Spaceplane Carrier Landings?

[Red Iron Crown]

Clear the carrier deck so you can use the entire length instead of just the angled section. Forget the hook and wires, mount retro rockets and fire them upon touchdown. This also reduces the precision required for the touchdown and eliminates the chance of the hook not snagging the wire (happens sometimes even on perfect approaches, the hook can bounce away from the deck).

[Idobox]

Or you can just tow the thing.

Have a big air-plane approach it while on descent, get a cable out, attach it to the orbiter, and tow it. That way, you could fly much slower with the slope you want, making the landing easier.

Alternatively, put bigger wings and an atmospheric engine on the orbiter. It's difficult to land because it's unpowered and doesn't glide well, improve the glide ratio and add some thrust, and it becomes much easier.

[Dkmdlb]

But if you did have a carrier that big - which the military isn't interested in

Also it's probably a physical impossibility.

[GoSlash27]

My mistake, I thought the problem was that the carrier was small and (more importantly) moving.

If you had a large enough carrier, couldn't you slow it down without a wire though?

Absolutely, you could. In fact, you could dial in a steeper approach and flare it out at the end for a nice gentle touchdown. Then all you need are some parachutes to help slow the shuttle.

If you do all that, I figure a carrier about the size of Vandenberg AFB oughtta do it.

Best,

-Slashy

[linkxsc]

Is it possible... yeah maybe, you might need to step away from a design like the previous shuttle into something with a better maneuverability. And something with an air-breathing engine to help it have more control would be nice.

You'd probably need a bigger carrier though, try for more than 4 layers of cables to hit, also the landing strip would be better if it were straight with the forward motion of the ship.

But by that point why bother landing on the carrier? Why not buildit so you have a floating hull and just land on the water like a floatplane (spruce goose, catalina PBY, other... floatplanes) Maybe even build in some ground effect aerodynamics to the craft (the russians did a bit with the concept, I think there was a low altitude "plane" for hauling cruise missiles)

[Lunniy Korabl]

Forget the hook and wires, mount retro rockets and fire them upon touchdown.

Good luck! http://youtu.be/WKCl3lfAx1Q

[cpast]

But by that point why bother landing on the carrier? Why not buildit so you have a floating hull and just land on the water like a floatplane (spruce goose, catalina PBY, other... floatplanes) Maybe even build in some ground effect aerodynamics to the craft (the russians did a bit with the concept, I think there was a low altitude "plane" for hauling cruise missiles)

IIRC, flying boats (not floatplanes; floatplanes have normal-looking fuselages and sit on separate floats that provide buoyancy, while flying boats have a boat-hulled fuselage to provide buoyancy; in a floatplane, the fuselage isn't normally in water, while the fuselage of a flying boat enters the water at landing speeds and has to be able to survive it) have weight and drag penalties for the boat hull. That's really not good with a spacecraft where every pound counts and where it must be designed to survive re-entry. Furthermore, the thermal protection system would probably then have to be entirely replaced each flight. I don't think it's likely that you could have a design that a) has decent aerodynamic characteristics so it can perform a controlled landing, is suited for hypersonic flight (at re-entry) and can be controlled during that, c) has a thermal protection system that can handle the heat of re-entry, d) can simultaneously have descent rate and airspeed such that it doesn't immediately break apart on entering water, e) is able to handle the stresses of deceleration in open ocean (i.e. not calm water) *without* breaking up, f) is buoyant enough in water to stay afloat until it can be picked up (say, by one of those ships that can pick up other ships), and g) is able to do this without excessive corrosion. There are just too many compromises involved; the Shuttle already had poor glide characteristics due to the compromises involved with making a craft that can handle atmospheric re-entry and where saving weight is critical, and one result was that it had a very, very high landing speed (over 180 kts [i.e. 210 mph, 93 m/s]), far higher than just about any other aircraft (keep in mind that it needed a very long runway to land even with a drag chute).

The mass and landing speed is probably the biggest issue to deal with with trying to get it on a carrier: Atlantis, the lightest shuttle, weighed 170,000 lbs, which is some 15,000 pounds heavier than the MTOW of the C-130 (unless I'm mistaken, the heaviest kind of plane ever landed on a carrier); the C-130 landed on a carrier only landed at up to 130,000 lbs. And the C-130 didn't rely on the carrier's arresting gear, instead relying on its own (pretty incredible) short-field performance. A shuttle would rely heavily on the carrier to stop it, traveling at higher speeds than any carrier aircraft land at, weighing more than anything that's ever landed on a carrier.

[linkxsc]

IIRC, flying boats (not floatplanes; floatplanes have normal-looking fuselages and sit on separate floats that provide buoyancy, while flying boats have a boat-hulled fuselage to provide buoyancy; in a floatplane, the fuselage isn't normally in water, while the fuselage of a flying boat enters the water at landing speeds and has to be able to survive it) have weight and drag penalties for the boat hull. That's really not good with a spacecraft where every pound counts and where it must be designed to survive re-entry. Furthermore, the thermal protection system would probably then have to be entirely replaced each flight. I don't think it's likely that you could have a design that a) has decent aerodynamic characteristics so it can perform a controlled landing, is suited for hypersonic flight (at re-entry) and can be controlled during that, c) has a thermal protection system that can handle the heat of re-entry, d) can simultaneously have descent rate and airspeed such that it doesn't immediately break apart on entering water, e) is able to handle the stresses of deceleration in open ocean (i.e. not calm water) *without* breaking up, f) is buoyant enough in water to stay afloat until it can be picked up (say, by one of those ships that can pick up other ships), and g) is able to do this without excessive corrosion. There are just too many compromises involved; the Shuttle already had poor glide characteristics due to the compromises involved with making a craft that can handle atmospheric re-entry and where saving weight is critical, and one result was that it had a very, very high landing speed (over 180 kts [i.e. 210 mph, 93 m/s]), far higher than just about any other aircraft (keep in mind that it needed a very long runway to land even with a drag chute).

The mass and landing speed is probably the biggest issue to deal with with trying to get it on a carrier: Atlantis, the lightest shuttle, weighed 170,000 lbs, which is some 15,000 pounds heavier than the MTOW of the C-130 (unless I'm mistaken, the heaviest kind of plane ever landed on a carrier); the C-130 landed on a carrier only landed at up to 130,000 lbs. And the C-130 didn't rely on the carrier's arresting gear, instead relying on its own (pretty incredible) short-field performance. A shuttle would rely heavily on the carrier to stop it, traveling at higher speeds than any carrier aircraft land at, weighing more than anything that's ever landed on a carrier.

The whole floatplanes vs flying boats is really semantics and I'm pretty sure that most people understood the intent, since I pointed out the spruce goose, catalina PBY as examples, and nto a Cessna 172 with a floatkit on it.

But at the same time I do still have a bit of a point on them.

A, well we've already done controlled landing with craft of assorted shapes and sizes, I'm sure we can design 1 that would work.

B, Done that too, haven't landed 1 on water, but again, I'm sure we could manage it.

C, why can't the heat shield be built into the floating fuselage itself? If the craft lands at a moderately low speed it shouldn't be damaged much by the landing. It wouldn't be excessively more weight than the fuselage itself, just a slight bit more bulk and perhaps some floats that are extend out of the wings for stability on the water. Some weight is saved on traditional landing gear that needs to pop out of the heat shield, so the heat shield itself could almost be 1 large cast piece layered on (instead of individual tiles like the shuttle, or could be a throwaway piece like on the early capsules. Land it, tow the craft to a place to refit it for launch, snap a new heat shield on)

D, decent speed and airspeed isn't so damaging as you'd think, especially if they did a nice flare right before landing, and if landing on calm enough water the right shape hull would just skim across with help from residual lift to a landing while slowing to a nice stop, after all we've done jet boats that go at over 300mph last I checked. Remember, stress from this type of landing is spread across the hull much more evenly than traditional landing gear where its focused into 3 points. Who craft would have more internal structure probably, but less focused around a few points. (might work, might not) I'd assume they'd land with a heavy flare dropping the tail in the water first and dragging the rest of the craft down as the speed drops off.

E, that open ocean would be the biggest problem I can see honestly, and there's not a lot of large bodies of fresh water I'd be fine with shooting a landing on. Unless ofcourse the craft is a real spaceplane and can fly under its own power in the atmosphere for a length of time to get to suitably calm water (but why bother then when you can go for a suitable runway)

F, dunno about how buoyant the space shuttle would have been. After landing it could pop out a couple of inflatable floats until it can be collected?

G, corrosion on the ocean can generally be fought off with zincs on boats, but along as the thing doesn't sit in the water for extended times there shouldn't be too much problem. And even then, if we're talking a craft that uses a plastic ablative heat shield like the capsules of the 60s and 70s, who really cares if that corrodes cause well, its garbage now.

Well the shuttle had poor glide ability, but at the same time we're talking hypotheticals, the shuttle is also mostly late 70s tech, and we've got much better materials now that we couldn't work with before. To be a spaceplane, it would probably have atmospheric flight engines and wouldn't need to glide to a landing. Who knows though.

Onto the C-130. Yeah landing the thing on the Forrestal was kinda BS. Unassisted takeofs and landings, while only doing it on a carrier ~1000ft long. Though looking at videos I get the feeling they were very worried about the wing clipping the conning tower. Although there is always that operation credible sport idea.

Yep guys, so the specs of the aircraft say it needs about 1500ft to take off, and land normally. We want you to do it in ~350, twice. Then get back up and go land on a carrier that the plane isn't designed to land on either.

[mythic_fci]

It would be basically impossible with a STS orbiter and a modern standard Nimitz class carrier. Too much speed and weight on the shuttle, moving target, tiny landing strip compared to the KSC (Kennedy, not Kerbal), wings could clip the conning tower/other planes on deck... Yeah.

Now, let's say we make a new orbiter. This one has largely improved aerodynamics and weight due to the launch engines being located on the launcher and new composite materials. And, we build a huge carrier, with basically a kilometre of landing space. If there was room for a hook, parachutes and strengthened landing gear, with perhaps a Kerbal touch of SRMs on the wings to slow the thing down, it would maybe have a 5-10% chance. Basically, too much no to even try.

[GoSlash27]

Is it possible... yeah maybe, you might need to step away from a design like the previous shuttle into something with a better maneuverability. And something with an air-breathing engine to help it have more control would be nice.

You'd probably need a bigger carrier though, try for more than 4 layers of cables to hit, also the landing strip would be better if it were straight with the forward motion of the ship.

But by that point why bother landing on the carrier? Why not buildit so you have a floating hull and just land on the water like a floatplane (spruce goose, catalina PBY, other... floatplanes) Maybe even build in some ground effect aerodynamics to the craft (the russians did a bit with the concept, I think there was a low altitude "plane" for hauling cruise missiles)

Even better question: Why bother landing on the water at all? You're in orbit and can land anywhere you want. Makes more logistical sense to land back at base rather than in the middle of some ocean.

[Red Iron Crown]

Even better question: Why bother landing on the water at all? You're in orbit and can land anywhere you want. Makes more logistical sense to land back at base rather than in the middle of some ocean.

Because a maniac has a gun to the world's head. The OP acknowledges it's a terrible idea, it's just a thought exercise to imagine how the (many) problems with it might be solved.

[cantab]

If you're going to allow a bigger carrier, then you may as well keep it simple. Select a large iceberg, commission it into the Royal Navy as a carrier, and tow it to a suitable latitude for the Shuttle to land.

But that would seem like cheating.

Credible Sport style retro-boosters seem like the best chance. The hard bit would be mounting them in such a way that they don't compromise the Shuttle's re-entry.

[Tex_NL]

.... The hard bit would be mounting them in such a way that they don't compromise the Shuttle's re-entry.

Or rip the shuttle to shreds when you ignite them.

[linkxsc]

Because a maniac has a gun to the world's head. The OP acknowledges it's a terrible idea, it's just a thought exercise to imagine how the (many) problems with it might be solved.

What if we're trying to land on a planet with rougly earthlike characteristics however is covered mostly by water?

[Skyrunner27]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_mUwzpUs4

What about a barricade. The landing would be pretty hairy if it worked, and no doubt the shuttle would experience some damage.

[GoSlash27]

What if we're trying to land on a planet with rougly earthlike characteristics however is covered mostly by water?

If that's the case, a ginormous mega-carrier is a much more daunting task than simply landing a shuttle.

-Slashy

[linkxsc]

If that's the case, a ginormous mega-carrier is a much more daunting task than simply landing a shuttle.

-Slashy

Well that was part of my argument for a flying boat type spaceplane...

MAYBE its a ginormous mega-carrer spaceplane?????????

Jk, never gonna happen.

[No one]

Absolutely, you could. In fact, you could dial in a steeper approach and flare it out at the end for a nice gentle touchdown. Then all you need are some parachutes to help slow the shuttle.

If you do all that, I figure a carrier about the size of Vandenberg AFB oughtta do it.

Best,

-Slashy

Would building such a carrier be any more difficult than some of the other solutions proposed in this thread?

If you're going to allow a bigger carrier, then you may as well keep it simple. Select a large iceberg, commission it into the Royal Navy as a carrier, and tow it to a suitable latitude for the Shuttle to land.

But that would seem like cheating.

Credible Sport style retro-boosters seem like the best chance. The hard bit would be mounting them in such a way that they don't compromise the Shuttle's re-entry.

If we're allowed to commision things into carriers, couldn't we just say that a continent floats on lava and is thus a carrier? Of course, someone would then have to say to the lunatic holding a gun to the world head that we had followed their instructions while keeping a straight face, but technically depending on how you defy "carrier", it would work.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You could just fit a gaggle of parachutes and inflatable buoyancy aids to the shuttle. Or if you want a controlled carrier landing, make it one giant parachute, but a sport one instead of a military one, so you have a whole lot more wingspan and can control your glide.

[peadar1987]

Well that was part of my argument for a flying boat type spaceplane...

MAYBE its a ginormous mega-carrer spaceplane?????????

Jk, never gonna happen.

SSSTO: Single Stage Seaplane To Orbit

[Moar Boosters]

There's a way you could do it without modifying the shuttle at all, and very little modification to the aircraft carrier.

You fill the carrier's hanger bay with wood shavings, install some heavy duty refrigeration equipment and turn the carrier into floating pykrete factory, which could then manufacture a landing platform as big as you want.

[Guest]

Carrier landings are harrowing enough with a Superbug. For a spaceplane, it'd have to be very small, carry turbojets and be very, very sturdy. A ruggedized version of MAKS spaceplane (you know, the AN-225 launched Russian project) could have a shot at it. Maybe. With a big carrier, calm sea and a very, very good pilot. A set of retrorockets could assist the wire, as the landing speed would be crazy, too. And a Shuttle-like spaceplane? I don't see it. Buran-style... maybe, with a carrier twice as big as the ones currently in service. It'd have to be much, much sturdier than the actual Buran, though, and probably equipped with retros as well.

[Javster]

At that point, it would be safer to land in the sea...

But what if the carrier was going fast and away from the orbiter? I don't how fast your local aircraft carrier can go, but if you can get it to the stall speed of the orbiter, it should be easier to land.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Javster

[Red Iron Crown]

But what if the carrier was going fast and away from the orbiter? I don't how fast your local aircraft carrier can go, but if you can get it to the stall speed of the orbiter, it should be easier to land.

It's SOP for a carrier to go full speed into the wind when conducting flight ops. Modern carriers have a top speed around 35kts or about 65km/h (the overpowered Enterprise was capable of 45+ kts (over 80km/h) but it is sadly retired). With a good headwind this can reduce stall speed relative to the carrier by more than 100km/h.

[RocketscientistV]

Why use retro rockets?