. $\endgroup$
    – Robert DiGiovanni
    Commented Apr 5, 2021 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ "new SLS"? You want to replace the SLS with a Saturn V with strap-on SRBs? And a reusable second stage? $\endgroup$
    – Christopher James Huff
    Commented Apr 5, 2021 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Christopher James Huff No, why not an SLS with strap-on SRBs (recoverable, have to send the boat out), and a reusable 2nd (to orbit) stage, then work on recovering the first stage and using 4-6 Falcon 9s as strap ons, or perhaps a fully recoverable BN first stage. $\endgroup$
    – Robert DiGiovanni
    Commented Apr 6, 2021 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ Well...because recovering the booster tubes for reuse never saved much and the SLS boosters will be going through an even rougher reentry and landing, the SLS is abominably expensive, its core would be as difficult to recover as a full-orbital stage, a simple Falcon Heavy nearly matches its performance, and a Starship would exceed it? Why would anyone want to mix and match SLS and Falcon/Starship components? $\endgroup$
    – Christopher James Huff
    Commented Apr 6, 2021 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ Because the "Starship" is unproven at the moment (but worthwhile as a research project) (might be ok on Mars with its CO2 atmosphere). The thrust of the Saturn V 2nd stage and the Shuttle Orbiter were very close. My Shuttle would push the 3rd stage into orbit and fly home. Boosters are up to you. $\endgroup$
    – Robert DiGiovanni
    Commented Apr 6, 2021 at 2:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.