Quote from: OV-106 on 12/15/2010 02:26 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 12/15/2010 06:53 amBut I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?Are you just trying to be argumentative today? Note the *looks* part of my sentence. It is not a fact claim, just my impression
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/15/2010 06:53 amBut I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
But I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.
How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
One thing to note from the drawing, the location of the LIDS looks like there would be interference with the other docking/berthing locations, so either a Node 4 has to be launched. Anyhow because of the interference issues I would guess that it would be more of a taxi and might not be capable of serving in the cRV mode. If that is the case, might not look as good to the selecting committee or to any further use in other fields like Bigelow. Of course it is just art work, so perhaps I am over analyzing.
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/14/2010 12:18 amVery interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept? It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were.
Very interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept?
the shape shown in our proposal is a "fifth-generation" one
Do you still see any use for the X-34 in whatever testing you may have planned and can you share any results that you may know about its "worthiness" after inspections?
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/15/2010 05:20 pmDo you still see any use for the X-34 in whatever testing you may have planned and can you share any results that you may know about its "worthiness" after inspections? The current interest in X-34 (including the "mysterious" move to Mojave) is all focused on reusable LV first stages; NASA Dryden wanted to know to what degree the two old airframes were still airworthy after all these years. To answer the question we had to open some inspection panels. There was no available hangar space at DFRC over the next few weeks. The guys at Mojave did. Quick trip to KMHV for the inspection. Results not in yet, may be "owned" by DFRC when they do. That's all.The X-34 "DNA trace" leading to BLB-2 (and X-37 on the other branch) has simply a hstorical value. X-34 was not designed as an orbital reentry vehicle (but it had excellent landing characteristics!)
Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)
Can you explicitly say the five generations?
So does the current design have two hatches, a rear one for docking/berthing, and the top one is for crew ingress/egress - is that correct? (in that case the ISS approach/departure image shows an incorrect orientation of the craft)
Any ETA on a snazzy name for this vehicle?
The current interest in X-34 (including the "mysterious" move to Mojave) is all focused on reusable LV first stages; NASA Dryden wanted to know to what degree the two old airframes were still airworthy after all these years.
Quote from: antonioe on 09/16/2007 02:05 amAlso, comparisons between X-33 and X-34 are totally inappropriate: X-33 was meant to demonstrate the feasibility of SSTO (or put a final nail on its coffin - that would have been a very useful result). X-34 was meant to measure the cost of reuseability of a reuseable first stage (in terms of parts to be replaced, labor required for turnaround, degree of inspection and retesting required, etc.) Vital data to validate the non-mass-fraction costs of reusability for which there is still only ONE data point.Doesn't that sound familiar, like a certain new AF EELV replacement?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21369.0
Also, comparisons between X-33 and X-34 are totally inappropriate: X-33 was meant to demonstrate the feasibility of SSTO (or put a final nail on its coffin - that would have been a very useful result). X-34 was meant to measure the cost of reuseability of a reuseable first stage (in terms of parts to be replaced, labor required for turnaround, degree of inspection and retesting required, etc.) Vital data to validate the non-mass-fraction costs of reusability for which there is still only ONE data point.
Hmm, a little googling reveals that there are at least three Schultz doctrines, none of which seem especially appropriate. One is named after a much-beloved and recently retired county judge, another deals with trade in stolen antiquities and the third one concerns "preemptive counter-insurgency"...
Quote from: mmeijeri on 12/15/2010 07:07 pmHmm, a little googling reveals that there are at least three Schultz doctrines, none of which seem especially appropriate. One is named after a much-beloved and recently retired county judge, another deals with trade in stolen antiquities and the third one concerns "preemptive counter-insurgency"...Ho-GAN!!! He "noes nut-hing, NUT-HING!!!"