Could this be the future of space hardware transport

[Star One]

Designed to replace the C-5 for the transport of outsize payloads amongst other tasks, including what will no doubt prove to be many space industry related items.

http://m.aviationweek.com/HWB#slide-0-field_images-1348431

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheed-moves-foward-with-big-blended-wing-hybrid-tran-1726883912

This payload can include any of the outsized cargo now hauled by the C-5 Galaxy (also a Lockheed product), and it can supposedly do all this while burning an astonishing 70 percent less fuel than what C-17 would.

[Jim]

There have been 100's of these concepts.  It is not worth commenting or posting these until there is a contract.  Until then, C-5, C-17, trucks and barges will be the mode of space hardware transportation.

[Star One]

There have been 100's of these concepts.  It is not worth commenting or posting these until there is a contract.  Until then, C-5, C-17, trucks and barges will be the mode of space hardware transportation.

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

[Jim]

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

Look up Blended wing body.  There was some "physical development" in the 90's.  Again, this is not news worthy, especially from a spaceflight POV.

[philw1776]

By 2035!
I predict that humans will have walked on Mars before this exists.

[Star One]

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

Look up Blended wing body.  There was some "physical development" in the 90's.  Again, this is not news worthy, especially from a spaceflight POV.

I am well aware of the history of blended wing body aircraft and this looks to be getting further than before so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base. It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

[Jim]

 so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base.

It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

It is dead on.  This is in the noise and doesn't matter.

That is more than 10 to 20 years from now.  No different than 20 years ago.   Many space systems (real and proposed) will come and go during that timeframe.   Space programs are not going to drive cargo aircraft development.   They will continue to use what exists and what will exist.  Not every new tech development has spaceflight implications/applications.  Anyways, there still is the An-124 and C-17.  Also, it isn't the C-5 that is the issue, there are only 2 C-5C's.

[Star One]

 so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base.

It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

It is dead on.  This is in the noise and doesn't matter.

That is more than 10 to 20 years from now.  No different than 20 years ago.   Many space systems (real and proposed) will come and go during that timeframe.   Space programs are not going to drive cargo aircraft development.   They will continue to use what exists and what will exist.  Not every new tech development has spaceflight implications/applications.  Anyways, there still is the An-124 and C-17.  Also, it isn't the C-5 that is the issue, there are only 2 C-5C's.

Well the An-124 & C-17 are not going to last forever either are they. You appear to think these systems are going to last some extended timeframe when they aren't due to increasing costs of operation. One of the main drivers of the blended wing concept is to drive down fuel consumption & therefore operational costs. One of the biggest costs air forces have to carry is fuel usage & that's been a key driver for a project like this.

[RonM]

One day the military will need a replacement for C-5 and C-17 transports. There will be proposals from Lockheed, Boeing, and maybe even Airbus. Whichever one is selected will also become the future of space hardware transport in the USA.

Maybe the Lockheed design will have elements of this design concept. Maybe not.

I haven't heard of an Air Force contract for a new transport aircraft. The C-5M should last until the 2040s and the C-17 is newer. Of course, it takes 10-15 years to get a design operational and then it takes years to build the replacements. The Air Force may already be thinking about this.

[Jim]

Well the An-124 & C-17 are not going to last forever either are they. You appear to think these systems are going to last some extended timeframe when they aren't due to increasing costs of operation. One of the main drivers of the blended wing concept is to drive down fuel consumption & therefore operational costs. One of the biggest costs air forces have to carry is fuel usage & that's been a key driver for a project like this.

And all that has little to do with topics on this site. 

[Burninate]

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

Look up Blended wing body.  There was some "physical development" in the 90's.  Again, this is not news worthy, especially from a spaceflight POV.

I am well aware of the history of blended wing body aircraft and this looks to be getting further than before so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base. It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

"Looks to be getting farther than before" based on what?

[Star One]

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

Look up Blended wing body.  There was some "physical development" in the 90's.  Again, this is not news worthy, especially from a spaceflight POV.

I am well aware of the history of blended wing body aircraft and this looks to be getting further than before so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base. It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

"Looks to be getting farther than before" based on what?

Wider reading than has been quoted here.

[Burninate]

If you read the piece this one has got somewhat further than a paper concept & you don't just award a contract for a radical overhaul like this without doing the physical development first as this is doing.

Look up Blended wing body.  There was some "physical development" in the 90's.  Again, this is not news worthy, especially from a spaceflight POV.

I am well aware of the history of blended wing body aircraft and this looks to be getting further than before so your point that this isn't newsworthy is pretty off base. It's well known that there is going to be a need to replace the C-5 & they are unlikely to be still in use by the mid-2030s especially with their heavy fuel use.

"Looks to be getting farther than before" based on what?

Wider reading than has been quoted here.

If you have more evidence, show your work.  Link it.  Or at least *mention* it directly.  If it's commercially privileged or classified information and you're not legally permitted to talk about it, feel free to say so.  This tendency towards answering the question of "Why?" with "Because things that I won't mention" is conversationally toxic, though it's frustratingly common around here.

[Zed_Noir]

As I see it the main issue with the current crop of large blended wing aircraft designs is servicing the parts of the of the aircraft above the wing. Like servicing and replacing the main engines on overwing pods There is no GSE or infrastructure in place yet AFAIK for large blended wing aircraft.

[Vahe231991]

A blended wing body transport will definitely not be suitable for carrying space hardware. Bearing in mind the fact that one of the uses of the Myasishchev VM-T as a space hardware transporter was to ferry rocket stages to Baikonur, I would not rule out the possibility that a number of Boeing 747-400s in storage at the boneyards could be fitted with pylons atop the fuselage for enormous casings to house New Glenn, Vulcan, and Falcon 9 stages for transport to integration facilities for final assembly of those rockets.