The Space Plane Corporation

PhotonBytes · 2025-01-13 06:21:22

space-plane.org

Updates to our progress:
https://photonbytes.com/2025/01/13/how- … rporation/
https://photonbytes.com/2024/12/20/the- … simulated/

Our 250 metric ton lifting hull and shock rider design uses a combine cycle air breathing rocket. Our recent simulation break though yielded 17 metric tons of useful payload to orbit. It the Isp numbers were based on two white papers, one attached in the link here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16jeWe2 … sp=sharing

Another idea of mine unrelated to the above is building a lighter than air structure, that is a sky scraper filled with lighter than air gas (not hydrogen). That can be used as a space-gun to launch objects to escape velocity:

https://photonbytes.com/2023/05/10/ligh … km-height/
DALL%C2%B7E-2024-01-17-07.17.13-A-vertical-30km-tall-cylindrical-building-with-a-2.5km-radius-constructed-from-lightweight-materials-and-filled-with-lighter-than-air-gas.-The-build-171x300.png

tahanson43206 · 2025-01-13 08:37:54

This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.

The animation produced by this company inspires the hope that the vision may become reality in the Real Universe.

I am looking for Real Universe achievements to be reported in this topic.

Ma Nature will pass judgement on the validity of the concepts in play.

Best wishes for success in turning vision into reality.

(th)

PhotonBytes · 2025-01-22 00:46:28

Recent Update:
Latest Simulation shows more like 5-10 tons to LEO because we need the deorbit burn to return to Earth.

https://photonbytes.com/2025/01/22/500k … rporation/

Last edited by PhotonBytes (2025-01-22 00:47:06)

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-19 12:30:31

We now have 3 ways to take off with our spaceplane:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AepgmNZDw/
1. Standard
2. Refueling truck chase down the runway (personally I think this one is a joke, might as well do the catapult thing like on carriers but on a runway but what do I know? Obviously I didn't come up with this option but I ran the numbers for it anyways.)
3. AN-225 Air Drop from 36,000 ft at Mach 0.8

Each with increasing useful payload capacity as you go down the list from 7, 12 to 19 tons of useful payload.

Last edited by PhotonBytes (2025-07-19 12:31:11)

RGClark · 2025-07-24 11:37:49

I do think a combined-cycle airbreathing+rocket vehicle can work as an SSTO, however there is a key gap in your argument. Looking at the article you cite:

Binbin Lin, Hongliang Pan*, Lei Shi and Jinying Ye
Effect of Primary Rocket Jet on Thermodynamic
Cycle of RBCC in Ejector Mode
Int J Turbo Jet Eng 2017; aop
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16jeWe2 … hP__9/view

it requires scramjet propulsion. But no one has gotten a scramjet to work for more than a few seconds of positive net thrust.

Perhaps you should aim first for ramjet only needed for the upper limits of the airbreathing part of the flight to ca. Mach 5 to 6.

This is the approach aimed for by Skylon. Skylon has been reborn by the way:

INVICTUS: Europe’s Advanced Hypersonic Test Platform by ESA/Frazer-Nash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwMHvsNCmQE

I am inviting contributions to my LinkedIn group on SSTO here:

SSTO - Single Stage to Orbit.
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13205030/

Bob Clark

Calliban · 2025-07-24 15:27:42

The work done by GW Johnson has shown that at altitudes higher than 100,000' and speed greater than Mach 6, air breathing engines become ineffective. The density of the air is too low to produce much thrust at any achievable compression ratio. And shock heating becomes more of a problem the faster the vehicle travels.

This suggests to me that a space plane would work better as the lower part of a TSTO. Imagine a plane that can carry an upper stage within a payload bay, which is released at 100,000'. That altitute is only one tenth what is required for a stable orbit and velocity is only about 30% of orbital velocity. But the relative velocity means that the upper stage engines have high propulsive efficiency and the vacuum at 100,000' allows efficient expansion. So the upper stage should reach orbit with a good mass ratio, which is more conducive to reusability.

tahanson43206 · 2025-07-25 10:04:22

For PhotonBytes ...

Your vision of a space plane remains of interest to members of this forum. It was initially presented as a Blender drawing.

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 46#p205246

You have reported progress in development of plans for the idea to move from vision to reality.

It's not clear (to me for sure) if you and your collaborators are making progress.

The vehicle you showed us would appear to have potential as the third stage of a traditional rocket.

Your writings seem to suggest you and your collaborators are thinking of trying to fly SSTO.

Are you interested in having your ideas reviewed in the context of the education program GW Johnson is currently developing?

Do you already have someone reviewing your ideas?

(th)

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-26 07:40:10

The core vision is SSTO. That is a total of 9 tons of deliverables to orbit: 1 ton of people, 3 tons of deorbit fuel and 5 tons of useful payload to orbit. TSTO ideas are thought experiments to boost our payload beyond 5 tons and are secondary to SSTO which is our core objective. We wouldn't even entertain the idea of 3rd stage. Most we would concede is a suborbital vehicle if our numbers fall short. But we're not there yet so SSTO is still our primary objective.

Have a look in our files section of our website for reference material about the latest research by NASA and China for burns beyond mach 6 and 100,000ft. We are currently doing 2D CFD engine analysis and could use some help to confirm our design capabilities

Files:
http://space-plane.org/files.htm
Videos :
https://www.facebook.com/share/1AetL2Y59C/

Help wanted:

1. Combustion Specialist

We are currently looking for a combustion specialist with expertise in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to run internal flow simulations and assist us with our rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) engine design.

2. Control Expert

We need a control specialist to fix phugoid (pitch) oscillations. You can see this in some of the older Facebook videos when the space plane is not simply fixed to 11 deg pitch.This is a very common problem and we need a control expert to fix this. There might be significant propellant saving in doing so, this will again boost useful payload beyond 5 tons without the need to resort to TSTO.

Last edited by PhotonBytes (2025-07-26 09:36:28)

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-27 07:14:41

This is the file to read on the very first tab there are
White paper references for beyond mach 6 and 100,000ft
http://space-plane.org/files.htm
2024.02.01 - Specific impulse and thrust for Mach numbers from 0.3 to 25. Array export to binary file via VBA macro: XLS - 89 kB.

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-27 08:32:42

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15emv9oTFG/
Video commentary on 2D CFD simulation currently underway.

Last edited by PhotonBytes (2025-07-27 08:42:15)

SpaceNut · 2025-07-27 14:29:12

For scramjet propulsion (Mach 6 to 10)
Air-Breathing Engines: Scramjet engines are a type of jet engine that utilizes atmospheric oxygen as an oxidizer for combustion, unlike rockets that carry their own oxygen supply.
Efficiency: This feature makes scramjets potentially more efficient for hypersonic flight within the atmosphere, as they don't need to carry the extra weight of an onboard oxidizer tank.
Altitude Limit: The reliance on atmospheric oxygen limits scramjet operations to altitudes where sufficient oxygen exists to sustain combustion.
Challenges at High Altitudes: While scramjets are highly efficient at high Mach numbers, the density of atmospheric oxygen decreases with altitude, which will eventually limit their operational ceiling. The maximum operational altitude for scramjets will depend on various factors like engine design, fuel type, and desired performance characteristics

So from the altitude at mach 6 to orbit we must have a source that is stored onboard to achieve the mach 10. That is the amount of time to achieve for a given thrust and burn rate of onboard fuel that remains from the climb to altitude which used the earths atmosphere.

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-28 05:25:24

Yes there is liquid hydrogen as well as liquid oxygen stored. After scramjet we switch to air breathing rocket mode then finally rocket mode. On take off we do the reverse:

1. Rocket (Uses onboard LOX)
2. Air breathing rocket(ejector rockets)
3. Scramjet

Rocket based Combined Cycle
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/842/

Check out this video and check out the in video telemetry (also in spreadsheet link) and the column for total mass.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16jZdBBdDx/

That number will drop from 250 to roughly 85 tons by burning mostly liquid oxygen and some hydrogen. Most of the weight about 165 tons is the former since it's heavier atomically. Whatever remains in orbit minus 1-3 tons of deorbit fuel mass and 1 ton of crew and passengers and the agreed upon weight of the chassis(updated now to 70 instead of 75 tons) is useful payload. Basically anything above 72-74 tons. The later being more conservative as it will be harder and take longer to deorbit with just 1 ton of fuel remaining.

SpaceNut wrote:

For scramjet propulsion (Mach 6 to 10)
Air-Breathing Engines: Scramjet engines are a type of jet engine that utilizes atmospheric oxygen as an oxidizer for combustion, unlike rockets that carry their own oxygen supply.
Efficiency: This feature makes scramjets potentially more efficient for hypersonic flight within the atmosphere, as they don't need to carry the extra weight of an onboard oxidizer tank.
Altitude Limit: The reliance on atmospheric oxygen limits scramjet operations to altitudes where sufficient oxygen exists to sustain combustion.
Challenges at High Altitudes: While scramjets are highly efficient at high Mach numbers, the density of atmospheric oxygen decreases with altitude, which will eventually limit their operational ceiling. The maximum operational altitude for scramjets will depend on various factors like engine design, fuel type, and desired performance characteristics
So from the altitude at mach 6 to orbit we must have a source that is stored onboard to achieve the mach 10. That is the amount of time to achieve for a given thrust and burn rate of onboard fuel that remains from the climb to altitude which used the earths atmosphere.

Last edited by PhotonBytes (2025-07-28 09:19:40)

GW Johnson · 2025-07-28 09:57:20

It sounds like you are talking about a combined-cycle ramjet-rocket design of some sort. Don't confuse ramjet with scramjet. Only the external compression and capture features of the inlet are the same. Everything about scramjet downstream of capture is geometrically incompatible with ramjet. Your outfit might want to talk to an old retired guy like me. I did a lot of rocket and ramjet work, some air turborocket work, even a tad of pulse detonation work. I also designed high speed vehicles, and did hypersonic heat transfer. I might be of some help as a consultant.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-07-28 09:57:49)

PhotonBytes · 2025-07-28 19:41:53

Update on scramjet tech:
We do not plan to run a traditional scramjet, but instead add fuel (H2) rich exhaust from the ejectors to incoming supersonic air that will further combust and augment thrust. This fuel rich ejector exhaust should also make the overall combustion process more stable, since it is pre-burned.

GW Johnson · Yesterday 09:14:16

Photonbytes:

I do not yet understand what this "airbreathing rocket" is, or your overall propulsion concept. But I gather from your postings that its performance is based on CFD predictions.

I am aware that CFD can do marvelous things these days, but also that it still can only predict from the models built into it. Combustion is not yet fully modeled by anybody, except by "assuming the answer", that being a burn based on mixture in the cell. So the CFD predictions can still be way wrong! The gold standard for CFD propulsion models is still actual test with physical hardware.

I'm no expert in CFD codes, but I do know about that circular logic fallacy when it comes to combustion models. Too many people blindly trust the computer these days, when they really need to be open-minded skeptics. It works pretty good for external aerodynamics, even at entry conditions. Not so well regarding combustion, especially at extreme conditions.

As I said in the other post, I'm an old retired guy, but still able to do a bit of consulting. I started out in the slide rule days. I did rockets, ramjet, air turborocket, pulse detonation, and some other things, plus vehicle aerodynamics and flight dynamics, heat transfer (even hypersonic), some stress-strain, and a whole lot of other things, too.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (Yesterday 09:18:55)

Calliban · Today 02:12:26

The latest results from Venus Aerospace.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/07/h … lanes.html

Impressive technology. It is described as a ramjet engine, that uses a rocket to achieve an intial subsonic boost. As airspeed increases into the Mach range, it transitions into a detonation engine. At high Mach speeds, the velocity of incoming air will exceed the velocity of shockwaves travelling through air. So detonations can provide useful thrust, as they can only travel backwards through the combustion chamber. It isn't clear to me whether this is pulsed power or not. Detonation requires premixed fuel air mixtures. But if the incoming air is already hot, then combustion will naturally occur as increased speed. But it cannot occur more rapidly than the rate of mixing. Hydrogen is the natural fuel for such a detonation engine, because its high molecular speed allows for very rapid diffusion of fuel molecules into air. It also supports a very high flame speed for the same reason. Lighter molecules travel faster.

Vibration from these engines may be a stumbling block. Detonation results in higher peak chamber pressures. If it is pulsed, then vibration will severely shake the airframe. Also, at Mach 10, the temperature and force acting on the compression inlet nozzles will be extreme. This clearly isn't something that could make it all of the way to orbit in a single stage. But it would be a very effective lower stage. If it can exit the sensible atmosphere on a suborbital trajectory, then a second stage could be released from a paload bay. If material and structural problems are sumountable.

Dissociation is not an easy problem to solve. It happens when energetic molecules at the high end of the boltzmann tail break apart, usually into oppositely charged components. There is a work function associated with dissociation, because it pulls apart counter electrically charged species. You don't get the energy back without cooling the combustion products, which allows them to recombine. That only occurs after the exhaust exits the engine. Dissociation robs energy from the system. But it does also reduce exhaust molecular weight. But not enough to be useful.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 02:29:36)

PhotonBytes · Today 09:22:56

Some papers you might want to consider:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 611160068X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.017
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2015-3610

And this Rocketdyne video:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19wJ76GqXk/

Everything we do is experimental, and CFD is a start. A lot of advancements have occurred in the last 2 decades in computing power (GPU) and CFD.

GW Johnson wrote:

Photonbytes:
I do not yet understand what this "airbreathing rocket" is, or your overall propulsion concept. But I gather from your postings that its performance is based on CFD predictions.
I am aware that CFD can do marvelous things these days, but also that it still can only predict from the models built into it. Combustion is not yet fully modeled by anybody, except by "assuming the answer", that being a burn based on mixture in the cell. So the CFD predictions can still be way wrong! The gold standard for CFD propulsion models is still actual test with physical hardware.
I'm no expert in CFD codes, but I do know about that circular logic fallacy when it comes to combustion models. Too many people blindly trust the computer these days, when they really need to be open-minded skeptics. It works pretty good for external aerodynamics, even at entry conditions. Not so well regarding combustion, especially at extreme conditions.
As I said in the other post, I'm an old retired guy, but still able to do a bit of consulting. I started out in the slide rule days. I did rockets, ramjet, air turborocket, pulse detonation, and some other things, plus vehicle aerodynamics and flight dynamics, heat transfer (even hypersonic), some stress-strain, and a whole lot of other things, too.
GW

Last edited by PhotonBytes (Today 09:36:56)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2025-01-13 06:21:22

The Space Plane Corporation

#2 2025-01-13 08:37:54

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#3 2025-01-22 00:46:28

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#4 2025-07-19 12:30:31

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#5 2025-07-24 11:37:49

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#6 2025-07-24 15:27:42

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#7 2025-07-25 10:04:22

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#8 2025-07-26 07:40:10

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#9 2025-07-27 07:14:41

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#10 2025-07-27 08:32:42

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#11 2025-07-27 14:29:12

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#12 2025-07-28 05:25:24

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#13 2025-07-28 09:57:20

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#14 2025-07-28 19:41:53

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#15 Yesterday 09:14:16

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#16 Today 02:12:26

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

#17 Today 09:22:56

Re: The Space Plane Corporation

Board footer