New T-Space Updates

holmec · May 24, 2005

It may not be LOX. SpaceShipOne didn't have LOX. It had a hybrid engine. Solid and liquid. The oxygen was in the form of Nitrous Oxide. I can only imagine that the same style engine will be used here. If they do not, then you point is in play. Your point is valid nevertheless. Good questions! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 24, 2005

Yes, but I think the point is valid that the crew may not be able to exit the capsule in such an emergency. I guess it comes down to what amount of risk can we live with. We just can't eliminate all risk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

spacefire · May 24, 2005

could they adapt this to be used under a B-58 Hustler or B-1? Might as well get some extra speed before launcing it from the air. I don't know what the payloads of those two planes are, but maybe they could use a tandem system in which the carrier plane is assisted during take-off by another towing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

tap_sa · May 24, 2005

"It may not be LOX. SpaceShipOne didn't have LOX. " SS1 was a suborbital hopper, CVX needs a 'real' booster. Current plan is to use AirLaunch LLC's LOX/Propane pressure-fed system.

najab · May 24, 2005

>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. How about a surplus C-5 or C-17 then?

holmec · May 24, 2005

The big problem is that you have to have a large area under the plane. to modify an existing plane may be not as good as a new plane and may cost more to operate. To get an extra boost would be nice, but maybe more risk. In the future, when this configuration becomes more common, making the plane supersonic might be good. But I expect the SCRAM jet to be in production and thus replacing this configuration. Using a SCRAM jet is expected to give the boost a single stage air/space craft needs to be like star wars ships/fighters. That is take off and land from an airport, land, and take off with only fuel and the toilet to refill and empty respectively. That's when orbiters will come to their own. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 24, 2005

a >'real' booster< lol. Lets use a nuclear booster! I asure you a booster that can put 3 humans in space is real enough. I wished they went with SpaceDev's engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 24, 2005

>The leaders of tomorrow are built today. < Well said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

ldyaidan · May 24, 2005

Why just a Florida bond? Why not one that is nationwide, to get the money needed to continue? I'd be happy to help with that. But, I also think that we should have the option on our yearly tax form to donate to the space program. We can donate to campaign funds. IMHO the space program is much more worthy of my cash.

tap_sa · May 24, 2005

"I asure you a booster that can put 3 humans in space is real enough. I wished they went with SpaceDev's engine." There's about 30 times difference in energies between SS1 hop and stable orbit. It takes a real booster to stay in space. Hybrid specific impulse is too low (~250 seconds) for this system. You could make a hybrid booster to lift a CVX but it would weigh so much (several hundreds of tons) no VLA would be able to airlaunch it.

nacnud · May 24, 2005

I'm so jealous you got to see the mock up first hand <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />, hope you enjoyed it. From your perspective you think my speculation about the docking port is valid or have I got the size completely wrong?

gladiator1332 · May 24, 2005

I wish I had the oppurtunity to check out the mock-up! Did you by any chance get to take some photos of it?

holmec · May 27, 2005

lol, that was not right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 27, 2005

>How about a surplus C-5 or C-17 then? < It may be possible, but is it cost effective over long period? that's where opreational costs come in. Now the An255 can have a payload on top. But the way you launch has to be worked out. With a C5 you could loose the nose cone and cut away most of the body (floor and side walls), leave the top body, modify the landing gear and add columns and struts for the landing gear and have a split style front landing gear like the WhiteKnight. That may work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

najab · May 27, 2005

I was thinking of opening the rear payload door in flight, popping the parachute and away it goes!

gunsandrockets · May 28, 2005

The seats flipping 180% to deal with reentry Gs is fine with me, but I wonder about the flight controls. When the seats flip, the pilot instead of facing the control panel is now facing the backside of another crewmember. So how does the pilot manually control reentry? I suppose the entire reentry could be automated as has been done in the past, but no manual controls during reentry would make some pilots pretty nervous! Is there another set of displays and controls for the pilot to access after the seat flip? Or does the other end of the cabin have flight controls too? Considering the direction of docking (towards the rear) and the direction of seating during critical flight phases such as reentry and launch abort recovery (again towards the rear) why put any flight displays or controls in the nose of the crew cabin? A more sensible location would be in the tail, or even better in the cabin side. How's this for an el-cheapo solution. Put the pilot's display screen at his side so he can see the display when the seat is facing either direction. And for flight controls use a typical two handed wireless multibutton/multijoystick videogame controller with a lanyard to the pilot's wrist so he can't drop it!

nacnud · May 28, 2005

I think thats what the LCD on the rear of the CXV is for, see below.

gladiator1332 · May 28, 2005

I hope NASA gives T/Space some response, so the other teams can have some time to refine their designs. If the CEV will be space absed, then the lifting body design will be useless. Personally, I think they should try to design something much like the TTM:24 Hours vehicle. http://www.moonport.org//mrbatman/TTM24/TTM24-5.jpg http://astp.msfc.nasa.gov/ast/abstracts/7A_Barowski.html The whole plan used some sort of nuclear booster, but the actual Passenger Module might make a good space based CEV.

gunsandrockets · May 28, 2005

Hmmm...could be. If so that's a pretty spartan setup. The display is there (such as it is) but where are the controls?

gunsandrockets · May 28, 2005

"I hope NASA gives T/Space some response, so the other teams can have some time to refine their designs. If the CEV will be space absed [based], then the lifting body design will be useless." Well that depends. Even lunar landing missions which use direct return to Earth might use biconic lifting bodies with an l/d of 0.6, as Draper is currently pushing NASA to do. http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=225846&fpart=1&PHPSESSID= Return from Mars makes the higher l/d of a lifting body even more attractive... "[Cleon] Lacefield [vice president and Lockheed CEV program manager] said the lifting body shape would broaden the rescue envelope across the entire flight profile by eliminating "black zones where we could not recover the crew because of g-loads. When we were looking at the reentry profiles from both the Moon and Mars, and ...at our abort profiles, [we saw] some pretty high gs...on the crews, for example the Apollo capsule coming in was around 8gs. With just a little bit of lift that we're talking about, to go from a 0.3 to 1.0 lift-to-drag took the gs from 8 [to 3 or 4]." The reduction on the crews is even greater coming from Mars, he said, where g loads could reach as high as 16gs." http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=224877&fpart=1&PHPSESSID= And it depends on what you exactly mean by space based. The t/Space moon landing CEV, on return flights to Earth, uses aerobraking to place it finally in LEO. Does such an aerodynamic flight profile qualify it as a pure space vehicle? http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_yUyX5CpLfIJ:ww</safety_wrapper

gladiator1332 · May 28, 2005

When I say space based, I mean a vehicle that never leaves space. I forgot about the aero-braking plans, so that kinda kills that idea. Am I right to say that the reason spacecraft are so heavy is because of the components on them that must get them safely back on the ground. If you do away with the need for the vehicle going to the moon to have to land back on the ground, and instead have the CXV do this part, you can lighten the CEV incredibly. Here is my idea: 1) Develop the T/Space CXV 2) Have Bigelow Aerospace build a small station at the perfect inclination for lunar missions. 3) Develop a lunar transfer vehicle that would be docked and maintained at the Bigelow station. Now that is an ideal plan, and aerobraking meneuvers and other necessities would probably render it impossible. But it seems that every Sci-Fi movie I see has some vehicle based in space at a space station and a Transfer vehicle carries passengers and crew to it. For example, the Orion Spaceplane in 2001 does not travel all the way to the Moon. Instead the passengers transfer to a special Moon vehicle, that does not have the wings not required to land on the Moon. I'm just thinking this "space based" lunar transport is the key to making the stuff we see in Science Fiction, Science Fact. But I do agree with you, there are so many ways we can do this. And I'm sure T/Space will come up with even more revolutionary designs. Already there design is pretty "out there". Everything from the CXV, to the idea of taking two crewed CEVs to the Moon is much different from what we have seen before.

spacefire · May 29, 2005

damnit. I won't go in space! there's no way mine fits in there! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · May 29, 2005

Nappies or a catheter then <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

spacester · May 29, 2005

We should not expect a complex suite of instruments if there is not a vast array of complicated systems to control. I would be very shocked and disappointed if I saw anything like the Shuttle's glass cockpit in this bird. In fact, it would be folly IMO to even worry about the instruments at this point. Set aside a small envelope and KISS so everything fits in that envelope when you're done. In fact, is it possible there is nothing for the pilot to do except to actuate manual overrides in case of failure of automatic systems? In my simplistic view, I see nothing other than manual deployment of the chutes. Could everything be in the armrests? On another question you raised, do the t/space principals have the wealth to self-fund this thing to this point, or must it be assumed they have brought in deep pockets from outside? Do Gump, Anderson, Voss, Hudson, Sarigul-Klijn, Rutan have to work for a living? They say they have stretched the NASA funding, but does that ring true? As you say, they just started to get federal funding, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · May 29, 2005

> Do Gump, Anderson, Voss, Hudson, Sarigul-Klijn, Rutan have to work for a living?/i> My guess is that they cannot self-fund this effort themselves; although, some (e.g., Rutan) probably do not need to continue working to pay the mortgage. During the Moon2Mars hearings at least one person representing the traditional investment organizations said that as it currently stands, space efforts could not attract traditional investments. Besides the technical risks there were market risks (lots of rocket companies got burned following collapse of Iridium and related efforts, and what happens to the tourists when the first crash occurs). Also, no one seemed to trust the Government to do the right thing (see the current debates on suborbital tourist industy). t/Space's position is that the government should lease/buy services from the private industry. But given that the government continues to be completely focused on the ISS and doesn't seem interested in leasing capability from Bigelow, I think the government suffers from "not invented here". If you follow the Q&As at the different NASA facilities, first from the Moon2Mars report and now from Griffin's tour, almost no one cares about the vision. They primarily care about securing their jobs. From their perspective, the t/Space plan represents the "dark side".

New T-Space Updates

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

spacefire

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

najab

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

nacnud

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

najab

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

nacnud

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacester

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page