New T-Space Updates

[nacnud]

Woah! Is it just me or does the docking mechanism of the CXV look suspiciously like a Common Berthing Mechanism! If so then it’s worth building just for its ability to support the ISS alone. Does anyone else have any better information on this?<br /><br />Oh and I like the fan light windows in the CXV too <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, useful during docking and decorative as well <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />

 

[spacefire]

not really, the ruskies have a delivery system too! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Er no they don't, the Kliper is too heavy for the Soyuz. They wound need to man rate the Onega or Zenith boosters first.

 

[gladiator1332]

The Russians might have a little more, as they have had quite a head start, but I am pretty sure they are relatively close. Their LV is no more complete than ours is, as they both jsut exist as models right now. As someone said, Soyuz can't launch Klipper. A new launcher is needed. And it seems that the Russians are still a little undecided as well. First they have two Klippers, one with and without wings. The LV is still open for debate, Onega...Zenit...even Energia is being re-looked. <br />T-Space has a little more of a solid plan for their LV. It seems that it will most likely be an aircraft, either a modified 747 or a brand new Rutan aircraft.

 

[spacefire]

oops NM. forgot about man-rating. <br />I thought that happens only in the US. <br />In Russia, the booster man-rates you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

But back on topic, son't want this to turn in to a Russia VS USA thread. <br /><br />I really think T-Space is going to be able to pull it off.

 

[grooble]

Yes it is a refreshing approach and it has the dual value of potential commercial use.

 

[gladiator1332]

Really nice post. I think it puts into words what we all wanted to say about this design.

 

[tap_sa]

I agree that the concept is neat, but would like to point out that 't/Space equals not Rutan'. Scaled their close partner (and shareholder?) and Rutan surely best buddy, but I bet Gary Hudson (the Roton man himself, t/Space chief designer) and James Voss (t/Space vice president, very experienced ex-astronaut) are the power-duo we can thank most for the overall design. Those VLA sketches are clearly Rutan's handiwork, a Global Flyer on steroids.

 

[gladiator1332]

Yes, T/Space isn't just Rutan and Scaled. However, Rutan is the best known person at T/Space because of the X-Prize. That is something that just happened within the last year, so the public remembers Rutan for that. So I think T/Space wants to put his name out in association with their company and design as much as possible.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Well, I will bet you that the great majority of the concept for the reentry vehicle is from Rutan."<br /><br />I don't know about that, the water using active cooling for the primary thermal protection system is right out of the Rotary Rocket playbook. And the nose first launch and nose first re-entry are right out of the Douglas DC-X.

 

[gladiator1332]

Yeah I'm looking forward to the next steps as well. Should be interesting to see where Rutan goes next.

 

[gladiator1332]

Space pioneer finds NASA dull<br />WASHINGTON, (UPI) May 20, 2005<br />By KAT HUANG<br />Click here!<br />Burt Rutan may be the creative impetus behind the world's first private manned spaceship sent to suborbital space but he wants to be seen simply as an American taxpayer; albeit one who is not excited about NASA's plans for space.<br /><br />Rutan owns Scaled Composites, an aircraft design and construction firm in Mojave, Calif. Together with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, he built the experimental SpaceShipOne, which last year flew three suborbital slights with a company pilot aboard to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize for the first commercial spaceflight.<br /><br />Speaking at the National Press Club Thursday, Rutan criticized the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for its technological complacency since its innovative Apollo years. He blamed the intersection of government and technology for rendering the space juggernaut to simply act as a political tool. Though politics pushed a young President John F. Kennedy to prioritize science in a race for technological parity with the Russians, recent administrations have been less than supportive.<br /><br />"You will never, ever get the vision and the courage out of the Congress," Rutan said. "And we haven't had the vision and the courage out of the president's office, really, since the John Kennedy announcement."<br /><br />He abruptly stopped himself and said, "I'm not going to go there."<br /><br />He said progress in spaceflight technology has stalled in the past 40 years. Failing to take risks, NASA scientists aren't exposing themselves "to the ability to have breakthroughs." Rutan specifically targeted the decision to discontinue service to the Hubble Space Telescope, which will stop working by 2008 without new batteries and gyroscopes, as indicative of NASA risk aversion.<br /><br />"We don't even have the courage to go back to the Hubble," he said. "And the last time I looked, the Hubble telescope is between

 

[spacefire]

Griffin seems to have vision and drive. Maybe, just maybe, he will have the balls to make NASA less dependent on politicians. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mvanbavel]

The State of Florida needs to have a bond election to raise the $500M for this, just like the $2B bond election for stem cell research in California. Florida can easily afford it, they need to develop private space projects... NASA is not going to go for it... are you listening Florida?<br /><br /><br />

 

[gladiator1332]

Now there are some who might say that Rutan mouthing off about NASA again is a bad thing for T/Space. But personally, I think this is a good thing. It shows that he isn't there to be NASA's buddy, he is there to tell them what he thinks the right approach is, and it does not seem Rutan is going to bend under pressure from NASA and Congress. <br />It really seems that he would turn away and let everything burn before he is forced to make compromises to the design because of political reasons. <br />Boeing and LM are going to do what NASA and congress tells them what to do. Look at Boeing, there sitting around waiting for NASA to tell them the new requirements. They aren't stepping out and taking their own approach at it. Maybe they could come up with a new way of going to the Moon. On the other hand you have T-Space who is saying to hell with the new requirements, this is how it should be done. They are making it so that possibly the requirements will be built around the CXV. We already have Lockheed possibly working the CXV into their plans. Instead of sitting around and waiting for NASA to tell them what they have to do, T/Space is making its own requirements. I really have to commend them for doing this and so far not bending under political pressure.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Okay, I know t/Space says air launch is a boon to crew escape because they have all that altitude to play with that a pad launched booster doesn't have during a pad abort.<br /><br />That's all well and good starting from the point the t/Space launch vehicle rocket is dropped from the VLA mothership. But what if something happens before drop? Between the time the crew boards the capsule on the ground and the time the rocket is dropped? The design of the capsule precludes anything like ejection seats.<br /><br />It seems to me that the t/Space capsule could suffer from it's own peculiar abort black zone. Can the capsule eject from the rocket while the rocket is still attached to the the VLA mothership? If so than the dead zone would be pretty small. Once the VLA gained enough altitude capsule ejection should be safe enough.<br /><br />However I don't think the capsule is designed with the ability to eject prior to rocket drop. I'm guessing t/Space considers the ride up from the point of buckling into the capsule to the point of rocket release so safe as to not require the ability to bail out. Just as jetliners have no ejection seats or parachutes for the crew or passengers.

 

[nacnud]

I noticed that as well. <br /><br />The only abort mode that I can think of for a take off abort would be zero zero ejection seats in the carrier aircraft with the crew boarding the CXV in flight.<br /><br />Then again the risk of a modern aircraft crashing on take off is small, but what is the risk of a modern aircraft crashing with a massive rocket strapped underneath it?<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

The crash of a VLA with rocket aboard at least in mass would equal a fully fueled 747. That by itself wouldn't be so terrible. What would makes things unusual for a large plane crash is all the LOX aboard the rocket. I understand LOX fires are very nasty.

 

[holmec]

747 were created for cargo in mind. Not for air launch. For air launch you need to drop the cargo. To do a cut away of a 747 may be too complex since its wings are attached low to the fuselage. With that money you might as well create a new plane specifically designed for the task.<br /><br />Scaled Composites uses a composits to create the major sections of the aircraft. Its low cost, durable, and proven. <br /><br />Also this particular plane configuration was developed by Scaled Composites. And this configuration is the first plane configuration specifically designed for air launch.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Air launch is more cost effective, controlable, and safer. It gives you full contol of the vehicle up to launching the second stage. You can fly over unpopulated areas before launch. You are also at an altitude of bailing out if the second stage does not go well.<br /><br />The draw back is that its slower. An hour to get to altitiude rather than a few seconds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

You can put a parachute on the whole capsule and abort.<br />That would propably be the way. Otherwise the plane itself will land the whole system back down. <br /><br />What kind of emergency are you looking at? <br /><br />Problem with the rocket - land the plane.<br />Problem with the capsule - land the plane.<br />Probelm with the plane - deploy the capsule and its parachute.<br /><br />What more do you want? First stage for every manned lauch is the highest risk uptil this system.<br /><br /> />I don't think the capsule is designed with the ability to eject prior to rocket drop<<br /><br />What will prevent them from eject the capsule???? Its designed to sepearate anyway! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

Posibly one on takeoff where the altitude is too low for a parachute to be useful.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

True, but then its normal plane SOP as usual. <br /><br />lol, maybe they should put air bags on it like the mars rovers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

Not to mention the occupants of the capsule have individual parachutes as well. If the plane is well designed and tested it shuld be very reliable. So there seems to be very little problem with no abort capability on takeoff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>