Quote from: FinalFrontier on 05/30/2012 03:58 amGreat job on the article as usual Chris. Is this particular vehicle a mockup or an actual spacecraft (minus avionics thrusters ect)? Engineering Test Article. Much closer to mockup than spacecraft.
Great job on the article as usual Chris. Is this particular vehicle a mockup or an actual spacecraft (minus avionics thrusters ect)?
It states “flight vehicle” in the NAASA press release and if you look closely in the video you can see control surfaces…
NASA.gov's got their own (short) article on this now:http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/snc_captivecarry.html#
More than NASAWatch has. For all the talk that website does it is now only a cheerleading site for SpaceX and the current administration. I note there was no mention of the CST-100 drop test or the SNC test yet.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 05/31/2012 02:08 amMore than NASAWatch has. For all the talk that website does it is now only a cheerleading site for SpaceX and the current administration. I note there was no mention of the CST-100 drop test or the SNC test yet.If you can figure out how to spin this story to "see how much NASA sucks?" then it will be welcomed there. That's their role.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/31/2012 02:12 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 05/31/2012 02:08 amMore than NASAWatch has. For all the talk that website does it is now only a cheerleading site for SpaceX and the current administration. I note there was no mention of the CST-100 drop test or the SNC test yet.If you can figure out how to spin this story to "see how much NASA sucks?" then it will be welcomed there. That's their role.I almost fell out of my chair laughing seeing NASA watch mentioned here again. That place is literally the "media matters" equivalent for spaceflight. Its been nearly two years since I saw them crop up in discussion here, thanks for that was a good laugh
I do wonder about the tiny vertical tail - it is so small that it *looks* like it would hardly give any aerodynamic benefit.
Just the opposite. An Engineering Test Article is typically a high-fidelity step toward the operational item. In a vehicle's case it is typically a pathfinder meant to be structurally similar to the intended production vehicle with similar mass properties and aerodynamics.Systems can and will very depending on the scope, nature and reason for the tests.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 05/31/2012 02:04 amJust the opposite. An Engineering Test Article is typically a high-fidelity step toward the operational item. In a vehicle's case it is typically a pathfinder meant to be structurally similar to the intended production vehicle with similar mass properties and aerodynamics.Systems can and will very depending on the scope, nature and reason for the tests.That would make it similar to the shuttle Enterprise.
Quote from: Lars_J on 05/31/2012 03:06 amI do wonder about the tiny vertical tail - it is so small that it *looks* like it would hardly give any aerodynamic benefit.I keep wondering about the lack of a body flap, both for pitch control and for shielding the docking ring during re-entry.
I believe the central vertical fin moves as a single unit. If so, that should give you quite a bit of control especially when hard over. IIRC a key function of this control surface is for yaw control in cross winds during landing, i.e. pointing straight down the runway. Can anybody confirm? As others have pointed out there are six other control surfaces in addition to this which act in sum to give the traditional rudder/aileron/elevator functions. Talking of crosswinds, X-24 was occasionally blown sideways during landing as it presented a big surface area to the side. The Dream Chaser will presumably face a similar challenge. Elsewhere people have wondered if steering is achieved by differential braking of the main landing gear. My guess is this technique would give you more ability to overcome this sort of crosswind problem, at least it would be better than small steerable nose wheels.As for body flaps, as others have noted these lie flush to the body and do not extend beyond the rear of the fuselage. I'm not sure why this is the case. If they were further back extending out (a la X-33) that would give a larger control moment, and would provide protection for the engine bells. There is a Q&A thread, perhaps this belongs there. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.new;topicseen#new