Did not Northrop Grumman buy scaled?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121005005907/en/Virgin-Galactic-Acquires-Full-Ownership-Spaceship-CompanyMe smells Sir Richard me thinks...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/16/2012 12:57 pmDid 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. Quotehttp://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121005005907/en/Virgin-Galactic-Acquires-Full-Ownership-Spaceship-CompanyMe 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.
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 ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 12/19/2012 02:17 pmWhich 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.Something like that might be an interesting "aside" to study for the DC at some point...Randy
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”...
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?
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
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.
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...
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
Quote from: RanulfC on 12/20/2012 06:30 pmI 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.
What the heck does this have to do with anything?