My comment disappeared? Damn, must have hit "cancel" instead of Comment... Anyway, I had a long on-again-off-again conversation on the internet (over various forums and message threads) with both McKinney and Hudson and the 'official' payload for the original concept was "two-guys and a ham sandwich" which operationally would have been similar to the LV from the book "The Rocket Company" in being one person and a bit of payload but pretty much JUST an SSTO demonstrator. The low-mounted rotor would likely have had better control authority and flight characteristics, having always been less a "helicopter" and more a propeller supported platform. As it was the original takeoff requirements were having to be 'held-down' so that initial take off forces were about 5gs and the blades of the rotor subsonic under most conditions but going supersonic on the ground (this was an issue of course, and for anyone curios just look up "Thunderscreech" on youtube) for some and needed to push the vehicle supersonic about 40,000ft during the flight and later needing a separate rocket to 'push' it through and provide some added thrust during the climb to orbit. (The aforementioned "Thunderscreech" was often cited as showing a propeller powered vehicle being able to go 'supersonic' on propeller power but in fact I could find no mention of it every actually exceeding the speed of sound on propeller power alone and since they actually suggested a 'booster' rocket motor to push the design through Mach 1 I suspect that neither did they) Once it was clear the original design wasn't going to have a 'market' (it was essentially really a "proof-of-concept" vehicle both for the design and for 'proving' that an SSTO would work operationally) it was found that it didn't scaleup well. (At all really) The helicopter take off for a larger orbital vehicle didn't gain the benefits of the smaller one and rotor size an tip-speed were big issues. Still there was some argument for keeping it for some suborbital vehicle operations and options, but since you now required a dedicated 'rocket engine' to lift the vehicle and push it into orbit the decision was to switch to a rocket powered but rotor recovered vehicle which would (in theory) still retain a lot of the advantages of the original concept. They weren't exactly wrong either as rotor landing systems were well understood and researched all the way back to the late 50s. They had been extensively looked at for both Apollo and later CEV programs, with a lot of wind-tunnel, and flight dynamics work having been done on the concept. (But note those are 'stubby' bodies which the ATV was the opposite of) So they moved to the 'rotary' rocket engine design, (again it was based on previous but much smaller engine concepts but would, as you say, required a great deal of design and testing work t hey likely could not have afforded) only using the rotors for landing and a "near-impossible" SSTO design ended up as a bog-standard "a-miracle-occurs" pretty impossible SSTO design. By the time the of the ATV rollout it was pretty clear the idea of it being an SSTO was unlikely but given how much support it had from the SSTO advocacy (hence all the SSTO advocates attending the rollout) I think it was unlikely that McKinney and Hudson could have significantly changed the design but you did have the usual mental and linguistic gymnastics that accompany "near-SSTO" designs with some discussion of "zero stage's" or "liftoff assist rockets". (Note that Tom Clancy was at the roll out because he had heavily invested in the concept having earlier promised the proceeds of a book to the project if the book was a good seller. "Red Strom Rising" IIRC and it was so he did :) ) I still think the concept has some workable aspects especially on a smaller scale or for suborbital work but it's unlikely to be revisited given the current launch market or requirements though the rotor recovery might. I'll make a bit of a prediction that the next video will likely cover the Kistler K1 as an example of one of those (initially) "near" SSTOs. Good work!
@@randycampbell6307 It is the 41st Millenium... It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries The Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods, and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day, so that he may never truly die. Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor's will. Vast armies give battle in his name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst his soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Imperial Guard and countless planetary defense forces, the ever vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from aliens, heretics, mutants - and worse. To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
@@randycampbell6307 For some reason, comments vanish (I get emails telling me I have comments and then they go away--I hope no one thinks I do it). Thanks for the details. Hudson is actually one of my personal heroes. And yes, K1 is in the pipeline.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 Actually my comments showed up after I did a "personal" reply so I ended up deleting them since saying the same thing multiple times is bad-form :) And of COURSE we all think "you" did it... After all when you make a public comment (and yours is the top/first comment) it would naturally go 'above' yours and we can't have that can we? :) Hudson has had some great stuff over the years and while I quibble his focus on SSTO designs, (don't worry Kelly Starks will be along soon to defend SSTO kind I'm sure :) ) in general I've been very positive about his ideas.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 - I like the substance of your videos. I also enjoy your humor. One thing I noticed in some videos is that you could edit out some dead space to make the videos tighter and seem more polished. Also, I asked this in another comment, but do you work for Boeing? You don't have to answer, just curious
I have sent this video to Gary Hudson himself, and this is his opinion of it: "It is not badly put together but has a great many inaccuracies. Joe Sheldon was a program manager, not a pilot, for example. We flew it successfully in hover and landing with tip rockets, so it was not "unflyable". The weights are all wrong, too."
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 which is why I enjoy it, you could spend your time gushing over boosters, but you actually look into what you don't like. That takes more willpower than I have left 😅
There's no obvious advantage for Roton over Delta Clipper. They should have similar payload fraction, but the highly stressed rotors seem an obvious point of failure.
1-Is it possible to make a mini sea dragon out of beer kegs? 2-Doe to the high concentration of hydrocarbons in titan, does it have petroleum under ground? 3-In order to avoid space junk issues, does a series of "parking lot space stations" where the satellites get attached, so they just get repaired, recycled and defended, make any political and economical sense? 4-In order to make O'Neil cylinders can we make a 500m of diameter sea dragon and live inside its second stage(can blue origin make something similar)? 5-Would the Artemis program buy fuel from a third party for SpaceX Starship if it is readily available?
Do you want a joke response or a serious surface level analysis for all of these the latter would probably take up my whole summer plus i don't even have a complete high school education so it would be questionable at best
1. Probably not if you want to fly it. For art purposes, sure. 2. Titan has methane lakes. 3. There are servicing spacecraft under development as well as space junk missions. I think there has been one idea to make an External Tank (you can see how old this idea is) into a collection/repair station. 4. No. O'Neill cylinders are on the order of 19 million metric tons. 5. NASA throws internal parties. 6. Nah, space guns for everyone.
I love the idea of short videos focusing on one particular vehicle. I'd love it if you could do one on McDonnell Douglas DC-X since it's something SpaceX is trying to do and it **cough** actually worked. **cough**
But why? If it needs propellant for the tip jets for landing just use a parachute and refire the main engines like Soyuz right before landing. A parachute is surely lighter and saves more space than retractable rotor blades. Guys were too deadset on a single idea.
If I was going to design/machine a N2O/butane engine in my garage; what kind of chamber pressure should I be targeting? Fuel pressure at around 40psi, N2O more at like 100psi. Keeping pressures/volume low so I can make smaller valves and limit the catastrophic-ness of sploding. I dont expect it to fly, just a hobby. Thanks for the videos, I appreciate your work.
A rule of thumb for pressure-fed engines (though these are launch vehicle engines, not hobby) is tanks are 1.5x the chamber pressure. For a hobby rocket, there's plenty of forums you can consult.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 That's not too bad. Maybe I'll bump it up to propane at 150psi. Those little whipped cream chargers are something crazy like 900psi. That shit scares the bejesus out of me. Thanks, keep up the good work!
Very informative, thanks. And no KSP segment time filler! not that i don't like KSP, just you put enough information even without it. Plus, do you think this rocket would work on Titan or Mars?
Probably better to start with suborbital velocities at around 2 km/s. In case everything fails, market it as a booster for other space companies. That's the point where everyone will fail as you can't be perfect everywhere.
I still think it's cool. Perhaps as a upper stage component instead of trying to be a SSTO. Even Starship is 2 stage rocket. This idea shouldn't be totally discarded.
So you're telling me they couldn't get a helicopter to orbit, but they did get a helicopter to Mars? Since I don't understand atmospheric physics or the linear motion of time, I'm going to assume it's a conspiracy.
I have a question for anyone who wants to answer. Is it practical to build rockets from Steel rings wielded together, assuming the fuel and oxidiser dosn't leak out.
Rings, as in barrel segments? Yes. It's been going on since the 60s. Atlas was made of thin steel sections. As with anything involving launch vehicle design, the material you select is based on requirements--how strong does it need to be? What's the weight limit? How easy is it to weld? And so on.
> they needed free rotors That was the original idea. The 10 L/D of the rotors in low atmosphere would help just enough the ascent as to make them free. In the larger version it indeed became dead weight for the ascent. Expendable SSTOs are possible, and making part of the recovery part free would help. Of course, a first stage would help much more, and was considered by the team, but would mean a second vehicle to be designed and they were already tight in funds.
Since this is something new, feel free to suggest improvements. (My voice over work can only improve.)
My comment disappeared?
Damn, must have hit "cancel" instead of Comment...
Anyway, I had a long on-again-off-again conversation on the internet (over various forums and message threads) with both McKinney and Hudson and the 'official' payload for the original concept was "two-guys and a ham sandwich" which operationally would have been similar to the LV from the book "The Rocket Company" in being one person and a bit of payload but pretty much JUST an SSTO demonstrator. The low-mounted rotor would likely have had better control authority and flight characteristics, having always been less a "helicopter" and more a propeller supported platform.
As it was the original takeoff requirements were having to be 'held-down' so that initial take off forces were about 5gs and the blades of the rotor subsonic under most conditions but going supersonic on the ground (this was an issue of course, and for anyone curios just look up "Thunderscreech" on youtube) for some and needed to push the vehicle supersonic about 40,000ft during the flight and later needing a separate rocket to 'push' it through and provide some added thrust during the climb to orbit. (The aforementioned "Thunderscreech" was often cited as showing a propeller powered vehicle being able to go 'supersonic' on propeller power but in fact I could find no mention of it every actually exceeding the speed of sound on propeller power alone and since they actually suggested a 'booster' rocket motor to push the design through Mach 1 I suspect that neither did they)
Once it was clear the original design wasn't going to have a 'market' (it was essentially really a "proof-of-concept" vehicle both for the design and for 'proving' that an SSTO would work operationally) it was found that it didn't scaleup well. (At all really) The helicopter take off for a larger orbital vehicle didn't gain the benefits of the smaller one and rotor size an tip-speed were big issues. Still there was some argument for keeping it for some suborbital vehicle operations and options, but since you now required a dedicated 'rocket engine' to lift the vehicle and push it into orbit the decision was to switch to a rocket powered but rotor recovered vehicle which would (in theory) still retain a lot of the advantages of the original concept.
They weren't exactly wrong either as rotor landing systems were well understood and researched all the way back to the late 50s. They had been extensively looked at for both Apollo and later CEV programs, with a lot of wind-tunnel, and flight dynamics work having been done on the concept. (But note those are 'stubby' bodies which the ATV was the opposite of)
So they moved to the 'rotary' rocket engine design, (again it was based on previous but much smaller engine concepts but would, as you say, required a great deal of design and testing work t hey likely could not have afforded) only using the rotors for landing and a "near-impossible" SSTO design ended up as a bog-standard "a-miracle-occurs" pretty impossible SSTO design. By the time the of the ATV rollout it was pretty clear the idea of it being an SSTO was unlikely but given how much support it had from the SSTO advocacy (hence all the SSTO advocates attending the rollout) I think it was unlikely that McKinney and Hudson could have significantly changed the design but you did have the usual mental and linguistic gymnastics that accompany "near-SSTO" designs with some discussion of "zero stage's" or "liftoff assist rockets".
(Note that Tom Clancy was at the roll out because he had heavily invested in the concept having earlier promised the proceeds of a book to the project if the book was a good seller. "Red Strom Rising" IIRC and it was so he did :) )
I still think the concept has some workable aspects especially on a smaller scale or for suborbital work but it's unlikely to be revisited given the current launch market or requirements though the rotor recovery might. I'll make a bit of a prediction that the next video will likely cover the Kistler K1 as an example of one of those (initially) "near" SSTOs.
Good work!
@@randycampbell6307 It is the 41st Millenium...
It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries The Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods, and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day, so that he may never truly die.
Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor's will. Vast armies give battle in his name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst his soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Imperial Guard and countless planetary defense forces, the ever vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from aliens, heretics, mutants - and worse.
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
@@randycampbell6307 For some reason, comments vanish (I get emails telling me I have comments and then they go away--I hope no one thinks I do it). Thanks for the details. Hudson is actually one of my personal heroes.
And yes, K1 is in the pipeline.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 Actually my comments showed up after I did a "personal" reply so I ended up deleting them since saying the same thing multiple times is bad-form :)
And of COURSE we all think "you" did it... After all when you make a public comment (and yours is the top/first comment) it would naturally go 'above' yours and we can't have that can we? :)
Hudson has had some great stuff over the years and while I quibble his focus on SSTO designs, (don't worry Kelly Starks will be along soon to defend SSTO kind I'm sure :) ) in general I've been very positive about his ideas.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 - I like the substance of your videos. I also enjoy your humor. One thing I noticed in some videos is that you could edit out some dead space to make the videos tighter and seem more polished. Also, I asked this in another comment, but do you work for Boeing? You don't have to answer, just curious
I have sent this video to Gary Hudson himself, and this is his opinion of it:
"It is not badly put together but has a great many inaccuracies. Joe Sheldon was a program manager, not a pilot, for example. We flew it successfully in hover and landing with tip rockets, so it was not "unflyable". The weights are all wrong, too."
Gotta say I enjoy your obsession with SSTOs.
The irony is that I'm a big dumb booster guy.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 which is why I enjoy it, you could spend your time gushing over boosters, but you actually look into what you don't like.
That takes more willpower than I have left 😅
Interesting - this video had ads. Are you monetized?
loving this new type of video format, but regardless love your content, keep it up :)
There's no obvious advantage for Roton over Delta Clipper. They should have similar payload fraction, but the highly stressed rotors seem an obvious point of failure.
good to see ya again. thanks for the upload dude
Now your upload speed is increasing!
I'm trying to aim for 2-3 weeks a pop. June/July are going to be slow for reasons you'll see in August-ish.
1-Is it possible to make a mini sea dragon out of beer kegs?
2-Doe to the high concentration of hydrocarbons in titan, does it have petroleum under ground?
3-In order to avoid space junk issues, does a series of "parking lot space stations" where the satellites get attached, so they just get repaired, recycled and defended, make any political and economical sense?
4-In order to make O'Neil cylinders can we make a 500m of diameter sea dragon and live inside its second stage(can blue origin make something similar)?
5-Would the Artemis program buy fuel from a third party for SpaceX Starship if it is readily available?
6-Claimore mined mini landers and cubesats, to demarcate territories and possessions are viable?
Do you want a joke response or a serious surface level analysis for all of these
the latter would probably take up my whole summer
plus i don't even have a complete high school education so it would be questionable at best
@@jmstudios457 Yes.
1. Probably not if you want to fly it. For art purposes, sure.
2. Titan has methane lakes.
3. There are servicing spacecraft under development as well as space junk missions. I think there has been one idea to make an External Tank (you can see how old this idea is) into a collection/repair station.
4. No. O'Neill cylinders are on the order of 19 million metric tons.
5. NASA throws internal parties.
6. Nah, space guns for everyone.
I love the idea of short videos focusing on one particular vehicle. I'd love it if you could do one on McDonnell Douglas DC-X since it's something SpaceX is trying to do and it **cough** actually worked. **cough**
It'll show up eventually.
But why? If it needs propellant for the tip jets for landing just use a parachute and refire the main engines like Soyuz right before landing. A parachute is surely lighter and saves more space than retractable rotor blades. Guys were too deadset on a single idea.
The issue is that you cannot accurately control landing with parachutes
@@t72oftruth66 The ESA Space Rider disagrees. Steerable parachute.
If I was going to design/machine a N2O/butane engine in my garage; what kind of chamber pressure should I be targeting? Fuel pressure at around 40psi, N2O more at like 100psi. Keeping pressures/volume low so I can make smaller valves and limit the catastrophic-ness of sploding. I dont expect it to fly, just a hobby.
Thanks for the videos, I appreciate your work.
A rule of thumb for pressure-fed engines (though these are launch vehicle engines, not hobby) is tanks are 1.5x the chamber pressure. For a hobby rocket, there's plenty of forums you can consult.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 That's not too bad. Maybe I'll bump it up to propane at 150psi. Those little whipped cream chargers are something crazy like 900psi. That shit scares the bejesus out of me.
Thanks, keep up the good work!
@@nicholasboyarko1680 Do be careful, especially with N2O.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 what's the worst that could happen with high vapor pressure compressed nitrogen in a little tiny steel container.
I listened to that fresh air interview with Jeff Shesol about his book. Have you had a chance to get/read it yet?
Very informative, thanks. And no KSP segment time filler! not that i don't like KSP, just you put enough information even without it. Plus, do you think this rocket would work on Titan or Mars?
Yes to both, though Mars wouldn't need a helicopter.
Probably better to start with suborbital velocities at around 2 km/s. In case everything fails, market it as a booster for other space companies. That's the point where everyone will fail as you can't be perfect everywhere.
I still think it's cool. Perhaps as a upper stage component instead of trying to be a SSTO. Even Starship is 2 stage rocket. This idea shouldn't be totally discarded.
So you're telling me they couldn't get a helicopter to orbit, but they did get a helicopter to Mars? Since I don't understand atmospheric physics or the linear motion of time, I'm going to assume it's a conspiracy.
First, they had to dig a tunnel to Mars.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 How else will the Hyperloop get there?
If this concept appeared on a movie, 90% of the audience would have said. Oh this is so unrealistic!
If Elon Musk would pitch it would be the future and 100 times cheaper then traditional rockets
@@Leoappeared That IS in fact the general "pitch" for an SSTO design after all :)
@@randycampbell6307 It is the pitch of all of Musk's ideas, whether it is true or not.
@@LeoappearedEven musk has the sense to not pitch the roton.
This is exscelent. Maybe you can do Boings large multipurpose launch vehicle some point.
I'll put it in the pipeline.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 Awsome are ther any thoratical limits on how lage we can make rockets?
I have a question for anyone who wants to answer. Is it practical to build rockets from Steel rings wielded together, assuming the fuel and oxidiser dosn't leak out.
Rings, as in barrel segments? Yes. It's been going on since the 60s. Atlas was made of thin steel sections.
As with anything involving launch vehicle design, the material you select is based on requirements--how strong does it need to be? What's the weight limit? How easy is it to weld? And so on.
@@pressure-fedastronaut6511 Guess what other rocket is built from stainless steel rings, and is extemely hyped right now.
5% dry m'ass fraction?! No wonder this failed they needed free rotors
> they needed free rotors
That was the original idea. The 10 L/D of the rotors in low atmosphere would help just enough the ascent as to make them free. In the larger version it indeed became dead weight for the ascent. Expendable SSTOs are possible, and making part of the recovery part free would help. Of course, a first stage would help much more, and was considered by the team, but would mean a second vehicle to be designed and they were already tight in funds.