Author Topic: SNC building test schedule for Dream Chaser – Dryden Drop Tests upcoming  (Read 84054 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
If one wanted to perform an air drop extraction of DC from a cargo plane you would need folding fins as was done to the X-38/CRV for stowing in the shuttle cargo bay.  They would deploy after extraction. That would be an expensive and time consuming redesign.
Another option from rocket power from air drop from SkyCrane or air tow would to employ turbojets on pods as was done on the Buran Analog or fly it off the ground, this was considered and built for the X-24A as the SV-5J (internal J60 jet engine) program...

Once again always alternatives...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=691http://www.therpf.com/f11/has-anyone-done-hl-10-lifting-body-54417/index4.html
http://www.therpf.com/f11/has-anyone-done-hl-10-lifting-body-54417/index4.html
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml
« Last Edit: 12/16/2012 08:33 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Did not Northrop Grumman buy scaled?
True. while it's not exactly hidden NG don't seem to make a big thing of it and Scaled certainly don't go out of their way to remind people they are actually owned by anyone.
Quote
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121005005907/en/Virgin-Galactic-Acquires-Full-Ownership-Spaceship-Company

Me smells Sir Richard me thinks... ::)
Given Sir Richard's  approach is much more Elon Musk than Jeff Bezos this is very low key by his standards.

Scaled have a reputation for brilliant design and manufacture of 1 off or 2 off aircraft. This was problematical for an ongoing business. This suggests that VG are happy with the design and prepared to commit and freeze it. Odd as I though they still had more of the test programme to complete.

OTOH if that's the case then (in principle) anyone wanting a new WK2 could just buy it from TSC, although that's likely to be quite a bit more expensive than renting time.

Note that in practice I doubt this will make any substantial change to the operations of TSC or VG, with the possible return of seconded staff back to Scaled.

Too bad about SNC being too big for an air drop from a transport aircraft. Not quite as small as I thought. I suggested the heli drop and rocket assisted climb because it seemed the simplest fit to what they've already done. On a limited budget (and there's is very limited) that seems like a good idea. I agree this will fly long before Stratolaunch if the funding is there. There is just so much less basic engineering, design and mfg to do.

The funding is the issue. So the question is how the negotiations on averting the drive off the fiscal cliff in 15 days time are going.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Did not Northrop Grumman buy scaled?
True. while it's not exactly hidden NG don't seem to make a big thing of it and Scaled certainly don't go out of their way to remind people they are actually owned by anyone.
Quote
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121005005907/en/Virgin-Galactic-Acquires-Full-Ownership-Spaceship-Company

Me smells Sir Richard me thinks... ::)
Given Sir Richard's  approach is much more Elon Musk than Jeff Bezos this is very low key by his standards.

Scaled have a reputation for brilliant design and manufacture of 1 off or 2 off aircraft. This was problematical for an ongoing business. This suggests that VG are happy with the design and prepared to commit and freeze it. Odd as I though they still had more of the test programme to complete.

OTOH if that's the case then (in principle) anyone wanting a new WK2 could just buy it from TSC, although that's likely to be quite a bit more expensive than renting time.

Note that in practice I doubt this will make any substantial change to the operations of TSC or VG, with the possible return of seconded staff back to Scaled.

Too bad about SNC being too big for an air drop from a transport aircraft. Not quite as small as I thought. I suggested the heli drop and rocket assisted climb because it seemed the simplest fit to what they've already done. On a limited budget (and there's is very limited) that seems like a good idea. I agree this will fly long before Stratolaunch if the funding is there. There is just so much less basic engineering, design and mfg to do.

The funding is the issue. So the question is how the negotiations on averting the drive off the fiscal cliff in 15 days time are going.  :(
Yea, I miss the pretty girls that are usually in his photo ops announcements...  ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Stacy, MN
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 113
The Enterprise did gliding, approach and landing tests while piggybacking on top of a Boeing 747.  The shuttle FTA separated from the 747 at altitude!  I've seen the original model airplane in Muncie Indiana which proved the concept.  I'm sure Dreamchaser could fit nicely on top of a 747 as well.


Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Which would allow for better testing, riding on top of the plane, like Enterprise on the 747, or being suspended under the plane like the HL10 with the B-52 or SSx with the White Knight ?


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
This is the aircraft they could hire for DC air launch, the Ant-225. It has the mounts on top of the fuselage for transport for Buran and the tail configuration for adequate clearance during release...

http://news.kievukraine.info/2008/02/ukraine-china-to-set-up-aerospace.html

http://aircraft-flightsimulator.com/page/4/

http://www.aircharterservice.com/aircraft/cargo/antonov-an-225
« Last Edit: 12/19/2012 02:32 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Which would allow for better testing, riding on top of the plane, like Enterprise on the 747, or being suspended under the plane like the HL10 with the B-52 or SSx with the White Knight ?
The "problem" with the SCA, (747) is the need to build new positional and mounting brackets for the DC. There is also an "issue" if the DC can generate enough "lift" to clear the top of the SCA during a "drop" test. (The Shuttle wings provided enough "glide" for a clean seperation as long as the SCA dove away at full power. The DC might not have enough lift to do the same)

This would be an issue for ANY top mounted release though, that includes the AN-225. (IIRC there are a couple of other modified "airframes" in Russia for top carry but the main "problem" still remains)

In many ways the "drop" (B-52/WK2) method would avoid the majority of the issues from top or cargo drop methods, but it then again requires an Aircraft capable of carrying the DC to drop altitude and releasing it. I suspect the Skycrane is going to have to suffice for many of the early tests, but "I" don't see them doing rocket boosted tests from there.

Then again thinking on the subject I recall a "mod" for the Orbiter sim where you have a set of wings and engines that you attach to the baseline "Orbiter" vehicle that allows you to fly the vehicle to its own air-launch position. All cockpit controls and aircraft interfaces run through the cockpit of the DC in this case and it flies around like a "normal" aircraft until the drop point. The "aircraft" portion would then self-recover under remote or on-board guidance and the DC would fly the rest of the profile on its own. This could be useful both for testing and at an advanced level it might provide for suborbital flights.
S
omething like that might be an interesting "aside" to study for the DC at some point...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Which would allow for better testing, riding on top of the plane, like Enterprise on the 747, or being suspended under the plane like the HL10 with the B-52 or SSx with the White Knight ?
The "problem" with the SCA, (747) is the need to build new positional and mounting brackets for the DC. There is also an "issue" if the DC can generate enough "lift" to clear the top of the SCA during a "drop" test. (The Shuttle wings provided enough "glide" for a clean seperation as long as the SCA dove away at full power. The DC might not have enough lift to do the same)

This would be an issue for ANY top mounted release though, that includes the AN-225. (IIRC there are a couple of other modified "airframes" in Russia for top carry but the main "problem" still remains)

In many ways the "drop" (B-52/WK2) method would avoid the majority of the issues from top or cargo drop methods, but it then again requires an Aircraft capable of carrying the DC to drop altitude and releasing it. I suspect the Skycrane is going to have to suffice for many of the early tests, but "I" don't see them doing rocket boosted tests from there.

Then again thinking on the subject I recall a "mod" for the Orbiter sim where you have a set of wings and engines that you attach to the baseline "Orbiter" vehicle that allows you to fly the vehicle to its own air-launch position. All cockpit controls and aircraft interfaces run through the cockpit of the DC in this case and it flies around like a "normal" aircraft until the drop point. The "aircraft" portion would then self-recover under remote or on-board guidance and the DC would fly the rest of the profile on its own. This could be useful both for testing and at an advanced level it might provide for suborbital flights.
S
omething like that might be an interesting "aside" to study for the DC at some point...

Randy

I assume whatever aircraft is chosen, they would need to make some modifications to add the necessary structure for carrying DC. Since this pretty much takes the aircraft out of service for other purposes, it's almost like SNC would need to purchase the carrier aircraft. I'm sure there are plenty of candidate aircraft sitting in the desert, but probably nothing that can be flight-worthy in less than a year.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
The AN 225 really isn’t going to need much in the way of internal structural bracing since she could carry an orbiter on her back. As far as mods go she already has the hard points to mount a rack to. As long as the rack is high enough and in clean air, separation should be possible. The handing qualities of the DC should be fairly close to a HL-20 I simmed  years back... There is nothing “evil” in a lifting body that seems to spook a lot of folks who don’t understand its aerodynamics (not aimed at anyone in particular). No big deal for any competent pilot, much better than me, espicially a former NASA Shuttle commander... CFD and a wind tunnel can verify any problems ahead of time.

Another option is to "not fly” the DC off the 225. A long rack (mounted up top) with rollers can allow her to slide off the rack behind the 225 safely using simple aero drag and or a drogue chute at the rear of DC.
 
HMX will know what I’m talking about...  ;)

Like I tell my applied physics students... “Lateral thinking people... lateral thinking”...
« Last Edit: 12/19/2012 07:10 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
The AN 225 really isn’t going to need much in the way of internal structural bracing since she could carry an orbiter on her back. As far as mods go she already has the hard points to mount a rack to. As long as the rack is high enough and in clean air, separation should be possible.
"Structural" no, but the Orbiter it was designed to carry is far larger than the DC and that means that either they are going to have to fit a 'secondary' system onto the existing system that down-sizes to fit the DC or they are going to have to actually modify the hard-points themselves.
(Obviously the first is going to be "cheaper-and-easier" on the AN-225 but maybe not so much for SN since they would probably have to build and certify it and THEN convince the Russians to take the AN-225 off the market long enough to do fitting and then the drop tests)

The "rack" is the question though because so far the DC has been doing everything from the "top" and such a set up would require re-working to carry and load bear through the bottom. All of this would be on SN's dime.
Quote
The handing qualities of the DC should be fairly close to a HL-20 I simmed  years back... There is nothing “evil” in a lifting body that seems to spook a lot of folks who don’t understand its aerodynamics (not aimed at anyone in particular). No big deal for any competent pilot, much better than me, espicially a former NASA Shuttle commander... CFD and a wind tunnel can verify any problems ahead of time.
And will hopefully :) But it's a consideration that a lifting body does NOT have the same lift as a winged body :)

Lifting bodies are very good at what they are designed to do which is "lift" using more body and speed than wing-area-to-mass to achieve the same lift. There actually IS nothing "evil" about them as I well know. I also happen to know they are not and are probably never going to be AS good as a "winged" lift vehicle at lower speeds :)

I'm not "picking" on DC here either if that helps :) I had a LOT of issues with the PlanetSpace Silver Dart Lifting Body because I happen to KNOW it was going to be a very, very "hot-bird" to land without some sort of lifting enhancment system for low speeds.
Quote
Another option is to "not fly” the DC off the 225. A long rack (mounted up top) with rollers can allow her to slide off the rack behind the 225 safely using simple aero drag and or a drogue chute at the rear of DC.
 
HMX will know what I’m talking about...  ;)

Like I tell my applied physics students... “Lateral thinking people... lateral thinking”...
Well, yes.. But then you're dumping the DC into the wake of the AN-225 which brings up it's own issues :)

I'd "assume" someone has or will sit down with the first couple of drop flights worth of data and some wind-tunnel work to see if the DC generates enough lift to be able to 'fly' off the back of a carrier aircraft. If not then they will probably have to go with "drop" being the operative phrase...

("Lateral" thinking puts me in mind of a very long, very conveluted discussion somewhere on "Air-Launch" of a rocket vehicle that began to get a bit snappish until we discovered that the "other" side of the argument had simply "assumed" we were talking about shoving the LV out the side hatch on an air-freighter instead of using the T-LAD system. The whole other-side argument began to make a LOT more sense after that since frankly "I" couldn't figure out how you'd manage that little trick either :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Hey Randy,
Yup, wake turbulence would have to be dealt with in the flight profile, such as the 225 will have to pitch down and bank away, DC will have to pitch up slightly and may need to bank slightly opposite. The vortices descend and DC will want to stay out of them... That’s where the wind tunnel time comes in handy.  :) The SNC folks seem very methodical in their approach and I’m sure they will come up with a solution...

Here is a link for L/D of lifting bodies compared to the X-15 and Shuttle just for reference... Not as good as my first glider a Blanik L-13, but good enough... ;)

http://ia600609.us.archive.org/23/items/nasa_techdoc_19990052613/19990052613.pdf
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Since we're in the world of speculation, is there any way to hang it under a commercial airliner-sized a/c a la Orbital's L1011?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Since we're in the world of speculation, is there any way to hang it under a commercial airliner-sized a/c a la Orbital's L1011?
They would need to extend the gear at minimum and Orbital is a competitor for cargo to ISS...So I guess their aircraft is out...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062

Here is a link for L/D of lifting bodies compared to the X-15 and Shuttle just for reference... Not as good as my first glider a Blanik L-13, but good enough... ;)

http://ia600609.us.archive.org/23/items/nasa_techdoc_19990052613/19990052613.pdf

Very cool! Thanks!

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
What altitude does it need to be dropped from and what speed?

I can't help thinking of using a blimp.

It would be great PR for one of the blimp or modern Zeppelin companies.
 

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
What altitude does it need to be dropped from and what speed?

I can't help thinking of using a blimp.

It would be great PR for one of the blimp or modern Zeppelin companies.
The lower the initial airspeed the higher the drop has to be so the vehicle can build up lift.

Not sure what the "stall" speed is put it's likely higher than a blimps "Maximum" speed :)

Since we're in the world of speculation, is there any way to hang it under a commercial airliner-sized a/c a la Orbital's L1011?
As noted I don't think the Orbital L101 is going to be "available" but having said that AirLaunch figured a way to get good size "margin" under a "standard" 747 (@10 feet IIRC) which might allow such a carry given enough mods to allow such. I think the biggie is going to be fin clearance to allow the DC to fit.

Hey Randy,
Yup, wake turbulence would have to be dealt with in the flight profile, such as the 225 will have to pitch down and bank away, DC will have to pitch up slightly and may need to bank slightly opposite. The vortices descend and DC will want to stay out of them... That’s where the wind tunnel time comes in handy.  :) The SNC folks seem very methodical in their approach and I’m sure they will come up with a solution...
Same here :) I'm not saying it can't be done, more a question of what they have the budget to do overall.

I mean if you REALLY want to get "cheap-and-easy" Jordin Kare suggested a down-and-dirty "14th Century Launch Assist" concept at one point that would be perfect :)

Stretch a cable across the Grand Canyon, (one side is higher than the other and the vehicle would be on the "high" side) with one end attached to the vehicle and the other a very large "bucket" of water. "Knock" the bucket off the far side and let physics have it's way :)
Quote
Here is a link for L/D of lifting bodies compared to the X-15 and Shuttle just for reference... Not as good as my first glider a Blanik L-13, but good enough... ;)

http://ia600609.us.archive.org/23/items/nasa_techdoc_19990052613/19990052613.pdf
Thanks! I was actually looking for that one recently for something else I was referencing and couldn't figure out where/if I downloaded it :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606

I mean if you REALLY want to get "cheap-and-easy" Jordin Kare suggested a down-and-dirty "14th Century Launch Assist" concept at one point that would be perfect :)

Stretch a cable across the Grand Canyon, (one side is higher than the other and the vehicle would be on the "high" side) with one end attached to the vehicle and the other a very large "bucket" of water. "Knock" the bucket off the far side and let physics have it's way :)
Thanks! I was actually looking for that one recently for something else I was referencing and couldn't figure out where/if I downloaded it :)

A few years ago a documentary recreated the plan to escape from the Colditz PoW camp in WWII by building a glider using bedsheets. The launch assist was a bathtub filled with concrete.

The flight was viewed as too high risk so they used radio control and weights to simulate the 2 person crew. It take off and reached the landing area safely.

However you're still pretty close to ground level.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32

I mean if you REALLY want to get "cheap-and-easy" Jordin Kare suggested a down-and-dirty "14th Century Launch Assist" concept at one point that would be perfect :)

Stretch a cable across the Grand Canyon, (one side is higher than the other and the vehicle would be on the "high" side) with one end attached to the vehicle and the other a very large "bucket" of water. "Knock" the bucket off the far side and let physics have it's way :)
Thanks! I was actually looking for that one recently for something else I was referencing and couldn't figure out where/if I downloaded it :)

A few years ago a documentary recreated the plan to escape from the Colditz PoW camp in WWII by building a glider using bedsheets. The launch assist was a bathtub filled with concrete.

The flight was viewed as too high risk so they used radio control and weights to simulate the 2 person crew. It take off and reached the landing area safely.

However you're still pretty close to ground level.
Yep it is ONLY an "assist" and you'd still need to do a pull up manuever and light the rockets but it DOES gain you something :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
What the heck does this have to do with anything?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
What the heck does this have to do with anything?
Well with WK2 unavailable for widening the flight envelope how else can you get the altitude and speed you need to test its landing range?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1