-
#20
by
neilh
on 14 Dec, 2010 08:47
-
I think this was added in an update to the original article I linked, but apparently Virgin is also expected to announce a separate bid they're doing with Sierra Nevada.
-
#21
by
Jim
on 14 Dec, 2010 12:12
-
And to think we could have had that by 2008 if we hadn't scrapped OSP in favor of the Constellation debacle!
OSP was a capsule
-
#22
by
Alpha Control
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:12
-
-
#23
by
TexasRED
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:15
-
-
#24
by
Space Pete
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:16
-
-
#25
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:25
-
The Space News article has been updated today, to include an image.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101214-orbital-unveils-supplier-ccdev2.html
Looks the same as their old proposal, except the new one doesn't have a vertical stabilizer, and the end of the wing is now a full (nearly) vertical winglet (and probably also has a control surface on the winglet). Also, the docking port is more pronounced in the newer design.
-
#26
by
Malderi
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:30
-
Either way, quite interesting. I wonder what the extent of the pressure vessel is. Dreamchaser/HL-20 goes all the way to the back, where the docking port is, but the "CCV" probably has a much smaller interior volume.
-
#27
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:33
-
Either way, quite interesting. I wonder what the extent of the pressure vessel is. Dreamchaser/HL-20 goes all the way to the back, where the docking port is, but the "CCV" probably has a much smaller interior volume.
Agreed... It actually looks like it has cargo doors in the back, allowing it to carry back significant unpressurized cargo, something that we will (otherwise) lose when Shuttle retires.
-
#28
by
nacnud
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:40
-
Or are they radiators? It's only concept art.
-
#29
by
Lars_J
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:53
-
Hmm, I like it!
My only reservation would be this... For most lifting bodies, the use of a rear docking hatch seems to be more space efficient. (as used in Dreamchaser, Kliper, LM's CEV concept)
But with this layout, with the docking hatch just behind the cockpit, it will take up quite a bit of space behind the pilot(s). And won't the docking mechanism also have to be able to be extended/contracted during ascent and reentry?
-
#30
by
Lars_J
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:55
-
Either way, quite interesting. I wonder what the extent of the pressure vessel is. Dreamchaser/HL-20 goes all the way to the back, where the docking port is, but the "CCV" probably has a much smaller interior volume.
Agreed... It actually looks like it has cargo doors in the back, allowing it to carry back significant unpressurized cargo, something that we will (otherwise) lose when Shuttle retires.
Unlikely, IMO. If there is no docking hatch in the rear, that's probably where the "OMS" engines and tanks are located. This looks like a crew vehicle, not a unpressurized cargo vehicle.
-
#31
by
mmeijeri
on 14 Dec, 2010 21:58
-
Googling for the term blended lifting body turns up the (non-free) article below, which seems related. An NTRS search indicates the article is not in their database.
Evolution of a Blended Lifting Body for the Orbital Space PlaneNASA?s Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program incorporated elements of past efforts such as the Space Transportation Architecture Study (STAS), Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), and Space Launch Initiative (SLI). Significant goals of these efforts were to improve safety, reduce the cost of crew transportation to space, and to provide robust crew rescue and crew transfer capability for the International Space Station (ISS). NASA?s requirements for OSP were assessed and evaluated, and several critical design drivers were derived: number of crew, mission duration, launch vehicle throw weight, vehicle lift efficiency, flight rate, reusability, and ascent abort and emergency return capabilities. NASA Langley Research Center?s HL-20 shape was used as an initial reference design to better understand and assess the impact of NASA requirements as they were flowed down to the vehicle subsystem level. Configuration and aerodynamic trades were conducted to optimize the performance of the OSP in response to these requirements. Most importantly, issues of volumetric efficiency, high L/D for cross range, low wing loading for reduced landing speed, and passive stability for all abort conditions were addressed. As the optimization process continued, the HL-20 initial reference shape eventually evolved into the Blended Lifting Body (BLB). The BLB combines volumetric efficiency with superior aerodynamic qualities and was designed to launch vertically and land horizontally. The BLB design offers an optimized configuration with excellent aerodynamic performance and may have many other flight applications. This paper discusses the evolution process, design solutions and features of the configuration used during the development of the BLB for the OSP program.
-
#32
by
Salo
on 15 Dec, 2010 06:29
-
-
#33
by
zaitcev
on 15 Dec, 2010 06:39
-
Looks the same as their old proposal, except the new one doesn't have a vertical stabilizer, and the end of the wing is now a full (nearly) vertical winglet (and probably also has a control surface on the winglet).
So it's closer to XCOR Lynx now, which passed wind tunnel just recently. SS2 is like that too. I do realize that wing planform is different between the three, but the point is that wingtip winglets provide the yaw stability. I have a friend who has a (very) subsonic airplane like that, Burt Rutan's LongEZ. The scheme works there. Now we may expect it works for high speeds too. Don't ask me why Shuttle and Buran did not adopt it, I'm wondering myself.
-
#34
by
Stephan
on 15 Dec, 2010 06:48
-
Ho, am I the only one to have thought "Hermes" when seeing that pictures ?
-
#35
by
Lars_J
on 15 Dec, 2010 06:53
-
A slimmed-down lightweight Hermes, perhaps, I can see the resemblance. Hermes (by the time it was cancelled) had started experiencing quite a bit of weight and feature-creep - almost as if the ESA had shuttle-envy.
(
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/hermes/1991%2001.jpg)
But I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.
-
#36
by
yg1968
on 15 Dec, 2010 13:54
-
-
#37
by
kevin-rf
on 15 Dec, 2010 14:21
-
Or Delta IV or Taurus II...
There was a comment a long while back by Antonio about part of the rational behind the Taurus II was when they looked for LV's for the small GEO birds that Orbital makes, the Falcon 9 at that point was not quite real enough to be a Delta II replacement. Meaning they had no aversion at that point to using the Falcon 9 or SpaceX, just they did not think they SpaceX had it's act enough together yet...
-
#38
by
Namechange User
on 15 Dec, 2010 14:26
-
But I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.
How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
-
#39
by
Lars_J
on 15 Dec, 2010 15:28
-
But I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.
How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
Are you just trying to be argumentative today? Note the *looks* part of my sentence. It is not a fact claim, just my impression
(