Slashdot Mirror
Japan Tests Reusable Rocket
HobbySpacer writes: "Japan's ISAS (Institute for Space and Aeronautical Science) is testing a sub-orbital rocketship called the Reusable Rocket Vehicle Test (RVT). A video of a recent test flight is available. (Alternate source.)
According to Space News, the vertical-takeoff-vertical-landing vehicle
was built on an annual budget of $400k and assisted by volunteers from the Japan Rocket Society. The highest flight so far is 25m but the priority is technology development and low-cost operations, i.e. learning to run a rocket vehicle like a jet. Gradually, the flight envelope will be expanded and later more powerful engines and lighter components will be tested." Low budgets, encouraging volunteer participants -- now that's the way to run a space program!
"Like the DC-X project, the approach is a throwback to the successful X projects of the 1950s when great progress was made by progressing in small steps with small dedicated teams and modest budgets. (As with the X-15, at least 2 or 3 vehicles should be built because if you don't lose at least one during testing, you aren't pushing hard enough.) Perhaps the U.S. will return to this approach, as well, since the mega, 10 bleeding edge technologies at once, all or nothing approach of the X-33 failed miserably."
I can just see it. NASA dropped the Delta Clipper because it didn't fit their plans. The Japanese will pick it up and run with it. Fifteen years from now, everyone will be flying Honda and Toyota rockets....
This is why I was interested to read an article at the somewhat notorious discussion site adequacy.org detailing how to make space travel and exploration less elitist and more widespread.
This article shows and provides backing for widening the franchise of people we send to space. Meanwhile, this one shows the possible threats we the human race may face from embarking on our seeming destiny among the stars (NB: Both these articles are controversial in nature)
My own opinion is that space needs a public-private partnership in order to best take advantage of the best the state and the private sector has to offer. All nations realise this to some extent just now, but the Japanese and Europeans much more so than the americans. We need to do similar here in the USA.
--
Some Links to DC-X:
The really sad thing is, we'd likely almost be at the operational SSTO stage now, if we hadn't killed DC-X. . ..
In fact, on the X-15 page you link to, you give a prime example of why they might object:
I'd have to say that, of course more than one prototype should be built, but it's rather insensitive to snidely say that "if you don't lose one during testing, you're not pushing hard enough".
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Yes, this is very similar to what I am working on.
www.armadilloaerospace.com
Their current vehicle is a good deal larger than ours, has an aeroshell, and significantly, uses liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen, a much more potent and difficult propellant than the hydrogen peroxide we use.
On the other hand, my project has been a lot faster and cheaper. I have spent about $50k and we have been working on it for nine months, versus their $400k and four years.
Our first up scale vehicle is going to be ready in a few months. It won't go very high or fast, but we can carry a person on it...
Next year, at the very least, we will have a supersonic manned rocket ship.
John Carmack
The space shuttle uses hydrogen. The problem with liquid hydrogen is that it has very low density. Six TIMES lower than other materials. This makes EVERYTHING bigger and hence heavier. Tanks, engines, pipes, pumps the lot. Extra weight in a rocket is not good.
Secondly, liquid hydrogen (LH) is a deep cryogenic fluid- the insulation values needed to keep it are very high, and this adds mass, plus it has lots of nasty habits like condensing oxygen from the air- LOX reacts with loads of things explosively.
If you do the simulations for an entire rocket, the performance of LH/LOX is entirely comparable to kerosine/LOX fuels- kerosine is much denser, lighter engines etc; but kerosine doesn't give as much kick per unit of fuel. So your rocket ends up heavier (more kgs of fuel), but the 'dry weight' is less. But this heavier rocket burns weight off much more quickly and hence goes as far as the LH/LOX.
Another advantage? Kerosine is a lot cheaper than hydrogen, even allowing for needing more of it. Kerosine can be carried in trucks.
Another? The kerosine/LOX rocket is much smaller (easier to build and transport).
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I know I would.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!