- Status
Amazing what kinda of monster can be created when you mention these words in any order "Lifting bodies, I, like," <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
<font color="yellow">"...one is marked "Active Thermal Control" and the other is "multi-fluid evaporative system..."</font><br /><br />The shuttle also has several different thermal control systems. The flash evaporator, water spray boiler, freon coolant loop, plus the cargo bay heat exchanger (obviously N/A here). Likely one is used only during launch and re-entry and the other is part of the ECLSS.
<font color="yellow">Amazing what kinda of monster can be created when you mention these words in any order "Lifting bodies, I, like," </font><br /><br />lifting bodies are the only choice for reliable, safe and cheap access to orbit and heavy lift. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
lol, no spacefire, you probablly mean it the other way around. Lifting Bodies are a reliable, safe, and cheap(as in reusable) choice to bringing down cargo and humans from orbit.
can you lift 50,000lbs in a fully reusable capsule/rocket combination? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Spacefire, I think they are saying you can't claim "they are the only" and then add "Safe and Reliable" etc....in turn claiming capsuals etc. are not safe and reliable.<br /><br />I know you didn't mean that, but that's how they read it.<br /><br />Your argument is about heavy lift payload capabilities?
Can you lift 50,000lbs in a fully resusable, lifting body craft? Lockheed-Martin and NASA have a billion dollar debt that says you can't.
<font color="yellow">Spacefire, I think they are saying you can't claim "they are the only" and then add "Safe and Reliable" etc....in turn claiming capsuals etc. are not safe and reliable. <br /><br />I know you didn't mean that, but that's how they read it. <br /><br />Your argument is about heavy lift payload capabilities? <br /><br /></font><br /><br />safe and affordable-for both manned operations and heavy payloads. <br />If you disagree, please offer an alternative: Shuttle-proven unreliable, unsafe, expensive.<br />Soyuz-limited payload<br />delta IV heavy-like any expendable launcher, it will be expensive.<br />Falcon V-maybe it will be cheaper than using a two stage or single stage lifting body configuration, but safer??? we don't know yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">Spacefire, I think they are saying you can't claim "they are the only" and then add "Safe and Reliable" etc....in turn claiming capsuals etc. are not safe and reliable. <br /><br />I know you didn't mean that, but that's how they read it. <br /><br />Your argument is about heavy lift payload capabilities? <br /><br /></font><br /><br />safe and affordable-for both manned operations and heavy payloads. <br />If you disagree, please offer an alternative: Shuttle-proven unreliable, unsafe, expensive.<br />Soyuz-limited payload<br />delta IV heavy-like any expendable launcher, it will be expensive.<br />Falcon V-maybe it will be cheaper than using a two stage or single stage lifting body configuration, but safer??? we don't know yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">Spacefire, I think they are saying you can't claim "they are the only" and then add "Safe and Reliable" etc....in turn claiming capsuals etc. are not safe and reliable. <br /><br />I know you didn't mean that, but that's how they read it. <br /><br />Your argument is about heavy lift payload capabilities? <br /><br /></font><br /><br />safe and affordable-for both manned operations and heavy payloads. <br />If you disagree, please offer an alternative: Shuttle-proven unreliable, unsafe, expensive.<br />Soyuz-limited payload<br />delta IV heavy-like any expendable launcher, it will be expensive.<br />Falcon V-maybe it will be cheaper than using a two stage or single stage lifting body configuration, but safer??? we don't know yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
spacefire -- pretty please let's not submit the same reply three times again. Thanks much.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Shuttle-proven unreliable, unsafe, expensive. <br />Soyuz-limited payload"</font><br /><br />So you're making a definitive statement about a class of vehicle that has had *no* production models built -- or even reasonably functional developmental models against two existing spacecraft built for specific purposes. You're then further generalizing those two existing craft into being representative of the class as a whole. For the Soyuz in particular, this is ridiculous, as a capsule can be made much larger than it is and your only argument here against it is limited payload.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"delta IV heavy-like any expendable launcher, it will be expensive. <br />Falcon V-maybe it will be cheaper than using a two stage or single stage lifting body configuration, but safer??? we don't know yet. "</font><br /><br />You might be unaware of this, but the Delta-II and Falcon-V are boosters, not re-entry vehicles. A lifting body is a type of re-entry vehicle -- there is no 'launch methodology' implicit in that term. Your argument is akin to making a statement that "poodles are the best dogs in the world", and then backing that up by saying that goldfish and turtles aren't cuddly.
What I'm trying to say is a cheap reusable launcher, single stage or two stage, will have to fly back to the launch site. SLI has some interesting concepts of winged boosters and lifting body orbiters.<br />A SSTO will have to be a lifting body, like the Venture Star or NASP. <br />Another reason for this is the fact that a lifting body witha a flat bottom is ideal for an RBCC Scramjet (see X43) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
><i>What I'm trying to say is a cheap reusable launcher, single stage or two stage, will have to fly back to the launch site.</i><p>No it doesn't <b>have</b> to. It would be nice, but there's no reason why it can't parachute down for ocean recovery.</p>
Roton and DC-X were demonstrators for full scale vehicles like X33 was supposed to be for the Venture Star. <br />Reading the description here, it seems the DC-Y(full scale) is a lifting body too, only it lands vertically.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcy.htm<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
><i>Reading the description here, it seems the DC-Y(full scale) is a lifting body too, only it lands vertically.</i><p>That is my understanding as well. Which leads to the inevitable question: what do all single-stage to orbit lifting bodied launch vehicles have in common? They don't exist.</p>
They all run into the problem the Europeans had. It looks like a good idea, but by the time you get to something that works it gets too heavy for any available launchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
The DC-Y was still the best of the 3 X33 options, and the VentureStar was the worst. I worked for LM at the time of the selection, and I was still p.o'ed about the selection. DC-X/Y was the obvious choice.<br /><br />The only reason that DC-Y incorporated some lifting body characteristics was because they did not use the blunt end as the reentry heat shield (they feared compromising the landing system). So, they needed some control at hypersonic speeds. Note that the DC-Y did not have to perform as a lifting body at supersonic/transsonic/subsonic speeds, so it was not doomed to sprout wings like all other "lifting bodies". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
Well, Blue-Origin might be working on a DC-Y type vehicle, so let's see how that goes. Although that company tends to be very secretive...
<font color="yellow">The only reason that DC-Y incorporated some lifting body characteristics was because they did not use the blunt end as the reentry heat shield (they feared compromising the landing system). So, they needed some control at hypersonic speeds. Note that the DC-Y did not have to perform as a lifting body at supersonic/transsonic/subsonic speeds, so it was not doomed to sprout wings like all other "lifting bodies". </font><br /><br />I've never heard of a lifting body sprouting wings. There was one design that deployed an inflatable tail, but that was it.<br />Some lifting bodies use a parafoil right before ladning. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Venture star sprouted wings, they grew dramatically in size from the first concept art work to the last.
Oh I thought he meant wings deployed for landing.<br /><br />I'm sure Venture Star would have worked had they allowed it to proceed. Materials science is a hot field, and I'm sure a suitable lightweigght material for those fuel tanks would have been found 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
-
China test-fires 5 new rocket engines in a single day. But what are they for? (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram