Capsule is 60s design,Spaceplane is modern? WHAT??

dobbins · Dec 4, 2005

So who was it at NASA that invented the wheel in the 1970s?

najab · Dec 4, 2005

>The original idea of lifting bodies was conceived about 1957...But we know this statement is false - lifting bodies were around since the 1930s. A more accurate statement might be "Lifting bodies were first applied to a spacecraft design about 1957..." - even then, that's a stretch.

gunsandrockets · Dec 4, 2005

"But we know this statement is false - lifting bodies were around since the 1930s. A more accurate statement might be "Lifting bodies were first applied to a spacecraft design about 1957..." - even then, that's a stretch. " Take it up with NASA. They clearly claim the lifting body spacecraft originated from research into blunt-asymetric-reentry-vehicles. And I don't see how a pseudo-flying wing airplane has any connection to that. Have you looked at a Burnelli? http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm

spacester · Dec 4, 2005

If I may interject briefly: It seems to come down to the difference between a "Lifting Body" and a "Flying Wing" - the 1937 Jacobs and Sherman report looks like more along the lines of a flying wing to me. Are there 1930's references in the thread to lifting bodies? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gunsandrockets · Dec 4, 2005

"Are there 1930's references in the thread to lifting bodies?" Not really. Not if you are looking for wingless vehicles. The thing is Vincent Burnelli promoted his proto-flying-wing aircraft design by describing the fuselage as a 'lifting body'. http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm For some reason Dobbins has latched onto that and tried to claim that the blunt body wingless orbital vehicle concept created by NASA originated with Burnelli instead. The only connection I can find between the spacecraft and the airplane is the term 'lifting body'. Go figure.

dobbins · Dec 4, 2005

Despite efforts to deny reality the Silver Bird was a lifting body spaceship design from the 1930s. It's skip principle relied on it being a lifting body. There is a picture of the wind tunnel test model at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverbird and it clearly is NOT a flying wing.

dobbins · Dec 4, 2005

Still waiting to hear which NASA engineer invented the wheel in the 1970s by putting one on a spaceship. It couldn't possibly have any relationship to things that looked like wheels and were called wheels on non-space designs.

najab · Dec 4, 2005

It all comes down to what you mean when you say 'lifting body' - for me it's any aerospace vehicle which derives most of its lift from the shape of its main body, rather than its wings.

gunsandrockets · Dec 4, 2005

"Despite efforts to deny reality the Silver Bird was a lifting body spaceship design from the 1930s. It's skip principle relied on it being a lifting body. There is a picture of the wind tunnel test model at..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverbird Sigh. If the silverbird is a lifting body than so is an F-104 Starfighter. In fact the silverbird looks to have proportionally larger wings than an F-104. http://music.jnu.edu.cn/air-net/WM-PIC/U-F/F-104/F-104(Y).jpg Hint -- lifting bodies don't have wings!

gunsandrockets · Dec 4, 2005

"It all comes down to what you mean when you say 'lifting body' - for me it's any aerospace vehicle which derives most of its lift from the shape of its main body, rather than its wings. " So if a winged vehicle derives 49% of it's lift from it's wings and 51% from it's fuselage, it's a lifting body? Even if that's the definition you want to use, the wingless blunt reentry vehicles that NASA invented are something different and original.

dobbins · Dec 4, 2005

The lifting body is an aircraft configuration where the body itself produces lift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

n_kitson · Dec 4, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It all comes down to what you mean when you say 'lifting body' <hr /></blockquote> Did some quick research and every definition defines a lifting body along the lines of this: "An aircraft or a spacecraft that has no wings and gains lift by the action of aerodynamic forces on its body." Burnelli's craft used PRINCIPLES of a lifting body, but it wasn't a lifting body according to the definition.

n_kitson · Dec 4, 2005

Since you consider Wiki an acceptable source, from your own link, they have this to say: Aerospace related lifting body research arose from the idea of spacecraft re-entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing much like a regular aircraft. The traditional capsule-like spacecraft had very little control over where they landed once they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere. A steerable spacecraft with wings could significantly extend the landing envelope. Wings would have to be built that could withstand stresses and temperatures at hypersonic speeds. A proposed answer was to eliminate wings altogether: design the body itself to produce lift. The Space Shuttle contains some of the lifting body principles, although it relies more on the delta wing concept.

CalliArcale · Dec 5, 2005

So, have we beat this dead horse sufficiently? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Can we get back to the topic? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

soccerguy789 · Dec 7, 2005

I really like spaceplanes. but you have to love that R.O.M.B.U.S Design. It's just like a Battletech dropship. actually, if it can lift that much cargo and is reusable, I don't care what it is. I dont even think the spaceplane advocates would have a problem with it, I mean, i lands on a selected pad, and reuses everything, save a rew tanks, so whats not to like? nice for heavy lifting.

holmec · Dec 8, 2005

Very nice. I remember some of these, in National Geographic magazine. Yeah space plane is not modern neither is a capsule. I guess the oldest idea is going to the moon in a bullet (Jules Verne: Fromt The Earth To The Moon). Wings are just a romantic idea and happen to work in our atmosphere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

dobbins · Dec 8, 2005

"Yeah space plane is not modern neither is a capsule. I guess the oldest idea is going to the moon in a bullet (Jules Verne: Fromt The Earth To The Moon)." No the oldest is on a waterspout. Lucian of Samosata wrote a story of travelers who were transported to the Moon by a giant waterspout in the second century CE. It includes the first space war, one between the king of the Moon and the king of the Sun over the right to colonize Jupiter.

wdobner · Dec 9, 2005

First we argue that capsules should be picked because they're the 'technologically mature' choice, now we argue that they should be selected because they're the newest choice? If this were a political campaign I do believe somebody would have bandied about the phrase "flip flopper" by now. C'mon guys, you capsule proponents don't neccesarily have to match every argument made by a spaceplane proponent with a vague assertion which although technically correct misses the thrust of the argument. Like it really matters that some Texan had the idea that an aircraft might be safer if the fuselage produced lift. I am not an aerodynamicist and would love to hear the opinions of one on the matter, but just because the Silverbird has a slightly flattened fuselage I don't think that qualifies as "lifting body" in the manner most (regardless of their standing in the current debate) would accept. Besides, when it comes time to send a great many people or large quantities of cargo into space, such as in support of a colony on the moon we're probably going to look to reduce our costs by the largest factor possible. While a spaceplane may not be great for getting beyond LEO what with the 'heavy' wings it's likely unrivaled for opening up cheap, frequent access to LEO with a minimum amount of ancillary infrastructure. You take off from a runway with a LOX or hydrogen plant, and land right back at that runway if possible. No need for massive launch infrastructure, a minimum of wasted material, and nobody has to run around the ocean or a desert looking for you once you're back on earth. Right now it's just a matter of investing the money to overcome the techological barriers standing between us and truely low cost access to LEO. Commercial spaceflight companies will never have the money which NASA has to invest in R&D programs to bring about these next generation spaceflight systems. So yeah, build your little toy spacecraft, have a ball going to the mo

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

While we are at it lets make airplanes that have the same shape as ships!! If a ship's shape is the best way to move around on the oceans then it just has to be the best way to fly around in the skys!! That is basically the same argument as the one spaceplane fans are advocating. HTOL SSTO is utterly impossible with current technology or anything that can be developed in the foreseeable future. Tossing money at it will not make it magically happen. Complexity increases costs. It increases development costs, it increases operational costs, and it increases servicing costs for a reusable vehicle. Making the system more complex is NOT going to result in CATS no matter how much you wish it were otherwise and space planes are more complex than capsules. No RLV will or can be economically viable without a high flight rate, and the more complex you make that RLV the higher a flight rate you have to have to make it viable and HTOL SSTO space planes are about as complex as you can get. Nothing is going to change those realities. You can dismiss real space exploration as "flags and footprints" until the cows come home, but that won't change the fact that it is real and it can be done, which is something that can't be said for all these fantasy day dreams of science fiction spaceplanes taking off and landing at nearby airports.

Swampcat · Dec 9, 2005

This post isn't specifically directed at you, John, but your words concerning "science fiction spaceplanes" struck a chord. Just my opinion, but I agree that the day will come when an aerospaceplane, operated within existing air transportation iinfrastructure, is the norm for ground-to-orbit transportation. Anyone who thinks that capsules will be the future of ground-to-space transportation is, IMO, shortsighted. Having said that, I have no problem with Apollo 2.0. Yes, it's a bit of a diversion from my expectations of future vehicles, but it gets the job done in a timely and cost-effective manner, all things considered. That's important for a taxpayer funded program. It's also a logical extension of what worked to get us to the Moon in the first place. Yeah, it's a capsule and it superficially resembles the old Apollo design, but it's not the same. It's bigger and takes advantage of advances in technology. As far as the fulfillment of my expectations...that's where the private sector comes in. From what I'm reading, at least the Administrator of NASA seems to understand that encouraging the private sector is a good thing and helps the overall effort. Steps are being taken as we write to provide incentives for private enterprise to provide NASA with transportation and infrastructure services. With any luck, a private group will develop a working aerospaceplane and NASA will use it instead of relying on the CEV/CLV. It's all good <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

The physics of space flight haven't changed since Tsiolkovsky published the rocket equation in 1903. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocketEquation.html That equation makes a HTOL SSTO a very daunting task.

Swampcat · Dec 9, 2005

"That equation makes a HTOL SSTO a very daunting task." I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd point out that I said nothing about SSTO and "very daunting" doesn't mean breaking any laws of physics. There was a time when airplanes were considered "very daunting."<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

wdobner · Dec 9, 2005

While we are at it lets make airplanes that have the same shape as ships!! If a ship's shape is the best way to move around on the oceans then it just has to be the best way to fly around in the skys!! Last time I checked many amphibious planes were built with boat-hull shapes, despite their being less than ideal for aerodynamics. If you take early air travel as a metaphor for our current state of spaceflight then a capsule is pretty much the wright brother's Flyer, requiring fixed infrastructure to get off the ground. An SSTO or winged crew capsule is like the early seaplanes, sacrificing a bit of mission performance for a better recovery system. I would argue that the vehicle which would be analogous to our modern airliners would be a vehicle powered by a non-chemical rocket, equipped for long duration interplanetary flights with large payloads and having no features for atmospheric flight, perhaps outside a heat shield for aerobraking. Of course as with the development of air travel we had to invest a massive amount of airport infrastructure before we could get 707 or even Constellations to most places in the globe, and by the same token such a vehicle as I've described above, which may well be the DC-3 or Model 247 of spaceflight, would likely have to await a space elevator. Once developed, since at this point we're still at the stage of not overcoming the hull suction which water creates on a Seaplane hull, I am confident the lower cost of an SSTO or TSTO will begin to revolutionize spaceflight. They may be made obsolete in 50 or so years when somebody finally makes a space elevator, but going 50 years while throwing everything away and continuing to be locked to the Wright Flyer of spaceflight is surely more expensive. HTOL SSTO is utterly impossible with current technology or anything that can be developed in the foreseeable future. Tossing money at it will not make it magically happen. That's patently

mlorrey · Dec 9, 2005

Dobbins is right, but only if you accept some assumptions that are not necessarily so, namely: a) "hydrogen is the best fuel" It isn't, not by a long shot, its poor density inflates the weight of tankage and TPS (al la the dinosaur area rule) along with aerodynamic losses. High density fuels not only reduce aerodynamic losses and overall size and dry mass of vehicles, if they are noncryogenic they can be stored within the wings that Dobbins hates so much, just as aircraft keep much of their fuel in their wings. I'm generally not a fan of wings in launchers, but given the right fuels, they are not necessarily a detriment. Using them with a hydrogen fuelled vehicle is patently stupid. b) "cheap to build tanks should be reused and recovered with expensive TPS". The STS ET costs $650,000 to build (in the SLWT configuration, according to NASA/Lockheed studies) depending on production quantities. As the STS TPS takes 19,000 man hours to service each flight, expect to double that for any TPS that will cover a RLV LH2/LOX tankage the size of the STS ET. Why waste so much time and money recovering something so that is so cheap to build? Why spend so much money protecting something so cheap? The engines and avionics are important to recover. Manned capsules are important to recover. Tankage is not. SpaceX is proving the claims against RLV wrong. The first stage of the Falcon 1, 5, and 9 are all recoverable, while at the same time having the highest mass fractions of any launcher, and the manned upper stage for the 5 that will be launched in 2010 will be recoverable from orbit. A fully reusable TSTO is one step short of SSTO. Lets see what happens on Dec 20th. Nor do I necessarily have a problem with capsules. They are rugged, and have a proven track record of reliability, and if there is one thing that will make space travel common is reliability and ruggedness. Frankly I'd rather land by big parachutes at a few mph than at 200 mph on

najab · Dec 10, 2005

>The STS ET costs $650,000 to build...Hey, did anyone see where those zeroes disappeared to? Last time I checked the ET cost a few million to build.

Capsule is 60s design,Spaceplane is modern? WHAT??

dobbins

Guest

najab

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

spacester

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

dobbins

Guest

dobbins

Guest

najab

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

dobbins

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

soccerguy789

Guest

holmec

Guest

dobbins

Guest

wdobner

Guest

dobbins

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

dobbins

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

wdobner

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page