Author Topic: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread  (Read 187465 times)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 4528
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #740 on: 09/18/2012 06:04 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
Capsules do have some lift generation due to aerodynamic effect. But are not usually qualified as such. In particular, don't generate enough lift at "approach" speed to even attempt an unpowered landing.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 06:05 pm by baldusi »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #741 on: 09/18/2012 06:27 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
Capsules do have some lift generation due to aerodynamic effect. But are not usually qualified as such. In particular, don't generate enough lift at "approach" speed to even attempt an unpowered landing.

As I said they are different, mos obviously with respect to ConOps and techniques.  But all are bodies that create some amount of lift in the absence of defined wings. 

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #742 on: 09/18/2012 06:53 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.

Good point...substitute "winged OR lifting-body type vehicle capable of horizontal landing" in my earlier post. ;-)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8680
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #743 on: 09/18/2012 07:47 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.

Adding wings* on something doesn't necessarily improve the "state-of-the-art"ness of a design. And can possibly hinder it, especially if you ever want to go beyond LEO.
{snip}

A space tug could find 'wings' very useful for aerobraking.  A way of saving fuel when entering orbit around the Earth, Mars and Venus.

Fuel gets used once, hopefully the extended heat shield areas can be reused several times.  Since the space tug does not land the wings (extended heat shield areas) only need to be launched once.

edit : getting the quote area right
« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 07:50 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9028
  • Likes Given: 5794
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #744 on: 09/18/2012 08:08 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
CST-100 and Dragon most certainly could be modified for such use, far more easily than other craft, like for instance the Shuttle Orbiters. CST-100 and Dragon are the right shape for it. Of course, if you have such a myopic perspective that you think the only thing that matters is LEO, then sure I grant your point.

Your point about capsules having lift goes completely without saying. And I think Dragon and CST-100 could have a survivable reentry from LEO even without lift (hello ballistic mode).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #745 on: 09/18/2012 09:54 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
CST-100 and Dragon most certainly could be modified for such use, far more easily than other craft, like for instance the Shuttle Orbiters. CST-100 and Dragon are the right shape for it. Of course, if you have such a myopic perspective that you think the only thing that matters is LEO, then sure I grant your point.

Your point about capsules having lift goes completely without saying. And I think Dragon and CST-100 could have a survivable reentry from LEO even without lift (hello ballistic mode).

It really depends on the scope of modifications you are willing to make, and still call it the same craft. None of these spacecraft carry enough propellant, and life support equipment for more than a relatively short duration flight in LEO.

I highly doubt that either of the capsule designs could survive a parachute failure. Those chutes provide much more "lift" than the blunt edge of the capsule.

The parachute is supposed to be just a backup on later versions of Dragon, so it almost always could survive a parachute failure (except you wouldn't know the parachute would've failed, since you wouldn't have used it).

actually it is now part of a duel parachute and super draco landing system.  however if you are saying it will be able to land if the super dracos fail to light then yes i agree with what you are saying

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9028
  • Likes Given: 5794
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #746 on: 09/18/2012 10:01 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
And BTW, good job not quoting the rest of my post, where I originally put just such an asterisk.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 10:03 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9028
  • Likes Given: 5794
Re: The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread
« Reply #747 on: 09/18/2012 10:02 pm »
A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.


None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.
CST-100 and Dragon most certainly could be modified for such use, far more easily than other craft, like for instance the Shuttle Orbiters. CST-100 and Dragon are the right shape for it. Of course, if you have such a myopic perspective that you think the only thing that matters is LEO, then sure I grant your point.

Your point about capsules having lift goes completely without saying. And I think Dragon and CST-100 could have a survivable reentry from LEO even without lift (hello ballistic mode).

It really depends on the scope of modifications you are willing to make, and still call it the same craft. None of these spacecraft carry enough propellant, and life support equipment for more than a relatively short duration flight in LEO.

I highly doubt that either of the capsule designs could survive a parachute failure. Those chutes provide much more "lift" than the blunt edge of the capsule.

The parachute is supposed to be just a backup on later versions of Dragon, so it almost always could survive a parachute failure (except you wouldn't know the parachute would've failed, since you wouldn't have used it).

actually it is now part of a duel parachute and super draco landing system. ...
As far as we know, the hybrid system is just a development step.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Chris Bergin

Orbiters in BEO has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I know some of you love the sound of your own voices a little bit too much, but guess what, go off topic, lose your posts. Be uncivil, lose your posts. Act like Billy Big Bollocks on this forum - and wow, we've got a few of those here - lose your posts.

Some of you are incapable of understanding this, so I know it won't be the last time I have to nail this to your foreheads.

In fact, most of this recent thread is random, so I'm locking it.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 10:09 pm by Chris Bergin »

Tags: