Space Plane Concept Forgotten?

[qso1]

mrmorris:<br />Yes I do. As I recall it was not a documentary of the US Space program. What exactly is your recollection of it? <br /><br />Me:<br />Correct, I never said it was a documentary. It was a James Bond flic and I mentioned it because they took the shuttle program which was already known not to be able to have a shuttle launch from the back of a 747 and showed that anyway.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br />Yes -- and as *I* mentioned, you state that... but then keep referring to your design in posts as if there is some technical merit to it. You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />Me:<br />Can you pull up a statement in which I claimed technical merit. What I have said is that it probably wouldn't work. There are all kinds of designs posted here and most of the posters are trying to say there designs will work or might work and I already said mine probably wouldn't.<br /><br />I write stories, thats all. No need to take it serious as all that. I'm simply trying to show a future concept without it being too future for its time. Launching off a 747 rather than using anti hyperdimensional superspace time transcontinuum whatever.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br />I have no problem with you posting pictures like that and saying "Gosh wouldn't something like this be nice". However, you stated at the outset that the concept might not work in order to avoid having to defend the flaws,<br /><br />Me:<br />No, wrong again...I stated it it might not work because its part of a story. Not real life...story! Last I checked and you can check too because I'd be willin to bet you like sci fi and would probably think some of those concepts would work because the Author is published. I'm unknown and unpublished so I'm fair game and thats fine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Per mrmorris request, let me make it clear to other posters in my best Nixon, LOL. The concept I illustrated is supposed to convey a possibility...sci fi. It may or may not work. mrmorris has only seen two distant images of it and has already consigned it to the scrap heap. Thats fine. I never said it was a working concept. I'll try to clarify some of what I said.<br /><br />"One should look at the winged vehicle concept for what it can offer. I showed mine here and for what little I showed...two things should be evident. Launch location is one...the 747 is over the ocean which means most any coast with ocean to the east and a 747 capable airport less than 200 miles from the launch site will do."<br /><br />When I stated one should look at the winged vehicle...I obviously meant a real, engineered design...not my wingless wedge.<br /><br />"The carrier craft itself...off the shelf 747 with only the mods required to launch the orbiter which in this case, I call a wedge."<br /><br />The statement above conveys two things. Airlaunch this way would be nice for the further reasons I mentioned and utilizing a 747 shows that sometimes ideal solutions such as mach 10 FFBs would be nice but not necessarily doable for budget reasons, especially for private enterprise.<br /><br />From another post of mine:<br />"BTW, the concept I portrayed in the images is a private industry/enterprise operation in my story. And I did illustrate a capsule launched from 747 study but capsule landing options seemed less capable than aircraft but mainly I was after something large enough to carry 10 people and a little payload. My illustrated wedge concept is actually a compromise...almost wingless wedge design."<br /><br />Me:<br />Can somebody else tell me if I was trying to pass my craft off as real engineering based on the statement above? The words "In my story" were used...not "In my engineering concept with its myriad of flaws that would or will work once I hide the flaws". <br /><br />Lets see the statem <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Scottb50:<br />I think the scale is way off also. Something the size depicted couldn't come anywhere close to carrrying enough propellant to reach orbit, even if it was all tanks and engines.<br /><br />Me:<br />And I would agree if it were built with todays tech and I would even tell you flat out...this will never be built. But this is first and foremost...a story. A story about technical possibilities, not absolute reality. Unfortunately I'm one guy with an idea...not an idea on building the next great spaceship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

halman:<br />omebody compared the Space Shuttle to the Edsel. I think that a better analogy is to say the Shuttle is like a Ferrari. <br /><br />Me:<br />Bingo! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vonster]

actually, more like a FIAT<br /><br />(Foam Insulation Again Torn) <br /><br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

Is the carrier craft releasing a decoy flare in this image? (Look near the port wing.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats just a position light thats lens flare was cranked a little too high. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Good acronym, did you come up with that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>SS-1 did not exceed 3,500 mph on its space flights and did not require a heat shield partly for that reason. An orbital version of the craft which will see velocities of 17,500 mph, will require a heat shield. The question becomes, will it be a conventional heat shield design or a radical one? <<br /><br />I believe you might be wrong about the heat sheild. SS1 required a heat sheild without the maximum drag, or feather, configureation. That was a major consideration. On reentry it went through 5Gs. For a reentry from orbit, somehow I think Rutan thinks that he can do it without or with a minimal heat shield, but that bridge has yet to be crossed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

holmec:<br />But what about the current new space plane design by Rutan namely SpaceShipOne. It was very successful with 3 suborbital spaceflights. And SpaceShipTwo will probably be the first Space liner. Its even better than X-15 because the X-15 needed the infamous pink foam covering it as a heat sheild to reenter. SpaceShipOne design needs no heat sheild for reentry but uses the wings to slow down. <br /><br />Me:<br />I agree that SS-1 would need a heat shield if it didn't use the entry configuration it uses. As you poiinted out, SS-1 uses the wings to slow down which means no heat shield required. My comment was meant to illustrate that an orbital craft would require a heat shield because of the much higher velocities orbital craft travel at.<br /><br />I don't think the shuttle **** method of re-entry will work on orbital craft but I don't know for sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

It should be possible, but it would take multiple dips into the atmosphere to remove energy and cool on the next half of the orbit to slowly remove orbital velocity. Not sure how much energy would be left for the final deorbit however..... that would be the kicker

 

[barrykirk]

Kind of like constantly skipping off the atmosphere and bleeding off energy.<br /><br />With large enough wings, or the correct geometry how many skips would be possible?<br /><br />Is it possible to set up a ship so that it re-enters over a long period of time so that it has to dissipate the re-entry heat?

 

[barrykirk]

Of course those wings would be tremendously larger and heavier than a simple heat shield and some parachutes. And they would create aerodynamic challenges when launching.

 

[josh_simonson]

Actually, SS1 uses it's wings to stabilize it in 'shuttlecock' mode, while the actual drag is generated by the fuselage.<br /><br />The main benefit of this technique is it puts SS1 into a passively mono-stable high-drag state so that it's speed can be bled off earlier and longer, starting in thinner atmosphere at a lower pressure. The other option is to use high tech automated avionics to make the craft fly in the unstable belly first configuration, as the STS does, but in that case an equipment failure = death. <br /><br />Flying a passively stable craft eleminates an entire family of catastrophic failure modes. Once columbia's control surfaces and hydraulics were damanged by the leak in the wing it lost control, tumbled and broke up. A passively stable craft can survive a considerable degree of damage on re-entry, as long as it holds together enough to remain passively stable.

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Good acronym, did you come up with that?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />haha .. actually yeah. its a play on the old saying "Fix It Again Tony" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />(what they usually say about FIATs, you know)<br /><br />.

 

[holmec]

Did anyone mention the X-37?<br /><br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060407_x37_drop.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Or for that matter SpaceDev's Dream Chaser (HL-20 update)<br />(image link: http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/images/dc4.jpg)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

You have an extra parenthesis at the end of your link there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

Don't know if anyone mentioned them but if they are successfully developed, they might throw a monkey wrench into NASAs Orion plans. At the very least, if a private enterprise/industry spaceplane becomes operational. It migh take over the Orion role downstream. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Do you really think the X-37 or Dream Chaser has a chance in hell of surviving a high speed re-entry from the Moon? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

docm:<br />Do you really think the X-37 or Dream Chaser has a chance in hell of surviving a high speed re-entry from the Moon?<br /><br />Me:<br />Hardly. I'm saying the X-37 or Dream Chaser could serve as the transport to LEO. I did mistate it though because you still need the Orion craft to go to the moon or mars. Thanks for pointing that out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>you still need the Orion craft to go to the moon or mars<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, if you already have another way to get to and from the Earth's surface, skip the Orion. With bigger engines and more fuel, the lander might be able to do the job. If not, it would make more sense to develop a craft soley for 0g environments with no aerodynamic considerations. That would be more like a deep space (to Mars and beyond) craft. It would be awkward for the closeout crew on the ground, but oh well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

lifting-bodies are perfectly suitable for lunar-return missions. In fact many of the original design proposals for the the Apollo reentry vehicle were lifting bodies. For high speed lunar returns they have the advantage of lower g loads on the vehicle and crew. And for direct Earth reentry they have the advantage of greater crossrange which can be vital since direct reentry from the moon only gives the crew one shot at hitting the landing zone. It's not like poking around in LEO where a crew has the option of letting the Earth spin beneath them a few times to line up the landing zone again should the first landing opportunity be missed.

 

[mrmorris]

For what it's worth -- your posts are resonating with an old, and oft-repeated debate on SDC -- capsules vs. lifting bodies. Your posts are some of the most extreme that I've seen in engineering terms for making the lifting body seem nearly magical in its capabilities. I realize you don't claim expertise in the subject, but you might as well have specifically stated that if someone would simply air-launch a lifting body spacecraft from a 747, it would levitate off the aircraft of its own accord. In essence, I was trying to point out that it would <b>have</b> to.<br /><br />I did read in your posts where you dismissed the concept as fiction. However, often you followed that with statement that used it with implications that it was functional. Again, resorting to analogy -- it's as if you were talking about Coyote & Roadrunner cartoons -- noted that they were simply shows for children -- but then went on to talk about how the 'hang time' from the point at which you walked off the edge of a cliff until the time that you <b>realized</b> you'd done so could be used in designing a more efficient hovercraft.<br /><br />Anyway -- this has been done to death. I will note though that it *is* possible to do your own research to guestimate the realism of concepts like this. Using Google, you could research a lot of the basics of your wedge in a few days. Namely if you looked up some lifting bodies in Astronautix, worked out how much propellant would be required to get one large enough for ten people into orbit, and then compared that with the carrying capacity of a 747 -- I beleive that would kill the idea as surely as the problem I noted.

 

[gunsandrockets]

" ...return from the Moon or Mars. A winged vehicle just does not make sense for that application. Infact the technology for a heatshiel for such a large surface area is probaly sitll beyound our current technology for a viable vehicle"<br /><br />Winged? What's that got to do with a lifting body reentry vehicle? A lifting body doesn't have to have wings. <br /><br />As for the suitability of lifting bodies for high-speed reentry from Mars return, the aerospace engineers at Lockheed-Martin seem to disagree with you. And who was it that won the Orion contract? Oh yeah, it was Lockheed-Martin. NASA seems to think they are competent enough.