Talk:Rotary Rocket

Untitled
I added a link to the article defining Specific Impulse and made a few minor grammatical corrections.

The page could use many more such corrections, but it would take more than a few minutes to sort it out. Readability is certainly an issue. (i.e. the last sentence "never considered seriously," would definitely be better if worded "never seriously considered."

"Whilst" is not an appropriate word to use unless you are from Britian, so the word "While" should be used instead throughout the document.


 * LOL. Yes, I wrote those, and me being British I'd appreciate it if people stop deleting my stuff thanks!WolfKeeper


 * "Whilst" is deprecated on both sides of the Atlantic. Even the word "while" is frequently misused where "though", "and", "when" and "but" are more appropriate. Hu 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I rewrote much of the article for easier readibility, and I added some new details, particularly on the Atmospheric Test Vehicle. I changed the organization of the article, and I hope these changes allow it to flow better.

-Willy Logan

Skepticism Response

The article tries to present the Roton SSTO as "almost making it".

A first-hand history of the project, "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus" by Elizabeth Weil, shows that Roton was a fantasy project from the beginning, with NO chance of making it.


 * Of course not, they didn't have any money. They needed $100 million, and they got about $10-20 million.WolfKeeper

The Rotary staff had very few engineers with real-world aerospace experience. The CHIEF aerodynamicist, apparently, was hired fresh out of undergraduate school, with no further industry experience. The Roton ATV itself was exceeding difficult, and possibly deadly, to fly.


 * It didn't actually kill anyone though did it? It did fly in a controlled way and it was developed with vanishingly small amounts of money for what it did. You have to compare that design with some of the other VTOL aircraft, and you have to consider that the ATV was really only intended for vertical landings, not flying around sideways, which is what the demonstrator did and where problems were found.WolfKeeper

If the ATV was deadly to fly, why should the prospective Orbital Roton be any different? And why would Rotary be comfortable with a design that was so unwieldy?


 * Which design was more unwieldy? The Shuttle or the Roton? I would argue the Shuttle; the only reason that works is because they throw tens of thousands of people at it.WolfKeeper


 * And the base engine design probably would have worked, it was lightweight, had very high chamber pressures and developed very good Isp.WolfKeeper

Fantasies like the Roton SSTO cause a great deal of confusion among the space-interested public because of the failed promise of cheap, reusable access to space.

Robert Pickar (rpickar@yahoo.com)


 * The big problem with reusable access is that it costs a lot to develop. Even the Shuttle was hobbled by the American government not paying for a fully reusable system. Those designs were on the drawing board, but the American government refused to pay for them. In my opinion such designs are the future, as in 20-30 years away, when the market has matured enough to afford them. The Roton was a valiant attempt, I know of no reason that the vehicle couldn't have been made to work. There do indeed seem to be potential problems with the aerodynamics of the landing system (e.g. settling in vortex ring state), but not all rotor vehicles suffer from that; there's nothing that is guaranteed not to work, and couldn't have been fixed with enough money.WolfKeeper

The bottom line here is that this is an encyclopedia; I don't think we should criticise the design based on whether it causes confusion among the public or not. That sounds dreadfully Orwellian. We simply need to stick to the facts. As I understand it, with Elizabeth Weil's book, the more you knew about the project, the less good you found the book.WolfKeeper


 * I've rewritten the section "Criticism of the Design" (again) in an attempt to make this more "balanced". I have divided the section into two paragraphs: the first on the evidence that Roton would have worked; the second, on that it wouldn't. In my opinion, this is the best way to approach this subject. But I understand the difficulty in approaching a topic like that I realize that their might be differing viewpoints on it. Willy Logan 15:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit concerned about accuracy; thrust isn't the issue it's Specific impulse or, rather more likely, mass fraction that would have been the limiting issue. Given the chamber pressure they were claiming, the Specific impulse seems quite plausible. The mass fraction is much harder to engineer, and lots of projects end up finding that their vehicle gets heavier over time. The Roton actually had back-up plans for boosters. Reaching orbit isn't likely to have been the problem- getting back down again safely looks much harder.WolfKeeper


 * It's weight growth that actually killed the Rotary Rocket. The thing needed something like 97% fuel mass to reach orbit as an SSTO with the proposed rotary engine.  (Don't have a cite for that; I went to a presentation by the CEO when he was seeking funding.)  So any weight growth meant it wouldn't work.  Switching to the NASA engine pushed the mass over the limit, so all they had was a suborbital demonstrator.   --John Nagle 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was more like 95% fuel mass in fact; at least that was the number in the public domain.WolfKeeper 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But I'm pretty sure that they switched to the NASA engine because they ran out of money, rather than for any technical issue.WolfKeeper 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True. But once they switched, they weren't building an orbital vehicle. They were building a suborbital demonstrator, with no satellite launch potential. --John Nagle 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, they were talking about being able to use strap-on boosters.WolfKeeper 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent conclusion
I must say, that last sentence, "The Rotary Rocket hangars still stand at the eastern end of the flight line, with the bright company logos gradually deteriorating in the high desert air." is near-poetic. Tmorrisey 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Move to Rotary Rocket?
Currently, Rotary Rocket redirects to this article, Roton SSTO. However, I feel that this article would be better placed at Rotary Rocket, since that term can refer to both the vehicle and the company that built it, whereas Roton SSTO refers only to the unrealized, unbuilt vehicle. Rotary Rocket existed (both in the form of the company and the Atmopsheric Test vehicle); the Roton SSTO did not. Any thoughts? Willy Logan 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * More than a week passed without any comments, so I decided it was safe to go ahead with the move. Willy Logan 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
I'm leaving this picture here, because the article at present doesn't have the space to accomodate it, although it may at some point in the future:
 * I've created a Commons gallery with these pictures. --Bricktop 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! I've added another of my pictures and may put up a few more when I get the chance. Willy Logan 19:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)



Composite tank
I think, in the Criticism of the design section, when you compare composite tanks of the Roton and X-33 vehicles, you have to say that X-33 program intended (and failed) to build a LH2 tank, which is indeed much harder to build than a LOX (or kerosine) tank for the Roton because of the much lower temperatures needed. --Bricktop 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The point with that paragraph is to show that Rotary Rocket demonstrated hardware period, while the government X-33 didn't. I believe this was originally a paraphrase of a remark made by Gary Hudson at Rotary Rocket's failure; I'll find a reference and cite it directly.


 * I will readily admit, however, that the "Criticism of the design" section is the weakest of the article: it "waffles" and it has more than its share of "weasel phrases". I would welcome any further discussion on how we might improve it. Willy Logan 15:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (Actually, the above comment was made by Jim Ransom, a Rotary Rocket consultant.) Willy Logan 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Update
I've updated the text slightly with current information on the status of the Roton ATV and more detail on the failed move. (FWIW...the vehicle is in a sad state. It sits outside of my hangar gathering dust...a windstorm has ripped off the cockpit door, shattering the plexi. The local museum is working with the airport admin, though, to get it read to take the place of the F-4 that's currently on static display) Akradecki 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cooper-Harper Rating
The text says pilots rated the flying qualities of the vehicle as a "10" without any further elaboration. I have to assume that's a Cooper-Harper rating (where 10 is extremely bad). I notice there's no Wikipedia article on C-H ratings, either. If someone can confirm that the 10 referenced in the article is a Cooper-Harper handling qualities rating, I'll flesh out that part a bit... -YorkBW 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "10" does indeed refer to the Cooper-Harper rating. This is refered to in the A&S article, and I've also chatted with Brian Binnie about it.Akradecki 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got a first stab of the article on the scale up now at Cooper-Harper rating scale Akradecki 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great job on the article. Thanks for taking the initiative; I'd only got as far as rummaging about for my scan of the flowchart! -YorkBW

Rating
This article has plenty of interesting information, but it needs some more continuity, and perhaps some more illustrations, so I have given it a "B" rating. The subject is important as 1) the tallest rotor vehicle, and 2) a failed space program that actually produced hardware, so I have given it "Mid" importance rating. Willy Logan 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
I don't know who copied from who, but the introduction in this article is nearly identical to the text of this CNN caption over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersFeder (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK. The CNN article seems to have been written in 2008, well after the article. They're allowed to copy us, but they're supposed to attribute it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk)


 * Agreed. The date on the CNN article is 12 Sep 2008, and the text in question was present on wikipedia before then, for example here (one could also look at whether the wikipedia text was biult up gradually or in one copy-paste but there doesn't seem to be any need for detailed analysis in this case). Kingdon (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rotary Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040612024546/http://space.com:80/missionlaunches/launches/roton_thirdflight.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/roton_thirdflight.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Rotary Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130301220539/http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:// to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rotary Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908125423/http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/rotary_specs.shtml to http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/rotary_specs.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040415105312/http://space.com/astronotes/astronotes_may4-may17_03.html to http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes_may4-may17_03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908125423/http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/rotary_specs.shtml to http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/rotary_specs.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212115549/http://www.mojave.ca.us/museum/photos-rotaryrocket-rollout-1.htm to http://www.mojave.ca.us/museum/photos-rotaryrocket-rollout-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)