New T-Space Updates

[gladiator1332]

T-Space is updating their site:<br /><br />http://64.78.33.215/index.cfm<br /><br />And they are really pushing ahead with the CXV. <br /><br />Remember the $3 million NASA gave them? Well it seems they made the best of it:<br /><br /> <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Flight test program<br /><br />t/Space has stretched its initial NASA funding -- which the agency expected could only support paper studies -- to include flight tests of several key aspects of the proposed system. One such test series began in May 2005 to validate the simulations developed for the release method to be used by the VLA. Marti Sarigul-Klijn leads this project, described in a paper in the t/Space documents library. A 23% size test article of the CXV and its booster was carried aloft by Scaled Composites' Proteus aircraft from the Mojave Spaceport. It demonstrated that the Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop (TLAD) method primarily invented by Dr. Sarigul-Klijn performs as predicted. TLAD enables a belly-mounted booster to begin a slow rotation as it drops away from the carrier aircraft. This turns the booster toward the vertical before its first stage begins thrusting. Other systems, such as the Orbital Sciences' Pegasus or the earlier X-15 aircraft, require wings to make this "gamma turn." The TLAD method thus reduces system weight by avoiding the need for wings.<br /><br />The t/Space release method also enables the capsule and booster to cross the aircraft altitude behind the VLA, rather than in front as is the case with most aircraft-launched boosters and missiles. In the event of an anomaly, rear-crossing trajectories are safer for the carrier aircraft. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There is even more info on the status and plans for the CXV on this page:<br /><br />http://64.78.33.215/index.cfm?fusea

 

[arobie]

Thank you, and I agree with you 100% that they are proving that they can do what they promise cheaply and quickly. Excellent progress!<br /><br /><i>NASA</i>: T/Space, we award you a $3 million dollar contract. We would like a study of what you plan to do for us.<br /><br /><i>T/Space</i>: (A few months later) NASA, here is the study you requested...and a 1/5th scale model of our vehicle and booster with a few drop tests behind it...and a new crew seat...and a full-scale mock up for visualizations. We also plan to do parachute drop test in August. Enjoy.

 

[radarredux]

><i><font color="yellow">NASA: T/Space, we award you a $3 million dollar contract. We would like a study of what you plan to do for us. <br /><br />T/Space: (A few months later) NASA, here is the study you requested...and a 1/5th scale model of our vehicle and booster with a few drop tests behind it...and a new crew seat...and a full-scale mock up for visualizations. We also plan to do parachute drop test in August. Enjoy.</font>/i><br /><br />I believe that $300 million got a handful of drop tests for the X-38 and $300+ million got zero drop tests for the X-37.<br /><br />(Interestingly, Scaled built the airframe for the X-38 drop tests, and Scaled has been contracted by DARPA to perform drop tests for the X-37)</i>

 

[nacnud]

I had been wondering how the CXV would cope with launching and re-entering nose first. Seems that its all in hand though.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>Rapid prototyping of innovative seats</b><br /><br />The CXV launches nose first and reenters nose first, unlike all previous capsule designs that have reentered base-first. This means the crew seats must turn 180 degrees to orient the crew for the most comfortable position to undergo reentry decelleration. ("Eyes in" rather than "eyes out" in terms of which way the g forces are pushing.)<br /><br />Col. Jim Voss (USA, Ret.) led a rapid-prototyping effort in early 2005 during his tenure as associate dean of aerospace engineering at Auburn University, based in part on his experience flying on both the U.S. Space Shuttle and the Russian Soyuz. His team created an innovative light weight crew seat for the CXV that is very low mass, weighing less than 10% of the weight of a current Space Shuttle crew seat and it incorporates support straps sewn to attenuate loads when the design limit of 8 g is exceeded.<br /><br />But the most innovative feature is the ability to quickly rotate the seat 180 degrees for entry or in the case of an abort. In the case of an abort, this must occur rapidly, without egressing the seat, and without the need for electrical power. A pull of the rotation handle releases the seat latch and a torsion spring rotates the seat 180 degrees where it is locked in place, allowing the crew to better withstand the deceleration forces associated with entry. The crew seat has been installed in the t/Space CXV mock-up. </font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[nacnud]

Pictures of scaleds large plane:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>Custom Carrier Aircraft</b><br /><i>Mark Maxwell & Transformational Space Corp.</i><br /><br />The CXV and its two-stage booster would be air launched by a custom-built "Very Large Aircraft" shown in these sketches created by t/Space. The actual design for the VLA is proprietary to Scaled Composites and has not been released.</font>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Nice catch!<br /><br />I was especially interested in the details of the launch vehicle fuel feed and details of the crew couches rotation in flight.<br /><br />A torsion bar system eh? Sounds like a crew couch mounted on a rotating barber pole. The pole is probably a torsion bar going from floor to ceiling with the bar under tension during launch and the seat locked into place. During abort or re-entry, pop the mousecatch and the torsion bar rotates the couch 180% into landing position! Very clever.<br /><br />I believe the Martin W-1 lifting body proposal for the Apollo command module had rotating seats. I think they pivoted 90% back for landing position. As opposed to the t/Space seats which rotate 180% to the side.

 

[gunsandrockets]

And what about the active cooling thermal protection system for the capsule during re-entry? Cool eh? (heh-heh)

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Pictures of scaleds large plane: "</font><br /><br />Now <i>that</i> looks nice, practical and doable! I believe a plane like that would be handy for many other tasks too, like delivering terrestial cargo in aerodynamic cargo pod so that it can earn it's keep between the launches.<br /><br />Does anyone know more about the TLAD maneuver? Booster is dropped so that it rotates it's nose up but how, while the whole stack is arcing up, rear end of the booster released first, combination of both or something else? Curious about this because it sounds like after drop the booster will be travelling at very high angle of attack for a moment, something that is a no-no for conventional flimsy pump-fed rockets. OTOH t/Space design is pressure fed which denotes rigid hull. <br /><br />edit: the new seat proposal looks like it's mostly made out of canvas? Maybe it's a combined hammock too for those long nights in space <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gofer]

Yeah. I'm not quite sure about the reasoning behind why this proposed new huge (larger in wingspan than the Boeing 747!) aircraft replacing the first rocket stage would be beneficial. Why not just hook it up to a couple of Merlins (the Falcon first stage engine)?<br /><br />What exactly is the benefit of launching it from a currently non-existent aircraft that rivals the Boeing 747 in wingspan and payload. ?<br />

 

[najab]

><i>Why not just hook it up to a couple of Merlins (the Falcon first stage engine)?</i><p>A fixed launch pad implies fixed launch windows to ISS (or any other station for that matter). If you can move your launch site at will, you can launch at any time.</p>

 

[gofer]

Agreed. But is this point THAT significant? In other words, does the desirability of a flexibility with regard to launch windows overweigh the unknowns of an air-launch with *the largest aircarft ever assembled*? (also, there would be at least *some* separation issues to work out with such an arrangement)

 

[tap_sa]

Did you read t/Space site? Here's a part from it:<br /><br />"<i>The major benefits of air launch come in safety, simplicity and flexibility. Crew safety is enhanced because abort-at-ignition is easier when the capsule already is high enough for parachute deployment, vs. the on-the-pad challenge of releasing sufficient energy in the correct direction to send the capsule high enough for the parachutes to deploy. Public safety is enhanced because the launch takes place over open ocean, well away from any populated areas.<br /><br />Air launch also allows simpler engines, which don't need to be designed to operate at both sea-level air pressure and at altitude. The "all-airborne" operation also reduces the performance penalty of using inexpensive low-pressure tanks and engines.<br /><br />Flexibility and responsiveness is greatly enhanced by air launch. Most winds and precipitation at the airport runway -- launch site -- don't delay a launch; the carrier aircraft simply flies to clear weather. In addition, responsive launch often requires matching a particular inclination and orbit phasing. The carrier aircraft over open ocean can launch the CXV to any azimuth, and by flying across longitudes, can quickly match a desired orbit phasing.<br /><br />The t/Space version of air launch provides only modest performance gains, in the 10-25% range, compared to a ground launch. It does not attempt technically difficult challenges such as accelerating the launch aircraft to supersonic speeds, or reaching very high altitudes.</i>"<br /><br />After distilling the modest marketing hype the reasoning is still quite sound. The last paragraph is very important, <i>not attempt technically difficult challenges</i>.<br /><br />Btw do you have any numbers backing up the largest aircraft ever assembled claim? Haven't seen any about mass of the CXV or booster yet. I'd SWAG it to somewhere between 100-150t. Rip 747 from all unnecessary junk and it lifts almost twice that. Keep in mind that mothership lik

 

[nacnud]

I like the crew seat:<br />

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Btw do you have any numbers backing up the largest aircraft ever assembled claim? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was just going by their published dimensions/drawings. the length of the rocket (with the CXV capsule) 145 or so feet. It's suspended between the two fuselages of the first air-launch stage. The rest is a WA approximation, right, but seem reasonable. (The Boeing 747 wingspan is 212 feet) Perhaps, the new Airbus beats it, but I meant commercial [edit] operational [/edit].

 

[nacnud]

t/space has previously released pitures of a 747 on stilts as a possibe launch aircraft for the booster

 

[gofer]

Note: the first Falcon stage is also meant to be totally reusable (parachutes into the Atlantic).

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"In principal the carrier could be a 747, but how could it carry the upper stage?"</font><br /><br />from t/Space site: <br /><br />"<i>An alternative to the custom VLA is to modify and extend the landing gear of a B-747 to provide sufficient ground clearance to carry the CXV and booster.</i>"<br /><br />So pretty much the same concept. Maybe they'd chop a 'dent' to the 747's belly where the booster+CVX would partially fit. Dunno if it's doable, what's normally there, the cargo?

 

[grooble]

Probably all cables and things. I doubt you could just rip the middle out.

 

[nacnud]

Found a cutaway of the CXV, from this pdf.

 

[gofer]

Thanks for this link. I like their attitude and approach. I do have questions about the technical issues.<br /><br />The immediate one is that their capsule is NON-LIFTING. Why? Why not the headlamp shape of the Gemini/etc... ? You lose the lift/control, you gain descend speed and .... ? (no up-front disagreement, just curiosity)

 

[rubicondsrv]

If I remember correctly the the control lines of the 747 are routed through the top of the aircraft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The CXV has an off-center mass distribution which with corrective thusting allows for 400nmi cross range (from here), is that not a lifting capsule? i.e. it is not a purely balistic flight.

 

[najab]

Boeing is modifying a 747-400F so that the entire tail section rotates to open up the fusealage. It can't be <b>that</b> hard to reroute the control cabling on a FBW aircraft.

 

[grooble]

Thats what i was hoping. Rip out all the seats and interior fittings, cut out the belly so it is a big hollow, and reinforce the top and make it all stable, carrying the rocket in the hollow middle.

 

[nacnud]

So you don't like the stilts idea? Seems the easiest to me, plus it could be modified back to a conventional B-747F relatively easily.