Author Topic: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid  (Read 121117 times)

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1710
  • Liked: 2215
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #60 on: 12/15/2010 09:01 pm »
Very interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept?

It will be interesting to see.  Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were.

Very perceptive; the shape shown in our proposal is a "fifth-generation" one that started with X-34 (whose DNA, by the way, made it into X-37 by the way of Rockwell/Boeing who was our partner on "X-34A"), then proceeded to Kliper/HL-10/HL-20 derivatives, and culminated in the BLB shape shown in the above-mentioned OSP picture.

During the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape.  The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.

Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)

With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences.  The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag.  Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.

A further consideration for lifting bodies is Cg.  Putting the LIDS in the tail is not impossible but does complicate that design issue.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #61 on: 12/16/2010 03:49 am »
Any ETA on a snazzy name for this vehicle?
Yah it needs a snazzy name as that seems very important to sell a concept.

Maybe name it after another mythical creature like Spacex did theirs.
The constellation Phoenix comes to mind which would fit with the names of other OSC projects such as Pegasus,Taurus,and Cygnus.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #62 on: 12/16/2010 04:40 am »
Yah it needs a snazzy name as that seems very important to sell a concept.

I am going to go with Bob.

In all seriousness, the concept itself will be the selling point not the name.  After all, the real name for the Space shuttle is the generic sounding space transportation system.

Offline Space Lizard

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #63 on: 12/16/2010 09:47 am »
To go with "Cygnus", "Aquila" should do it.
I watch rockets

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #64 on: 12/16/2010 03:14 pm »
OMG, they're building Dyna-Soar! :)

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #65 on: 12/16/2010 04:13 pm »


Ho-GAN!!! He "noes nut-hing, NUT-HING!!!"


Actually, it's "I know nothing, I see nothing..."

but, yes, you got the right Schultz...
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #66 on: 12/16/2010 10:07 pm »
"Mmmmmm.....Strudel!  LeBeau, you know my FAVORITE!"

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #67 on: 12/17/2010 02:15 am »
During the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape.  The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.

Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)

With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences.  The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag.  Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.

How does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear. Does the bottom flap do anything at landing speeds?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #68 on: 12/17/2010 03:48 am »
During the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape.  The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.

Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)

With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences.  The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag.  Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.

How does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear.

Larger wings, hence higher subsonic L/D. The shuttle isn't a lifting-body.
JRF

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #69 on: 12/17/2010 02:29 pm »

How does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear.

Larger wings, hence higher subsonic L/D. The shuttle isn't a lifting-body.

Yeah, more or less - wing loading is not as bad.  Having said that, Orbiter landing is quite hairy.  I remember being a wet-behind-the ears GN&C engineer at Draper in the mid to late 70's (my "claim to fame" was the TAEM guidance algorithm which popped into my mind while pushing a grocery cart at a Cambridge, MA Stop&Shop supermarket).  One day I was waiting patiently for my turn to explaing a Change Request - associated with the TAEM guidance - to the Orbiter Configuration Management panel, than chaired by Arnie Aldrich.

This was during the heat of the orbiter design, so the CM panel met weekly for about 12-14 hours (nonstop!) and heard all sort of change requests from all disciplines.  Two or three presentations before me somebody was justifying the need to add a certain check valve to the hydraulic subsystem because, without it, all hydraulic pressure could be lost from backfrom through the pump of a single failed APU (oops!...)

Upon hearing this, Arnie Aldrich exclaimed indignantly "you mean, if we loose an APU, we loose the bird?"

Before the presenter had a chance to answer, a voice from the back of the room - which to this day will remain anonymous - shouted, in reference to the subsonic L/D of the orbiter:

"What do you mean "bird?"  You must mean "brick"!"
« Last Edit: 12/17/2010 02:31 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #70 on: 12/17/2010 02:40 pm »
Press release by Virgin Galactic concerning its partnership with Orbital:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic/

Quote
Mr. Frank Culbertson, Orbital Science’s Senior Vice President and former NASA astronaut stated: Virgin Galactic is clearly breaking new ground in the commercial space market, and we are now very excited to have them on our team. This partnership for marketing and supporting our innovative and affordable design carries a great deal of promise for achieving the kind of growth in commercial spaceflight that will help to make this a sustainable market in the future.”


Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #71 on: 12/17/2010 07:31 pm »
Upon hearing this, Arnie Aldrich exclaimed indignantly "you mean, if we loose an APU, we loose the bird?"
Before the presenter had a chance to answer, a voice from the back of the room - which to this day will remain anonymous - shouted, in reference to the subsonic L/D of the orbiter:
"What do you mean "bird?"  You must mean "brick"!"

    ROFLMAO
    Somewhere it was written that the SR-71, after suffering double engine unstart (before they worked out an effective automatic control system for the inlet cones), "glides about as well as a manhole cover".

     But please share more stories of Draper when you get the chance --- those must have been heady days indeed, designing the incredible/insane/bird/brick!

   -Alex

Offline Seer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #72 on: 12/17/2010 08:19 pm »
Antonioe, how does your plane compare with the x37b in terms of L/D ratio, heat loads etc? Do you know yet whether you will use the same tps as the x37b?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital/Virgin Galactic's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #73 on: 12/17/2010 08:34 pm »

    Somewhere it was written that the SR-71, after suffering double engine unstart (before they worked out an effective automatic control system for the inlet cones), "glides about as well as a manhole cover".


Little-known factoid: Bill Weaver, who flies left seat and manages the rest of the contract flight crew for our Pegasus-dropping L-1011, is the only human to have survived ejection at Mach 3.3  Correction, it was not an ejection: the SR-71 disintegrated around him due to "smothing we were doing that we knew was a bit dicey" - I suspect a single-engine unstart was part of the chain of events.

Bill tells his story in one of the SR-71 books, but I've heard him tell the story about two or three times - it's hilarious (well, his RSO died, which is not funny)

If this thread gets cold AND Chris does not hit me over the head with a 2x4 I may write down the story, as told to the author by Bill Weaver.  Problem is: it's probably a page or a page and a half long.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #74 on: 12/17/2010 08:47 pm »
Here's a link to what looks like the same story:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm

More amazing than hilarious in this telling.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #75 on: 12/19/2010 08:13 pm »
I am curious as to why the new proposal integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle, while Hermes had an expendable one, wont the mass creep still effect the OSC proposal

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16621.0

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #76 on: 12/19/2010 09:02 pm »
How do you know it "integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle"? All we have seen is early CG renderings of a landed vehicle.

But even if it does include all of it - isn't that a good thing? It should improve re usability.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #77 on: 12/19/2010 09:11 pm »
How do you know it "integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle"? All we have seen is early CG renderings of a landed vehicle.

the attached image shows the artwork for the spacecraft in orbit, without any expendable service module.  Say what you want to about the quality of the ISS model, one would expect an image of one's product to be as accurate about one's product to the fullest extent possible.

Quote
But even if it does include all of it - isn't that a good thing? It should improve re usability.

Reusability is not that big of a deal, what you want is flexibility, a light weight design, and above all an economic design.  For a system that only would fly at best a few times a year (crew rotation), is reusability that much of an issue compared to potential weight creep and complexity involved?

Not that I would not like it, just wondering what the rationale behind the design is.  Hopefully OSC/Virgin have other things in mind besides crew transport for NASA.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2010 09:17 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #78 on: 12/19/2010 09:14 pm »
How do you know it "integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle"? All we have seen is early CG renderings of a landed vehicle.

the attached image shows the artwork for the spacecraft in orbit, without any expendable service module.  Say what you want to about the quality of the ISS model, one would expect an image of one's product to be as accurate about one's product to the fullest extent possible.

Given that there are noticeable differences in the spaceplane between the two released artworks (look at cockpit windows for example), I wouldn't put too much credence in that either. :)
« Last Edit: 12/19/2010 09:14 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #79 on: 12/20/2010 04:02 am »
there is a big difference between small things like window configurations versus an expendable service module being missing in artwork, that goes to the central core of the concept

Tags:
 

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