Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-12 13:50:31

Odd. The person I know at JSC is actually a contractor with Lockheed-Martin; she's the one who told me Orbital Sciences was acquired by Boeing. I just checked Orbital's web site and it still states it's a separate company. In fact it's listed on the New York Stock Exchange with trade prices listed 2 minutes ago. I guess she was wrong.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 16:54:39

I also suppose that in the X-38 lift body design, that low-speed control wasn't a problem, since it wasn't going to come back down to a runway... just plunk down with parachutes on White Sands or somthing.

Give this http://mae.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/ … .pdf]paper a look. There's a lot of good info in here, but some of it has direct implications for lifting bodies. I found a particularly good quote on the subject of the X-38 (the lessons from which could apply to some degree to all lifting bodies):

Its average durng the last four test drops, which were considered by the test team to be very good, was 15 ft/s vertical with an average impact acceleration of 12 g's... As a comparison, naval aircraft hit an aircraft carrier flight deck at 10 ft/s. The X-38 landing gear was damaged or destroyed often during its test landings.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 18:13:09

Ouch... thats an awful lot for astronauts, much less with brittle/broken bones or internal injuries. No wonder the Russians went through all the trouble to add landing rockets to Soyuz.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 19:19:27

I wonder if the HL-20 fares much better than the X-38 in terms of landing speed and impact forces. The HL-20's advantage was its lower wing loading (if the craft could be counted as a wing.) As heavy as the parafoil is, t might be needed on the HL-20 to slow the thing down to an acceptable landing speed. If the benefits of parafoil-assisted landing for the HL-20 are negligible, it would be better to equip it with standard circular parachutes in case the vehicle aborts a launch over water.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-12 20:33:47

X-38 used a parafoil and landing skids; tests of the full-size mock-up hit the ground rather hard. HL-20 never flew, but it had wheels and would land like the Shuttle. Atmospheric entry was at 1.5 Gs. It included solid rockets for emergency escape, and three round parachutes for emergency ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensured that it rode high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.

Two hatches? Hmm. Could I save weight by reducing that to one? Could I use the de-orbit engines for abort, eliminating one set of engines? After all, if you abort launch you aren't going to get to orbit.

I found out today that MAKS was designed to use an aluminum-lithium tank; so we can't save weight that way. What if we used advanced composites for the body instead of metal. Composites like those used for X-38. FRCI heatshield tiles are 3 times as strong, can endure 100°F more heat, and are 10% lighter than dense HRSI, the black tiles on Shuttle. They're being replaced by attrition. Shuttle uses some dense HRSI where damage is likely, low-density where less likely. I'ld use FRCI for the entire belly. DurAFRSI can handle almost as much heat and is more durable; applicable for vehicle sides. It'll be tested on X-37. HL-20 only needed reinforced carbon-carbon on its nose; HRSI was enough for the leading edges of its highly swept-back wings. FRCI can handle more heat and more durable, so use that instead.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 20:59:33

The X-38 didn't have all that much composit, only the little aerodynamic testbeds were predominantly made of them. I'm sure that most of the structure, the pressure hull, and the lower face (hot side) of the vehicle would have been metal.

Improved heat tiles are still nickle/dime portions of the mass budget, the problem is that the the 747 launch vehicle is starting to get too small.

My thought was to eliminate the center isle in the pressure hull by placing an emergency hatch over each seat except over the pilot/copilot where the main hatch would be. Purely for emergency egress like a bombers' escape hatches, perhaps could make getting in at launch easier too.

The OMS engines wouldn't nearly have enough power for abort escape, nor would they probobly be responsive enough. High-thrust/short-burn solid rockets are key.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 21:27:01

We have all conjetured that the cost of space flight is way to high. Well on that note is there some other reason for the gravy train...

http://www.local6.com/index.html

FRIDAY: A major scheme at the Kennedy Space Center is uncovered. The Problem Solvers learn indictments are on the way from a federal investigation into a bid-rigging plan.
-- SEE THE EXCLUSIVE STORY ON LOCAL 6 NEWS AT 11 P.M. --

RobertDyck · 2004-11-12 21:54:23

Uh, NASA has secure servers to accept sealed bids. They are meticulous about how bids are handled. The only way I could see any form of bid rigging is if contractors decided the only bids they would submit are extra high. I for one would work to keep cost low; low bid to actually land a contract, but still make a profit. I'm sceptical, but I'll read the article when it comes out.

comstar03 · 2004-11-13 06:57:46

NASA is only defined as a research and exploration agency not a commercial business. Over the next 20 years a series of private competitors will enmerge from the industrial landscape and move into the space sector.

CEV will be a short term space vehicle for NASA only, other competitors will develop there own methods and processes for space entry and re-entry. Some will take a rocketplane approach, others will take fully resuable spaceplane and other will use the "apollo style" capsule approach for moving humans into and out of space. ( from earth orbit )

My style is fully resuable spaceplane approach to design and deliver a quality spaceplane to launch horizontially and land the same way from grount to orbit and back with crew.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-13 09:27:03

There is one question about private companies become space faring ones, going into space for their own purposes and not to support NASA or the DoD, that you need to answer first Comstar: Why? Why will they go into space?

A fully reuseable horizontal spaceplane will by nessesitty have to be a two-stage vehicle and it will huge because of the fuel required with today's engines. It is essentially impossible to reach orbit with a single stage spaceplane until there is some kind of propulsion breakthrough, like advanced Scramjets.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-13 20:57:15

Follow up on the Bid-fraud probe intensifies, Case involves contract for launch pad construction. From 1994 to 1999, the NASA Inspector General's Office has finally noticed that Hansen and McDonald had been processing fake invoices worth more than $400,000 for goods and services that did not exist. Seem to me that since the Nasa new accounting software has been put in that a lot more descrepencies have been found.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/l … 113KSC.htm

comstar03 · 2004-11-14 04:32:19

GCNRevenger,

Firstly the spaceplane would be a more technical version of spaceshipone concept using a piggyback approach for launching the human spaceplane into orbit. It would have a heatshield on the spaceplane to be used like " shuttle re-entry" both reusable vehicles.

Second part of the questions, was why go into space privately , the same reasons for any country - 1) Increase corporate resources, 2) increase innovation within corporate 3) prestige, 4) be a global player 5) to explore and gather new understanding and knowledge.

I think you need to look outside the current corporate structures, governmental structures and fuedal structures across the world, and create a hybrid structure based on leadership and ownership and innovation.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-14 09:10:49

Even if you do fly it piggyback, it is unlikly a vehicle with a large crew would fit on top of a 747, and one with any kind of payload definatly wouldn't.

Well Comstar, that sounds great and all, but you are just stringing buzzwords together. "Leadership and ownership and innovation" etc etc don't mean anything. Businesses strive to do one thing, just one ultimate goal, and that is to make money. Right now, space travel is a fine way to LOSE money, unless you are the satellite business, and right now you'd be competing against the work-for-free (almost) Russians in that catagory. That hybrid concept you speak of is somthing that we call socialism, and it don't work.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-14 14:46:35

Even if you do fly it piggyback, it is unlikly a vehicle with a large crew would fit on top of a 747, and one with any kind of payload definatly wouldn't.

Even a tiny spaceplane like MAKS needs the AN-225, the world's largest aircraft, to launch it. Larger spaceplanes would need gargantuan motherships.

The problem with air-launch schemes (in layman's terms) is that the mothership only contributes about Mach 0.8 to the Mach 25 needed to achieve orbit. If you could build a faster mothership it might solve the problem, but the staging altitude must be very high to avoid separation problems.

Winged rockets have lower "gravity losses" than conventional rockets, but the wings come at the price of higher drag and weight.

Grypd · 2004-11-14 15:54:13

You can build a first stage aircraft with conventional engines but with a rocket to accelerate and to gain height before disengaging the second and space going stage. Bristol Spaceplanes of Britain are an example of such a design.

Height for disengagement is a very important part of the launch as it is the most dangerous part of the journey and the lessened atmosphere reduces risk considerably. Spaceplanes of this design are people carriers not cargo, and are best suited to when we need a lot of people in space. But Bristol spaceplanes did design a craft that takes 5 crew up at the time.

Euler · 2004-11-14 16:40:41

If it is difficult to create a manned vehicle that can be launched from a 747, then the obvious solution is to use a larger or faster aircraft. A custom vehicle designed as a launcher would be ideal, though it would have higher initial costs than using an existing aircraft. If you want to use existing aircraft, then the Tu-160 comes into consideration. The other option would be to convince the military to build a large supersonic bomber, like a modern version of the XB-70 Valerie, and then adapt it to launching spacecraft.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-14 16:57:41

Even if you do fly it piggyback, it is unlikly a vehicle with a large crew would fit on top of a 747, and one with any kind of payload definatly wouldn't.
Even a tiny spaceplane like MAKS needs the AN-225, the world's largest aircraft, to launch it.

The calculations I posted in this thread show you can launch a 4-person spaceplane from an AN-124, the second largest aircraft. The AN-225 can air-launch 275 tonnes, AN-124 can launch 150 tonnes, and NASA's 747 can launch 109 tonnes. The mini-MAKS/HL-20 calculates as 135.8 tonnes.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-14 19:02:26

Although a purpose built launch vehicle would be nice, I don't think that it will happen since building an aircraft of that size and performance would be extremely expensive, easily in the billions of dollars range. I doubt that the military would invest in such a plane, since it would be too large to be a practical heavy bomber and probobly too slow to be the new hypersonic bomber the USAF wants. It would also be counter to the trend of smaller but more accurate weapons that has been guiding USAF/USN weapons development for a while now, plus the USN is developing a hypersonic cruise missile anyway.

A launch vehicle would have be very big, almost certainly bigger then the TU-160 or the B-1B, particularly since neither of these planes are really that fast nor high flying compared to orbital altitudes and velocities. In order for the launch vehicle to take a big chunk out of the space vehicle, it will need to probobly achieve altitudes in the range of 100,000ft at speeds in excess of Mach-3... Somthing like a giant SR-71 and less 747.

NASA has played around with taking conventional fighter jet engines, which are really quite powerful, and injecting a mixture of water (for coolant) and LOX into the intake, and would theoretically drive a vehicle up to around Mach-6 and reach the desired altitude. I think that this would be the way to go if you wanted to make a real Shuttle-II, instead of a just-barely-orbits baby HL-20 on the back of a cargo jet, since a vehicle with any payload would get massive, and fast.

Edit: Additional thought, pump high-concentration hydrogen peroxide into the engine intakes rather then water/LOX.

John Creighton · 2004-11-14 19:23:01

Although a purpose built launch vehicle would be nice, I don't think that it will happen since building an aircraft of that size and performance would be extremely expensive, easily in the billions of dollars range. I doubt that the military would invest in such a plane, since it would be too large to be a practical heavy bomber and probobly too slow to be the new hypersonic bomber the USAF wants. It would also be counter to the trend of smaller but more accurate weapons that has been guiding USAF/USN weapons development for a while now, plus the USN is developing a hypersonic cruise missile anyway.

Maybe the military would also be interested in launching orbital vehicles. If the vehicle can also be used as a bomber or for on flight hypersonic bomber refueling the vehicle could serve a few purposes.

comstar03 · 2004-11-14 19:30:57

Ad Astra, Gryd, Euler, RobertDyck, GCNRevenger

Well, you haven't been watching TV and the Internet Lately with spaceshipOne launch into space !!!! Before the current spaceshuttle was dual reusable vehicle concept. We are talking about passengers and not for cargo transport.

The goals for the next generation SpaceshipOne will carry 4-6 people for Richard Barnson. It also will use a Whiteknight style launch platform thus both reusable.

The CEV program bring back the capsule style vehicle for 3 or 4 persons might be the way NASA, and other American Space manaufacturers want to go, its not what all want to do. The total reusable model was one of the models that NASA developed for the space shuttle but decided not too.

You start with simple aims - such as - design a vehicle on computer that you can model and test in a virtual testing environment and then create a physical model for wind tunnel testing. At the same time you work on propulsion systems and control systems to work onboard to make sure they might the specifications requirements.

The weight is a major issue and need material processes required for construction. Alot of this could be deliver with little or not expense through working with universities and other specialized colleges globally.

Once these issues are overcome, then you build a full mockup version for landing tests, other tests include boarding of personnel for orbit, launch and separation practices, the last test would be a remote landing tests from space from a remote launch, separation, and orbit and then return from orbit to airfield.

What we are working towards is a permanent transport platform for humans into space, not for a limited volume of people we currently have with all governments.

Remember the people that will build into space are the people that see possbilities and hurdles and overcome the hurdles without breaking there principles and ideas.

GCNRevenger,

Private Enterprise doesn't look for the cheapest method, but the most economic method for business to thrive. The space bus services of the future will be required for private space stations / platforms like the bigelow platforms and therefore people will use the cheapest / reliable / regular transporter into earth orbit and I don't think that will be NASA or any other government space agency either.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-14 19:39:40

If it is difficult to create a manned vehicle that can be launched from a 747, then the obvious solution is to use a larger or faster aircraft. A custom vehicle designed as a launcher would be ideal, though it would have higher initial costs than using an existing aircraft. If you want to use existing aircraft, then the Tu-160 comes into consideration. The other option would be to convince the military to build a large supersonic bomber, like a modern version of the XB-70 Valerie, and then adapt it to launching spacecraft.

Interesting idea, but the SU-170 Blackjack could only carry 40 tonnes of ordinance. The XB-70 Valkyrie couldn't carry external ordinance, and maximum fuel plus ordinace was 110.31 tonnes. A mach 3 bomber is an interesting way to save rocket fuel.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-14 19:50:05

GCNRevenger,
Firstly the spaceplane would be a more technical version of spaceshipone concept using a piggyback approach for launching the human spaceplane into orbit. It would have a heatshield on the spaceplane to be used like " shuttle re-entry" both reusable vehicles.
Second part of the questions, was why go into space privately , the same reasons for any country - 1) Increase corporate resources, 2) increase innovation within corporate 3) prestige, 4) be a global player 5) to explore and gather new understanding and knowledge.
I think you need to look outside the current corporate structures, governmental structures and fuedal structures across the world, and create a hybrid structure based on leadership and ownership and innovation.

I have no problem with a scramjet and rocket to space, but that going to cost between 5 to 10 billion dollars to develop it and maybe several hundreds of million to one billion dollars per copy after it been developed to built it, which might take twenty to thirty people into space. But supposedly it will decrease the price of taking people into space by 9/10 or cost only 1/10 as much after it in place. Instead of having to spend 500 hundred million dollar per launch, it might be 50 million dollars per launch with no through. Private Enterprise would still not be able to afford it and once it were built, there would not be a use for it unless you had a government project of either expanding the ISS space station and/or putting a base on the moon. Then private enterprise would have a market for there new space shuttle and a ready and eager customer ready to do business with them.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x … -main.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2004/ … amjet.html

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2004-11-14 19:52:01

The goals for the next generation SpaceshipOne will carry 4-6 people for Richard Barnson. It also will use a Whiteknight style launch platform thus both reusable.

SpaceShipOne is still a suborbital hop. There is quite a difference between achieving 100km altitude with no forward velocity, and 400km altitude with enough velocity for orbit. Add to that a heat shield, manoeuvring thrusters, docking hatch and rendezvous radar, and life support for more than a few minutes. The result is a vehicle quite larger and more complex than SS1.

To use the minimalist approach of SS1, you could eliminate the solid abort rocket from HL-20; count on the OMS engines for abort. Eliminate the parachute and inflatable floatation devices, and just count on the craft flying away to safety and belly-land on water. Is that what you really want to do?

comstar03 · 2004-11-14 19:58:11

RobertDyck,

I was trying to keep things simple for you. Of course it would be a very complex vehicle, but the principles and processes could still apply. The control systems would be integrated into a simpler display console. That is why all the testing Robert.

comstar03 · 2004-11-14 20:03:08

Robert ,

Keep the objective, to move people into space, similar to airlines move people around earth. The design, casting and molds will pay-off itself, because you would start creating multiple vehicles like building aircrafts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-11-12 13:50:31

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#202 2004-11-12 16:54:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#203 2004-11-12 18:13:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#204 2004-11-12 19:19:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#205 2004-11-12 20:33:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#206 2004-11-12 20:59:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#207 2004-11-12 21:27:01

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#208 2004-11-12 21:54:23

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#209 2004-11-13 06:57:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#210 2004-11-13 09:27:03

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#211 2004-11-13 20:57:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#212 2004-11-14 04:32:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#213 2004-11-14 09:10:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#214 2004-11-14 14:46:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#215 2004-11-14 15:54:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#216 2004-11-14 16:40:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#217 2004-11-14 16:57:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#218 2004-11-14 19:02:26

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#219 2004-11-14 19:23:01

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#220 2004-11-14 19:30:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#221 2004-11-14 19:39:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#222 2004-11-14 19:50:05

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#223 2004-11-14 19:52:01

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#224 2004-11-14 19:58:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#225 2004-11-14 20:03:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Board footer