This has probably been discussed before but is there any reasons that DC could not fly to cislunar space? I remember that SNC's original plans was that DC could fly to BLEO but some time after that, they changed their mind and said that DC was LEO only. But my question is more whether it would be difficult to adapt DC for BLEO since NASA said that it will need cargo services to the DSG.
With the cargo module is has more space and has solar panels, so it would seem that in theory it could. There is more to loiter time than just solar panels, but the cargo section would seem to afford them some more design freedom then keeping everything inside the OML.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/27/2017 05:13 pmThis has probably been discussed before but is there any reasons that DC could not fly to cislunar space? I remember that SNC's original plans was that DC could fly to BLEO but some time after that, they changed their mind and said that DC was LEO only. But my question is more whether it would be difficult to adapt DC for BLEO since NASA said that it will need cargo services to the DSG.I don't believe it could withstand re-entry coming from the moon.
Well, they can make it to orbit in the movie theatre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Between_Us_(film)
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/24/2017 06:24 pmI guess I don't hate that stupid nose skid as much after having seen this. Still not luvin' it though... Does anyone know if it provides any directional steering capability during the landing roll? Or are they planning on differential braking? Or something else?
On landing if a tire blows on one of the rear wheels does having a nose skid vs. A steerable nose wheel help or hinder controlling the rollout ??
Quote from: Jeff Lerner on 08/26/2017 02:29 amOn landing if a tire blows on one of the rear wheels does having a nose skid vs. A steerable nose wheel help or hinder controlling the rollout ??If the tire loses pressure before landing the technique is to land with weight on the good tire using aero control surfaces until the airspeed bleeds of and allow the the tire to contact the ground then use opposite side braking to compensate for the drag from the deflated tire. If a tire blows on contact you still use aero control surfaces until they lose effectiveness and with opposite braking...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/28/2017 02:03 amQuote from: Jeff Lerner on 08/26/2017 02:29 amOn landing if a tire blows on one of the rear wheels does having a nose skid vs. A steerable nose wheel help or hinder controlling the rollout ??If the tire loses pressure before landing the technique is to land with weight on the good tire using aero control surfaces until the airspeed bleeds of and allow the the tire to contact the ground then use opposite side braking to compensate for the drag from the deflated tire. If a tire blows on contact you still use aero control surfaces until they lose effectiveness and with opposite braking... Perhaps the point is that you can't blow out a nose skid?...
It's certainly not an area I claim to be an expert in but I understand that nose wheel steering in general isn't used at higher speeds (such as landing or takeoff), it's mostly used for taxiing. Steering at higher speeds is done through differential braking or with aerosurfaces. It's even considered enough of a hazard that most aircraft that have it won't allow nose wheel steering to engage above certain speeds, or if it does it only permits a few degrees of movement (something less than 7 degrees, very minimal).So it's probably mostly a non-issue as the nose shouldn't be steering at high speeds.
To add, some light aircraft don't even have nose wheel steering and it is free to caster...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/28/2017 09:18 pmTo add, some light aircraft don't even have nose wheel steering and it is free to caster...IIRC even some Soviet jet fighters used castering nose wheels, presumably to cut down on weight and complexity.I learned to fly in an airplane with a castering nose wheel. You get used to it, but it's still a pain vs. a steering nose wheel.
As far as this Hubble Servicing Mission mentioned in the article, I presume it would be limited to prop delivery, with no swap out of large components?
Quote from: TomH on 08/29/2017 04:56 amAs far as this Hubble Servicing Mission mentioned in the article, I presume it would be limited to prop delivery, with no swap out of large components?Hubble doesn't use propellant, as it would contaminate the mirror. The mission might be just to boost the orbit and add a deorbit motor. I would think changing out parts and instruments would be difficult for an uncrewed mission.