Community > Forum > Bigelow's America's Space Prize > Possible Craft

Possible Craft

Posted by: Sev - Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:10 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 201 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Possible Craft 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:50 am
Posts: 265
Location: UK
Post Korolev   Posted on: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:22 am
Sergei Korolev was the Soviets chief rocket designer, though that was a secret until after his death.

http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:29 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/korolev.html


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri May 13, 2005 1:53 pm
Back to a concept mrmorris and others can't imagine to be made working for orbital flights - the article "t/Space Offers an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap" ( http://www.space.com/spacenews/business ... 50509.html ) says that t/Space and especially their member Scaled Composites can develop a vehicle that will be air launched to orbit.

The capsule will be ballistic.

t/Space says that they can have it ready until 2008 at 400 milion $ - and they have got 6 million $ to do a study from NASA.

So Scaled Composites might get the experiences required for the ASP this way - they can't use the CXV but they may be enabled by it to develop a smaller and better orbital vehicle for personal spaceflight that fits into the ASP rules.

The CXV would be government funded but an ASP vehicle develope based on the CXV experiences would be private funded because a/the profit got from the CXV project will be private ressources of Scaled.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed May 18, 2005 10:14 pm
It makes more sense than Lockheed-Martins warmed over OSP/CEV.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 4:36 pm
I agree. CXV is a better plan than LockMart's because it skips man-rating any existing EELV, and favors the creation of a space-only CEV. This also tends to encourage building a bigger launch vehicle, presumably the much-discussed STS-derived HLLV.

I'm not so sure Griffin will part with half a billion bucks for the project, however...

On the other hand, and this is a big longshot... rumor has it that Allen is going to divest himself of a bunch of DreamWorks stock when Madagascar releases (in just a few weeks), and his stake in that company is reputed to be in that same range (half a billion). There has been discussion about the real cash value of ASP, given that it includes future guaranteed contracts, and I wonder whether, if Griffin shoots t/Space down, there might not be a legitimate possibility of another Allen-sponsored prize attempt.

Absent a real push from Musk directed specifically at the prize, an "angel-funded" t/Space effort seems like the only real possibility for winning. Orbit by 2010 is just really, really difficult.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 6:25 pm
Now he needs to invest in the AN-225 White Knight--see why in that thread. More on that.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed May 25, 2005 8:28 am
If the ASP fails to produce a suitable vehicle to service Bigelow's stations then perhaps he would consider using Russia's Kliper craft as it is scheduled to be ready in about the same timescale. ESA appears to be seriously considering Kliper as a joint venture with the Russians to give them independant access to the ISS for their astronauts. They could fly it on Soyuz from Kourou as they are building a Soyuz launch site there or perhaps adapt a Kliper for Ariane which would give them total independance.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/05/23/ ... pper.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article ... 79,00.html

Possibly Bigelow could provide another market for Kliper flights, if a Bigelow station was put into a similar orbit to the ISS then it might be possible for a single Kliper to visit both on a single mission. An advantage to using Kliper would be that it is likely to be fitted with the same docking mechanism that Bigelow will be using on his inflatables.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:58 am
Comment only:

The last news from t/Space including the photos seem to show that air launch to orbit won't be that problem mrmorris and others considered it to be. There were comments on Burt Rutan which had a "negative" tendency.

May be that t/Space's drop tests mean that air launch will be the future of orbital personal spaceflight.

If they get sufficient private investments they could win the ASP this way perhaps - if they decide to compete.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:53 am
Marshall wrote:
CCCP wrote:
>> You know those pictures of Columbia breaking up? It's shiny like a shooting star isn't it? That's because when you reenter at 17,000 mph the kinetic energy of your craft hitting the atmosphere heats the air around it to about (I think, I'm a layman too though) 54,000 degrees Farenheit, turning it into a plasma! Thus, while SS1's feathered reentry is an extremely elegant solution to suborbital reentry, for orbit you would need something a little more hardcore.


I am pleased to see someone mention the actual “air temperature” of the Columbia during reentry! The press kept talking about “5000 degrees”, which isn’t enough to produce the radio blocking plasma! YES, reentry “air temperature” (to the extent that the term has any meaning) is hotter than the surface of the Sun! The existing SS1 would disappear in a bright fireball, leaving a much lower residual proportion to flutter to the ground than did the Columbia!

It isn’t all that hard to handle reentry, even with a fiberglass (or OAK, as once used by the Chinese) heat shield. But you have to get rid of all that cute, spindly aerodynamic stuff. Think MUSHROOM. Read “Allen and Eggers (NACA report 1381, 1957)”. With blunt front surfaces the detached shock wave produces a nice, insulating air cushion. (Remember that it is AIR that provides the insulation in Styrofoam). This reduces the heat flow to the heat shield so that it can be balanced by radiation at 5000 degrees surface temperature (as long as you don’t have holes or defects to let the 50,000 degree plasma get closer!)

Think Apollo and Mercury. If they aren’t sexy enough, then hunt up a Billion Dollars to develop some really good high tech stuff for the sharp leading edges (which will get hotter than the Sun). But if you can live with slug like lumps, lots of affordable materials will serve for a heat shield, and a decent one will weigh less than 5% of the reentry mass. Yes, you can throw it away and still meet the “Reusable Rules”. And this expendable should add less than $10 per pound to orbital payload costs.

If you still want wings, you may have to make them fold out from behind the heat shield. Yet folding wings – despite Rutan’s optimism – have a poor reliability history. But very little about Rutan’s SS1 makes sense for orbital use, since this is as big a step above the SS1 performance as the SS1 was above Rutan’s early “Vari-Eze”, homebuilt aircraft design.

Using my sometimes ridiculed numbers for manned flight, I figure a five passenger capsule in orbit weighs 1000 kg, and this requires about 50,000 kg = 110,000 pounds of launch weight. My numbers, as always, are on the low side. The air launch makes very little difference. Do you want to develop a specialized aircraft, with launch support systems and crew, to launch 100,000 to 200,000 pounds of rocket? We are probably talking 800,000 pounds gross weight here! So you want to develop, AND CERTIFY?, something almost as big as the Airbus A380, before 2010, as a side project to launch your ASP effort? Good Luck!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:33 am
Hello, rpspeck,

I don't know if adreesed me partially by your post. But it may be. What I said was based on the news from t/Space exclusively - I didn't calculate anything because they have done that already and I trust them and the capabilities of their engineers and the involved companies. The drop test seems to indicate thyt they are seriously working towards making their concept reality.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:44 pm
Keep in mind that the ONLY thing t/Space has said is that if NASA gives them half a billion dollars, they can fly in the 2008 time frame.

I don't believe ANYONE at t/Space has suggested a run at ASP. That is merely speculation on the part of the members of this community. Ekke is right, the people at t/Space have demonstrated that they have the potential to do accomplish the things they say are possible, but there are half a billion reasons why there isn't yet a realistic t/Space ASP scenario. They still need the money.

And yeah, with half a billion bucks, I am confident that Scaled could field the VLA in time. With Burt's 5-axis mill http://scaled.com/services/cms_mill.html he can literally "print" his airplane from CAD drawings in 50-foot sections. It only needs to have experimental certification, so it isn't like he'll have to log thousands upon thousand of hours on the airframe.

And the re-entry vehicle is a blunt capsule, they have already said that. I don't imagine anyone ever really thought that there would be an SS1-style re-entry from orbital flight.

rp: Haven't naval combat aircraft been folding their wings for half a century?


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:58 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Haven't naval combat aircraft been folding their wings for half a century?


Ooh, I'll take that one: Sure they have.... Once they're on the deck. The only variable-geometry wing aircraft to fly operationally for the US (that I'm aware of) are the F-14 and the F-111. I think there was a Russian pseudo-F-14 that did, too. Variable-geometry wings have issues that not many designers are willing to deal with.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:26 pm
I know, cowboy. I was trying to get rp to qualify his statement to say something about "variable wing geometry" instead of folding wings.

I think the Russian jet was/is the MiG-23/27

You forgot the B1-B Lancer. Lancer and Tomcat are both fairly well-regarded aircraft, wouldn't you agree?

It's true that supersonic variable-wing aircraft have a host of engineering headaches associated with them, but what SS1 was doing was really something different.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:33 pm
Ah, thank you. How could I forget the elegant B-1? And I'm not saying they weren't successful, just that getting the lifting surface to move laterally (as opposed to rotating like flaps) seems to be problematic.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:54 pm
I hear ya. Certainly for the purposes of spaceflight, it is presently extremely impractical to consider swing-wing configurations, what with the weight penalties, hull penetrations, etc.

I'm sure that it has been talked about, though. I mean, what hasn't at this point?


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use