Quote from: Space OurSoul on 05/13/2012 08:31 pmif the fact that the undercarriage doors make the TPS engineering more difficult, would it be possible to avoid the issue by having skylon, or any winged reentry vehicle, re-enter upside down and then flip for low-speed flight and landing?As well as violating the KISS principle, Skylon faces much greater engineering challenges than the undercarriage doors. It's challenging but doable. Remember the Shuttle doors worked without problem in over 100 flights.
if the fact that the undercarriage doors make the TPS engineering more difficult, would it be possible to avoid the issue by having skylon, or any winged reentry vehicle, re-enter upside down and then flip for low-speed flight and landing?
Quote from: Space OurSoul on 05/13/2012 08:31 pmif the fact that the undercarriage doors make the TPS engineering more difficult, would it be possible to avoid the issue by having skylon, or any winged reentry vehicle, re-enter upside down and then flip for low-speed flight and landing?I don't see this as being functionally any harder the "swoop of death" maneuver for DC-Y style SSTO's. If anything, this is a simple roll. The major benefit would be an uninterrupted TPS surface (and substantial reduction of gear door failure as a Loss of Vehicle event), which could simplify attachment/removal/maintenance and keep it out of reach of runway FOD. The other major benefit, already stated, is simplified loading of the payload bay via simple drop pit with a scissor lift. Windows would functionally be in the same place.Dealing with the rudder in a sane manner will be harder. Either have to go with a telescopic structure (not so good), perhaps a reduced rudder/strake with drag rudders/brakes outboard on the wings or SABRE engine nacelles (flying wings have demonstrated drag rudders pretty well). The other major issue is passenger orientation during launch and landing, versus reentry. You are potentially forced to have seats that can rotate 180 degrees in roll, or configure the entire interior of the passenger module to rotate. Unless you are fine with having your passengers hanging upsidedown during the reentry phase.
Haven't had time to dig through every reply to this thread, but so far I've not seen any mention of a flight crew in regards to carrying passengers. {snip}
I think they have always suggested there would be a "pilot" for manned flights, but if you listen to Mark Hempsell in lkm's excellent post above, he actually goes as far as to say that the pilot would really be more of an expert steward role, being the person versed in all procedures for normal situations and emergencies etc. Skylon doesn't need any actual "pilot".P.S. Thanks for that link lkm. Never heard that before and it's a great interview.
Much as I'd love to ride one someday, I can't see going without somebody up in the pointy end who knows what he's doing in case things go down the crapper.
Call me old-fashioned but I think passengers willingly boarding a remotely-piloted vehicle is going to be a stretch. Perfecting the engines may end up being the easy part, particularly if regulators get involved with this question (which they are certain to do).
[added] 3/4 of the way through June and no May update in sight.Looks like we will not hear anything till July at the latest. I think their website comes under their marketing effort and they lost a person from there recently.It should be interesting.
Call me old-fashioned but I think passengers willingly boarding a remotely-piloted vehicle is going to be a stretch.
Quote from: Chilly on 05/16/2012 02:44 pmCall me old-fashioned but I think passengers willingly boarding a remotely-piloted vehicle is going to be a stretch. Roller-coasters. People actually pay extra for that feeling.
Quote from: IRobot on 06/25/2012 10:20 amQuote from: Chilly on 05/16/2012 02:44 pmCall me old-fashioned but I think passengers willingly boarding a remotely-piloted vehicle is going to be a stretch. Roller-coasters. People actually pay extra for that feeling.In both cases, if anything goes wrong, you'll end up at the bottom of a gravity well Kidding aside, people routinely fly on planes, which basically are self-guided robots with _optional_ manual input.
Assuming a Skylon-type vehicle is ever put into regular service, I can't see the various certifying authorities letting it take paying passengers without onboard crewmembers.
Yeah, but it's that "optional" part when you really want a proficient meat gyro up in the cockpit. Systems (both inside and outside the aircraft) fail. I'd much rather have someone onboard who might know how to deal with sudden problems than rely on a remote operator on the ground - or a collection of algorithms in a black box.