Adding helicopter blades to StarshipX

[Spacescifi]

 

I was observing Elon's problem with landing his massive SSTO, and I wanted to know how helpful chemically powered air augmented helicopter blades would be?

I am not an engineer, but I am supposing that the blades could be foldable against the sides at launch, and unfurl while trying to land.

 

Using a mix of chemical and air augmentation could power the blades, as we already know chemical has high thrust to weight ratios.

Air intakes downward could lead to helping the helicopter blades above somehow.

 

That's my two cents.

What do you think?

Any advantages to this? Or is it worth the risks? Or is it if it can be made to work?

EDIT: I do not imagine the helicopter blades alone can land StarshipX. Rather they are to assist the rockets for a softer landing that WON'T break tiles and landing gear every time.

This is to be for Earth to orbit only, basically an SSTO that ferriers orbiters and satellites to Earth orbit and goes back down. This is NOT for Mars.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Spacescifi

[RealKerbal3x]

@Spacescifi Starship isn't an SSTO, it uses a reusable booster to reach orbit. (also, it's SpaceX Starship not StarshipX)

Anyway, what advantage would enormous helicopter blades have over the engines? They'd be draggy and hard to protect during launch/re-entry and useless dead weight in every situation other than final landing. I'm pretty sure they'll sort out the tile and leg damage soon anyway, the damage was mostly due to SN5 having to rotate quickly back to vertical as it was flying on an off-centre engine.

Edited August 23, 2020 by RealKerbal3x

[.50calBMG]

That would add nothing but complexity, weight, and failure points, and would be nothing but a hindrance on any planet but earth. There is a reason roton didn't get developed further.

 

[Entropian]

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Rocket

[Spacescifi]

13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@Spacescifi Starship isn't an SSTO, it uses a reusable booster to reach orbit. (also, it's SpaceX Starship not StarshipX)

Anyway, what advantage would enormous helicopter blades have over the engines? They'd be draggy and hard to protect during launch/re-entry and useless dead weight in every situation other than final landing. I'm pretty sure they'll sort out the tile and leg damage soon anyway, the damage was mostly due to SN5 having to rotate quickly back to vertical as it was flying on an off-centre engine.

 

I see. So on earth there is little reason not to reuse reusable boosters.

The only place a rotary rocket may prove useful is is visting an Earth clone without infrastructure.

But even then a sea lander SSTO would be preferable.

[RealKerbal3x]

1 minute ago, Spacescifi said:

 

I see. So on earth there is little reason not to reuse reusable boosters.

The only place a rotary rocket may prove useful is is visting an Earth clone without infrastructure.

But even then a sea lander SSTO would be preferable.

I don't really think a rotary rocket would have any advantages over a propulsively landing rocket anywhere. Perhaps on a planet with a very thick atmosphere, but parachutes or simply a drag-based descent like Starship is using would still probably be a more practical solution. As @.50calBMG, there's a reason why Roton was cancelled.

[Spacescifi]

25 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I don't really think a rotary rocket would have any advantages over a propulsively landing rocket anywhere. Perhaps on a planet with a very thick atmosphere, but parachutes or simply a drag-based descent like Starship is using would still probably be a more practical solution. As @.50calBMG, there's a reason why Roton was cancelled.

 

So add some massive parachutes then?

Good idea?

Not so much? For Earth landing only since Mars has so sparse air it won't make a difference?

Edited August 23, 2020 by Spacescifi

[RealKerbal3x]

1 minute ago, Spacescifi said:

 

So add some massive parachutes then?

Good idea?

Not so much? For Earth landing only since Mars has so sparse air it won't make a difference?

For Mars a combination of aerobraking and retropropulsion is best. For a vehicle as big as Starship landing on Mars, a parachute would have to be like a kilometre across, and that's just impractical.

[Arugela]

Couldn't you just add a rotating belt around the outside or inside like with a jet engine and let it pass air through with some electric or other controls to get a similar effect? Particularly if they can be designed to be either used during normal use or the airflow completely restricted and the outside surfaces made aerodynamic when not in use. Or have them used in flight as a different form of stabilizers with varied aerodynamic qualities based on configuration or other needed things.\

If they are in the wall of the booster and inside or outside flap could open allowing air to pass through. This could then have varied speeds and flap controls to adjust the effect. Isn't that how fanless or other round fans work? And it could rotate around or within or inside the walls of the booster in any spot air can be passed through in any way.

Outside of potential cost or ease of ability to make or attach, I would think inside would be better. And is it that hard to put a simple blade inside the body around the outside. I'm assuming their must be some reliable enough methods for this. And for maintenance. I would think it could improve aerodynamics over those weird cheese grate things on the outside.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Arugela

[RCgothic]

I don't think ducted fans work particularly well when they're expected to work for hypersonic retropulsion well as forward flight.