Since it appears that NASA may be going back to capsules, I'm hoping that some private venture might be able to tackle the challenge of building a reusable winged or lifting body vehicle capable of transporting crews to LEO and returning for a runway landing. Does anyone here feel that there's a realistic chance of such a vehicle becoming operational within a decade? <br /><br />I know that Burt Rutan has expressed a keen interest in making the (not exactly trivial) step to orbital flight, and SpaceDev's "Dreamchaser" is also envisioned as ultimately becoming an orbital vehicle. Boeing is still developing X-37, I assume, given that they are using Burt Rutan's "White Knight" for drop tests. But I don't think X-37 is intended to lead to a manned vehicle. <br /><br />Also, on a somewhat related note, I recently read an opinion on another board that the X-30/NASP program might have been a cover for research related to the long rumored "Aurora" replacement for the Blackbird or some other black project. Not to get too far off topic, but do any of you think that there is or ever was a high speed replacement for the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird? And if so, might it have led to advances in materials or propulsion that could have applications for future orbital systems?
- Status
Parachuting back to Earth in a can is just so primitive, and so 1960's. Flying back to a runway is the way to do spaceflight in style! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />NASA basically wants the simplest, cheapest means of getting people into space as soon as possible. They're looking at buying the entry level Hyundai of spaceflight, when I'd like to see this country have a Rolls Royce! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
Perhaps I am wrong, but I got the impression that Burt Rutan is focused on a winged orbiter. Landing on a runway will probably be the method of return in the long run, but right now, everyone is focused on safety and efficiancy. In those two categories, capsules are best. However, as launch vehicles get more powerful, and materials science improves, I think that winged reentry vehicles will become the standard. Why? Because I think that launch vehicles will be two stage, with the first stage a fly-back booster. Having the orbiter land on the same runway the first stage lands on would be efficient and convieniant. But, who knows, maybe they will go back to water recovery if too many capsules land in department stores.<br /><br />As far as a replacement for the SR-71, I consider it unlikely that a replacement for an aircraft that was basically designed as a UFO interceptor to be developed. The U2 has proven to be an excellent recon aircraft, and will probably be in service for various missions for another 20-30 years. Hopefully, by then satelitte recon will be available anywhere, any time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
I think you're using a bad analogy. Spaceflight is not at a sufficiently advanced stage where style becomes important. It's not even a consideration.<br /><br />Spaceflight has to be safe and affordable.<br />Capsules are simpler than winged/lifting body vehicles, of that there can be no argument. Simplicity means you have less things to worry about and less costly systems to maintain. That's an unbeatable combination for a company wanting to profit from space. Capsules offset any romanticism you get from winged vehicles by offering plain engineering common sense.<br /><br />But if coolness is an important factor for you, then you should know that winged vehicles are old news - the geewhizz factor has moved beyond earth orbit. The cutting edge now focuses on new propulsion methods, efficient life support systems, radiation shielding to name but a few. <br /><br />It is to interplanetary space that humans have to send it's 'Rolls Royces' now.
<font color="yellow">Burt’s or rather t/Space’s capsule will parachute to a water landing. </font><br /><br />Burt is also working, with t/Space, on an orbital space plane to be dropped from the same carrier aircraft, or possibly its big brother, isn't he?<br /><br />Also, don't forget about Kelly Aerospace.<br /><br />Not to mention other, less credible efforts.<br /><br />I love it when folks underestimate Rutan's ability to get things done that others found to be too difficult or impossible. Highly amusing. <br /><br />Yes, there will be orbital space planes in the (relatively) near future. What the market demands, the market gets. The market is less interested in an optimum solution as defined by engineers than an optimum solution that will sell more tickets and thus be more profitable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Space planes are the only way the masses will get to space. Rick Dobsen was right about that.<br /><br />Launching 10,000s of people a year from rockets doesn't seem practical to me especially when you see how much effort it takes to get one launch of modern rockets.<br /><br />
"Space planes are the only way the masses will get to space."<br /><br />Hardly. The space elevator seems a better idea to me.
of course. A lifting body space plane powered by a combination of Scramjets/Rockets is the only truly affordable option for sending and retrieving large groups of people into orbit. The bigger the plane, the cheaper the costs per passenger. I can't envision capsules sent up by conventional rockets getting much bigger than they are right now, so their market is limited and the capsule design will be discarded-should've been discarded but for retrograde NASA policies-in the near future.<br />So, yes there will be an orbital space plane in the future,. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<p>"As far as a replacement for the SR-71, I consider it unlikely that a replacement for an aircraft that was basically designed as a UFO interceptor to be developed. The U2 has proven to be an excellent recon aircraft, and will probably be in service for various missions for another 20-30 years. Hopefully, by then satelitte recon will be available anywhere, any time."<br /><br />Well, we know that there are classified, yet to be revealed aircraft out there. The current trend seems to be shifting toward UAV's, but I believe there is compelling evidence that there is a (probably manned) high speed replacement for the Blackbird. There have been too many sightings. What about the "sky quakes" over southern California, or the "donuts on a rope" contrails that people have seen? I don't know if there have been any recent sightings, however. It seems that the early 90's saw a lot speculation, and then it died down. The hundreds of people flying in and out of Groom Lake every day are obviously working on some active program/programs though! On the other hand, it is odd that they're still risking pilots' lives in 40 year old U2's! <br /><br />And what do you mean by "UFO interceptor"? The Blackbird was never an inteceptor at all. IIRC, Kelly Johnson wanted to build an armed version, but the Air Force wasn't buying. The speed simply allows the aircraft to get to recon targets fast while remaining out of reach of SAM's and everything else. <br /><br />Here's one article I came across recently:<br /><br />http://www.firstscience.co.uk/site/articles/aurora.asp<br /><br />But I'm getting off topic for this message board. The only relevance it would have, I suppose, is the potential to possibly use technology from currently classified programs in future spaceflight applications. <br /><br />Interesting, varied opinions so far...thanks for sharing!</p>
<font color="yellow">"But what is better about landing on a runway? Other than looks?"</font><br /><br />Well, a couple of guesses off the top of my head: A capsule will be designed to be stable, but not controllable, right? A winged/blended wing/lifting body vehicle will be controllable, so you're not just crossing your fingers and hoping the chutes deploy! And I would think that such a configuration would make it easier to install ejection seats/crew compartments or some other emergency egress system. Also, it gives a reentry vehicle more crossrange capability and more reasonable g-loads on the crew.
<font color="yellow">"A capsule will be designed to be stable, but not controllable, right? "</font><br /><br />Wrong. A capsule is more properly known (as Griffin has pointed out on more than one occasion) as a <b>semi</b>-ballistic re-entry vehicle. A fully ballistic RV would be 'uncontrollable'. SBRVs have an offset center of gravity that allow their re-entry course to be steered. The 'straight' range (i.e. range in the direction of flight) can be changed quite a bit. One of the Gemini missions fired the DO boosters too early due to a ground-control error. The capsule was able to make up (IIRC) about 450 miles of the targeting error from this. Cross-range (i.e. perpendicular to the flight path) is limited, but is generally irrelevant unless you're making an emergency re-entry.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"you're not just crossing your fingers and hoping the chutes deploy!"</font><br /><br />As a general rule, lifting bodies designed for space use require chutes too. Their drop rate is too fast for a landing otherwise... unless you add wings, which adds mass and reduces payload.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"And I would think that such a configuration would make it easier to install ejection seats/crew compartments or some other emergency egress system."</font><br /><br />Please elucidate those thoughts. Why is this?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...and more reasonable g-loads on the crew. "</font><br /><br />That should be -- a lower <b>max</b> G-load. Both capsules and lifting bodies have to scrub the same amount of velocity on re-entry. The G-load in lifting bodies is a bit lower and a bit longer than that experienced in capsules.
<font color="yellow">"As a general rule, lifting bodies designed for space use require chutes too. Their drop rate is too fast for a landing otherwise... unless you add wings, which adds mass and reduces payload."</font><br /><br />Yes, that's true for Lockheed's recent CEV proposal and other lifting body designs that I've seen. On the other hand, X-33 was to land on a runway. The early lifting body prototypes landed on runways. It's a shame that X-33 was killed after spending $1.2 billion on it! There are so many programs that NASA has killed after spending hundreds of millions or even billions...it's frustrating! Instead of repeatedly wasting money on half assed efforts and then starting over, you have to wonder what they could have done with all that wasted money had it instead been focused on one program that was actually seen to completion! Also, why was X-34 cancelled? It didn't have the same technical problems as X-33, and as I recall, Orbital Sciences had actually completed the vehicle! And then there was X-38/CRV, another cancelled program. The parafoil that it used at least allowed for some steering ability.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Please elucidate those thoughts. Why is this?"</font><br /><br />It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, but it just seems like it would be easier to incorporate, say, an F-111 style ejectable crew compartment in a winged/lifting body vehicle than it would in a capsule. I suppose you could come up with some emergency egress capability for a capsule, but not without significantly changing the design from the simple re-entry capsules of the past. The capsule itself is more like the ejectable crew compartment that a winged vehicle should have! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />
I have to say i was thouroughly disappointed when i found out the X-33 was canceled... but i don't remember ever seeing it land on a runway. as a matter of fact, i'm fairly certain it was landed by a controlled parachute.
<font color="yellow">As a general rule, lifting bodies designed for space use require chutes too. Their drop rate is too fast for a landing otherwise... unless you add wings, which adds mass and reduces payload.</font><br />please enlighten us on how you came up with this conclusion and how it applies to a 'space plane' who until now has only been embodied by the Space SHutle, a large vehicle capable of carrying 7 astronauts to space AND a payload.<br />'Space Plane' lifting bodies, like the proposed Venture Star or the NASP did not rely on parachutes to land.<br />Even most smaller Lifting body space planes, launched atop conventional rockets, were not provided with parachutes for landing, see HL-42.<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 have to say i was thouroughly disappointed when i found out the X-33 was canceled... but i don't remember ever seeing it land on a runway."<br /><br />Yes, that was the plan. I could probably even dig up some old drawings and animations of the X-33 landing on a runway. IIRC, they were going to use F-15 landing gear. X-33 was actually the first program I was assigned to when I graduated from college and started my first job at AlliedSignal (now Honeywell). Not that I did much actual work...I didn't know what I was doing back then! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But I did get a trip out to the Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" in Palmdale...that was cool! <br /><br />X-33 was intended to test and validate a number of technologies that would eventually be used for a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle. They probably tried to do too much with a single prototype. It was originally intended to get up to Mach 15 and 400,000 ft or something like that, but the performance targets were continually downgraded as vehicle mass grew, and then of course the program was killed before the vehicle was even completed.
i always loved the look of the Venture Star concepts. they were so cool. even with an external payload bay.
<font color="yellow">"I have a copy of a memo by John Young that states that anythin less that the Space Shuttle L/D was un acceptable. In fact he did not think the Shuttle Orbiter L/D of 6:1 was quite safe enough. At the very least he said that was the lower limit."</font><br /><br />I can see where he's coming from I guess. And I admit, it is pretty scary watching the shuttle orbiter on the final approach and landing! They drop the gear only seconds before the flare, and then touch down at, what is it, 180 knots or something like that?
vt_hokie,<br /><br />Someday, there will be spacecraft whose only purpose will be to carry people to and from orbit. Efficiancy will be about as important as gas milage is to a Sport Utility Vehicle. Minimum 'g' forces during the flight will be the goal, and convienance for the passengers. Wings will be carried stowed in the belly of the ship, which will act as a lifting body until trans-sonic speed range is over, and then the wings will be deployed, allowing glide ratios comparable to the 747. Landings will be performed under the same weather conditions that modern airliners land, and on the same runways.<br /><br />Just as we do not use boxcars to haul people, cargo rockets will fly entirely different regiemes, with high 'g' takeoffs and landings. Economies of scale may result in Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles hauling everything from weather satellites to lunar drilling equipment in the same payload, all to be deposited at a Low Earth Orbit terminal for further routing.<br /><br />We are in the era of open cockpit biplanes, when there where no electronic instruments, wings were covered with fabric, and every flight was an adventure. What lies in the future we can say only this; It will be better than anything we can imagine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
Wow, I knew the White Sands landing was less than perfect, but yikes! I have in fact seen a few seconds worth of that video clip, where the orbiter's nose is coming down after main gear touchdown and then pitches up suddenly. I always wondered what the story was. Do you know if video of that landing is available online anywhere? <br /><br />Also, didn't the sand at the landing site prove to be difficult to remove from the orbiter's exterior after that landing?
<font color="yellow">"We are in the era of open cockpit biplanes, when there where no electronic instruments, wings were covered with fabric, and every flight was an adventure. What lies in the future we can say only this; It will be better than anything we can imagine."</font><br /><br />Well said!
neah, bigger lifting bodies would be able to land on a runway. SSTOS like the NASP and the Venture Star would have it pretty easy, since they would be depleted by most of their weight. The HL42 might be dicier but hey I gotta go to bed, tomorrow I'll dig up some papers I have on it and prove to you it can land safely without parachutes. <br /><br /><br />oh and PIO can easily be recognized by software and corrected for 
<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>Hahaha...here you go! Looks like a mini-version of the X-33 did actually fly! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-33/Medium/EC98-44814-11.jpg
An L/D of 6:1? My brain wants to interpret L/D as Lift/Drag, but can I correctly assume 6:1 is the sink rate (6000m horizontal for 1000m vertical)?<br /><br /> I recall when I was trying to get my glider pilot's license, the sink rate on the sailplanes was 25:1. The Shuttle orbiter is bettter than a brick, but not by much...<br /><br />I saw that STS-3 landing vid when it was linked in another thread, wow! It looked like the main gear barely had time to lock before touchdown!<br /><br />spacefire: I just don't think (yes, I know, a layman's gut feeling doesn't count for much, even if I am mechanically inclined) that a lifting body has enough lifting surface area to have a sink rate better than a brick, no matter how light it is.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 139
-
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 107
-
SpaceX will start launching Starships to Mars in 2026, Elon Musk says
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 33
-
SpaceX makes Starlink Roam available throughout the US
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram