Author Topic: Gunbarrel company hopes to help fill shuttle void (Read 18888 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 06/22/2006 05:07 pm »

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=8369

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #1 on:** 06/22/2006 05:54 pm »

And people say the CEV looks ugly...

PlanetStorm · « **Reply #2 on:** 06/23/2006 02:04 pm »

Quote

hyper_snyper - 22/6/2006 12:41 PM

And people say the CEV looks ugly...

I must have a different idea of what "ugly" means than you do. The CEV is beautifully designed to fit its basic purpose and it gains its excitement from what it can do, not how it looks. The HL 20 has a different mission but is also beautiful in its own way. There would be nothing beautiful in watching a streamlined, elegant winged vessel trying and failing to get to or go beyond LEO.

JesseD · « **Reply #3 on:** 06/23/2006 03:46 pm »

Space.com has an article with a really nice-looking picture. ooo... fog.....

PlanetStorm · « **Reply #4 on:** 06/23/2006 04:59 pm »

In terms of aerodynamic shape, what are the principle differences between the X38 and the HL 20?

Mogster · « **Reply #5 on:** 06/23/2006 10:13 pm »

'The HL 20 was originally designed by NASA, he said, based on a similar ship the Soviet Union put into orbit four times'

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=8369

That's a quote from the article. So is the HL20 basically the X38? What's this Russian vehicle they mention?

I can see the rationale behind the CEV but it would be great if the COTS initiative produced a shuttle type vehicle for LEO service.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 06/23/2006 10:28 pm »

X-38 was derived from the HL-20 which was derived from the HL-10, which flew from 1966 to 75 at EAFB

BOR-4 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 "Spiral"

hop · « **Reply #7 on:** 06/23/2006 10:42 pm »

The picture in the first link isn't very flattering, but I always thought the HL-20 and BOR-4/Spiral were quite photogenic. I'd like to see one of them fly for purely aesthetic reasons

. YMMV of course.

The Spiral variable geometry wing is also a neat concept.

mlorrey · « **Reply #8 on:** 06/24/2006 03:43 am »

Quote

Jim - 23/6/2006 5:15 PM

X-38 was derived from the HL-20 which was derived from the HL-10, which flew from 1966 to 75 at EAFB

BOR-4 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 "Spiral"

The HL-20 is more derived from the BOR-4 and Mig-105 than from the HL-10. If you are going to compare the HL-20/X-38 to any earlier US lifting body, it would resemble the X-24A.

Dana · « **Reply #9 on:** 06/24/2006 10:03 am »

Quote

Jim - 23/6/2006 3:15 PM

X-38 was derived from the HL-20 which was derived from the HL-10, which flew from 1966 to 75 at EAFB

BOR-4 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105 "Spiral"

Last flight of the HL-10 was on July 17, 1970. The M2-F3's last flight was on Dec. 21, 1972. Of the original Lifting Bodies, the X-24 was the one that lasted until 1975. After the baked-potato-shaped X-24A was modified (EXTENSIVELY) to become the wedge-shaped X-24B, its last flight was on November 26, 1975.

1. X-24A
2. X-24B (same X-24A airframe as above, extensively modified)
3. HL-10 (You dropped the gear pretty late in a Lifting Body!)
4. M2-F2 (later modified after 1967 crash to become M2-F3) and F-104 chase
5. MiG-105 SPIRAL
6. BOR-4

PlanetStorm · « **Reply #10 on:** 06/24/2006 03:05 pm »

The X-24A actually flew? That is some lifting body - it doesn't seem to have any wings at all!

PlanetStorm · « **Reply #11 on:** 06/24/2006 03:09 pm »

... but amazingly, it could!

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-24/Medium/ECN-2511.jpg

Dana · « **Reply #12 on:** 06/25/2006 12:59 am »

Quote

PlanetStorm - 24/6/2006 7:52 AM

The X-24A actually flew? That is some lifting body - it doesn't seem to have any wings at all!

Jim · « **Reply #13 on:** 06/25/2006 01:39 am »

I don't think the last photo of the BOR-4 is it. Look it up on wikipedia

mlorrey · « **Reply #14 on:** 06/25/2006 03:03 am »

Quote

PlanetStorm - 24/6/2006 9:52 AM

The X-24A actually flew? That is some lifting body - it doesn't seem to have any wings at all!

That is why its called a lifting body = See Ma? No wings!!!

mlorrey · « **Reply #15 on:** 06/25/2006 03:11 am »

Quote

Dana - 24/6/2006 7:46 PM

Ancestors of the Shuttle: The Lifting Bodies: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/newancestrosoftheshuttlepartiitheliftingbodies.msnw

M2-F1: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/m2f1.msnw
M2-F2: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/m2f2.msnw
M2-F3: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/m2f3.msnw
HL-10: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/hl10.msnw
X-24A: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/x24a.msnw
X-24B: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/x24b.msnw

Unmanned Lifting Bodies: ASSET, PRIME & Hyper III: http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/unmannedliftingbodiesassetprimeamphyperiii.msnw

Where's the X-24C?

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** 06/25/2006 03:16 am »

supply the proof of its flights.

mlorrey · « **Reply #17 on:** 06/25/2006 03:54 am »

Quote

Jim - 24/6/2006 10:03 PM

supply the proof of its flights.

These documents do a pretty good job of documenting NASA involvement in X-24C until they pulled out for budget reasons, however the documents do not seem to be available any longer on NASA servers...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007769_1979007769.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790008668_1979008668.pdf

Beyond this, X-24C continued solely under USAF control.

Some say it was cancelled, others say it simply went black. It was based extensively on FDL-5 lifting body concepts, and included both a rocket engine to reach altitude and speed of mach 6-8, and a ramjet to cruise at mach 6. Lockheed engineers say their internal design designation was the L-301.

The design was extensively tested in Arnold AFB wind tunnels (there are photos in Arnold archives and online documenting this).

Here is an interesting excerpt from Avleak:

2004-01-12 Aviation Week & Space Technology, in "Industry Outlook" on page 13:

SECRET STREAKER? On the morning of Jan. 7, an aircraft using call sign "Lockheed Test 2334" told the FAA's Albuquerque Center it would be "going supersonic somewhere above Flight Level 60 [60,000 ft.]" for about 10 sec. It was flying over the Pecos Military Operating Area in eastern New Mexico at the time, transmitting on 350.350 MHz. When a center controller queried, "Say aircraft type," the unidentified vehicle's pilot responded: "We are a classified type and can't reveal our true altitude." About 15min. later, the same pilot - on a different frequency (351.700 MHz.) - requested permission for a decent to 30,000 ft. and flight-following to "Las Vegas with a final destination somewhere in the Nellis Range" complex. The U.S. Air Force's super-secret Groom Lake test facility is located in the northwest portion of the Nellis AFB, Nev., ranges. The Albuquerque Center controller quipped, "Trip home a bit slower, eh?" There was no response from the classified aircraft. The radio interchanges were recorded by Steve Douglass, a "military radio monitor" hobbyist in Amarillo, Tex.

Anyways, I've attached some Lockheed documents of the L-301/X-24C

mlorrey · « **Reply #18 on:** 06/25/2006 05:04 am »

X-24C continued under USAF control after NASA cancellation of its portion of the program. USAF code name was Copper Coast and prototype reportedly first flew in 1981, but operational versions were allegedly cancelled in favor of the General Dynamics F-121 Sentinel (aka Centennial), which took over SR-71 recon duties. Once GD was taken over by Lockheed, the vehicle production returned to LM control. F-121 is a mach 3+ recon vehicle stationed at Groom Lake. There are four vehicles operating out of hangars 20-23. It has a 65 degree delta planform, with ventral air intakes blended into the fuselage.

Mogster · « **Reply #19 on:** 06/25/2006 11:36 am »

From the press drawings the HL20 seems to be strapped to the side of its ET STS style, doesn't that make any sort of lauch abort difficult?

bad_astra · « **Reply #20 on:** 06/25/2006 03:14 pm »

For the Dreamchaser, not necessarily. Also the engines are hybrids, not solids, and there is no "ET". For a lifting body of spaceplane, I think sidemounting makes sense when you consider the aerodynamic load placed on putting it atop a stack and forcing the lv to have large fins to compensate.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/koss65mp.htm lists the Bor4 orbital launches from Kapustin Yar on a modified Tsyklon. Instead of side mounting, apparently a payload shroud was used.

Mogster · « **Reply #21 on:** 06/26/2006 12:47 pm »

This is the concept art I saw, the central booster confused me.

http://www.space.com/images/h_dreamchaser_launch_02.jpg

Would detatching the spaceplane from the booster stack during launch work? I suppose you could use the smaller booster behind the Dreamchaser to take it clear of the larger boosters if they were shut down.

bad_astra · « **Reply #22 on:** 06/26/2006 02:42 pm »

The nozzles on those boosters are huge. I don't know how much can be read into that image.

Comga · « **Reply #23 on:** 07/01/2006 03:38 am »

Quote

JesseD - 23/6/2006 9:33 AM

Space.com has an article with a really nice-looking picture. ooo... fog.....

The Longmont Times article has a better picture. (No fog) It talks about a photo of the cockpit, but does not include it. It also implies that people from out side the company were allowed to see and even go into the mock-up (It is NOT a prototype, as the reporter said.)

Does anyone have an image of the interior? Any additional pictures at all? Anyone on this forum get to see it?

Now will NASA favor Dream Chaser as "their" technology brought back or dismiss it because it has wings, which are now considered "bad"?

simonbp · « **Reply #24 on:** 07/01/2006 05:40 am »

Quote

Comga - 30/6/2006 10:25 PM
Now will NASA favor Dream Chaser as "their" technology brought back or dismiss it because it has wings, which are now considered "bad"?

Wings are "bad" when you are going to the moon, or more specifically coming back from it, because of the high entry velocities. Thus the lunar-optimised CEV woun't have wings. I don't think NASA would have a big problem if their COTS choice has wings/is a lifting body, as long as the company can prove its safe...

Simon

Mogster · « **Reply #25 on:** 07/01/2006 11:24 am »

Either a winged or lifting body vehicle that's capable of landing on a runway is needed if space tourism is going to blossom in any way soon.

Punters are going to want a reasonably comfortable ride for their large amount of money and a vehicle that can return them to an airport style terminal. The forces involved in a capsule re entry and being dumped in the middle of the ocean or desert somewhere just aren't going to attract anything but the hardcore few.

nacnud · « **Reply #26 on:** 07/01/2006 11:44 am »

"Punters are going to want a reasonably comfortable ride for their large amount of money..."

They are? I wonder if that is really true. What I would want is a reduction of cost and an assurance of safety. It seems capsules are inherently safer and cheaper than space planes. I'd rather take the reduced risk and cheaper flight please.

hop · « **Reply #27 on:** 07/01/2006 09:55 pm »

Given the demonstrated market of people paying $20 million to fly something not much bigger than a bathroom stall, I'd say that isn't entirely true. People pay a lot of money to do uncomfortable and dangerous things.

The industry could reach a point where it had more capacity then there are tourists willing fly in those conditions, but it isn't obvious that will happen anytime soon. If all the current 'space tourism' companies of today succeed, you are talking about a flight capacity of hundreds or very low thousands of passengers per year for a long time to come.

That said, the assumption that you need a winged body for to have a roomy vehicle, or accurate landing is false. The assumption that capsules are inherently cheaper and safer than winged vehicles is also not certain. All else being equal, capsules do look simpler, but how that actually plays out for the real vehicles remains to seen. I suspect that for the first few generations, it will depend far more on the particular vehicle and the details of it's design.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #28 on:** 07/05/2006 02:24 am »

Tibbitts agrees that the more modern design should give his company an advantage.

“If I’m a kid, I’m not excited about flying in a capsule,” he said. “I’d be excited in flying in something that looks like (the Dream Chaser).”

Haha....guess I'm still a kid at heart, because that's kind of how I feel!

Mogster · « **Reply #29 on:** 07/07/2006 12:22 pm »

Quote

hop - 1/7/2006 10:42 PM

Given the demonstrated market of people paying $20 million to fly something not much bigger than a bathroom stall, I'd say that isn't entirely true. People pay a lot of money to do uncomfortable and dangerous things.

The industry could reach a point where it had more capacity then there are tourists willing fly in those conditions, but it isn't obvious that will happen anytime soon. If all the current 'space tourism' companies of today succeed, you are talking about a flight capacity of hundreds or very low thousands of passengers per year for a long time to come.

That said, the assumption that you need a winged body for to have a roomy vehicle, or accurate landing is false. The assumption that capsules are inherently cheaper and safer than winged vehicles is also not certain. All else being equal, capsules do look simpler, but how that actually plays out for the real vehicles remains to seen. I suspect that for the first few generations, it will depend far more on the particular vehicle and the details of it's design.

Surely there's a very limited number of people willing to pay tens of millions to be jammed into a claustrophobically small capsule and experince huge G loads for their space experience. I agree that there's always going to be some people who'll pay for that but there must be a much larger number that would pay up for an airline seat, lower forces and a large window to see out of. We are talking about tourism here after all.

Personally if I had the money and the seats were available I'd pay to ride the STS, but a Soyuz, maybe not.

publiusr · « **Reply #30 on:** 07/07/2006 06:57 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 25/6/2006 10:01 AM

For the Dreamchaser, not necessarily. Also the engines are hybrids, not solids, and there is no "ET". For a lifting body of spaceplane, I think sidemounting makes sense when you consider the aerodynamic load placed on putting it atop a stack and forcing the lv to have large fins to compensate.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/koss65mp.htm lists the Bor4 orbital launches from Kapustin Yar on a modified Tsyklon. Instead of side mounting, apparently a payload shroud was used.

Dreamchaser looks like a mini-Energiya Buran stack.

publiusr · « **Reply #31 on:** 07/07/2006 06:58 pm »

Didn't one of the Kosmos LV launch some lifting bodies?

VDD1991 · « **Reply #32 on:** 03/18/2020 02:30 am »

Quote from: mlorrey on 06/25/2006 05:04 am

X-24C continued under USAF control after NASA cancellation of its portion of the program. USAF code name was Copper Coast and prototype reportedly first flew in 1981, but operational versions were allegedly cancelled in favor of the General Dynamics F-121 Sentinel (aka Centennial), which took over SR-71 recon duties. Once GD was taken over by Lockheed, the vehicle production returned to LM control. F-121 is a mach 3+ recon vehicle stationed at Groom Lake. There are four vehicles operating out of hangars 20-23. It has a 65 degree delta planform, with ventral air intakes blended into the fuselage.

The USAF codename for a research program to study hypersonic air-breathing SSTO concepts was codenamed Copper Canyon, not Copper Coast. Copper Coast was a codename for a USAF tactical evaluation and analysis program (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/names/c.html). There were rumors of a hypersonic successor to the SR-71 in operation service, but we know for experience fabricating workable scramjet engines and making the materials needed for hypersonic air-breathing flight that those rumors had no basis in reality.

More information about Copper Canyon can be found at these links:

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1989/8927/892707.PDF
http://www.astronautix.com/c/coppercanyon.html