I saw this on Clark Lindsay's Space Transport News, based on an article in the print edition of Space News.
Quote from: neilh on 08/12/2009 05:40 amI saw this on Clark Lindsay's Space Transport News, based on an article in the print edition of Space News. Air-capture. That's novel! Interesting development.
Air-capture. That's novel! Interesting development.
What are the benefits of air-capture?
Quote from: thomson on 08/12/2009 09:38 amWhat are the benefits of air-capture?It is entirely about reducing the shock at splash/touchdown.
Perhaps we will see today whether this concept was taken seriously and incorporated, or even mentioned, in the commission's most likely options to be presented to the President.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 08/12/2009 09:54 amQuote from: thomson on 08/12/2009 09:38 amWhat are the benefits of air-capture?It is entirely about reducing the shock at splash/touchdown. Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).
Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).
Quote from: Variable on 08/14/2009 09:38 pmAlso about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).Air capture is not a new idea.In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that. Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.
Quote from: jongoff on 08/15/2009 02:06 amQuote from: Variable on 08/14/2009 09:38 pmAlso about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).Air capture is not a new idea.In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that. Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter. Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters. Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.I'm still a fan of vertical powered landing myself, but it's not crazy.~Jon
Quote from: Variable on 08/14/2009 09:38 pmAir capture is not a new idea.In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that. Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter. Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters. Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.
Air capture is not a new idea.In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that. Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.
I wasn't trying to imply it was trivial
What's the plan for the second capture attempt if the parafoil gets fouled by the first attempt?
Quote from: jongoff on 08/15/2009 02:06 amQuote from: Variable on 08/14/2009 09:38 pmAir capture is not a new idea.In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that. Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter. Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters. Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.What's the plan for the second capture attempt if the parafoil gets fouled by the first attempt?
Anyone interested in doing some quick math brainstorm with me about this topic? (or, if the precise details are online somewhere, could someone please point me to a link?)12500 Kg : Atlas 402 payload to 28.5 degrees, 185Km circular LEO.( 9050 Kg : "Max. Structural Capability w/o Analysis or LV Mods")Some of my own preliminary Orion-Lite assumptions next:(just and only to start the brainstorm) 7500 Kg : trimmed down CM for LEO only (?) 2000 Kg : mini SM (?) 1100 Kg : SM propellants (MMH/N2O4?; R-4D cluster?: ~490N, 312s vac. ISP)------------10600 Kg spacecraft total mass (?)The above assumptions would give an ideal dV budget of ~327m/s.(while assuming ~2.3% inside the SM at the end of the mission) 4200 Kg : Launch Abort System for this specific Orion-Lite CM / launcher (?) 500 Kg : Centaur DE US-SM Adapter?This would give a total mass at lift-off of about 15.3t, which is 6.25t beyond the 'structural capability without launch vehicle analysis or modifications'.I guess that one of the main questions would be: how light can a Command Module, based on Orion's outer mold, be for simplified LEO 'taxi' duties?As a follow-up question: can the total mass of the Spacecraft + LAS + Adapter be ~10t!?It all depends of the assumptions for Orion-Lite but, without knowing those assumptions and extra details, I'm not sure if something like an Atlas 402 is up to the task for such spacecraft configuration but again, not much numerical info out there about Orion-Lite design / mass breakout.António