Slashdot Mirror
Robot Spaceplane To Launch In 2008
FleaPlus writes "The US Air Force has announced that it is developing an unmanned reusable spaceplane, the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle. The first launch is in 2008 on an Atlas V rocket. The X-37B will be one-fourth the size of the Space Shuttle and serve as a testbed for technologies for future reusable spacecraft. Its predecessor, the X-37, was drop-tested from the Scaled Composites White Knight mothership earlier this year."
"If successful, the plane would be the first spacecraft since the shuttle that would be capable of returning experiments back to Earth for analysis." Buran could do this - they just couldn't afford to fly the thing. Not that I'm suggesting we use Buran, btw... it's been sitting outside for a while.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
X37 was a lifting body.
Two other methods for reentry.
Man Out Of Space (MOOS) (50's or 60's?) was a proposal for an emergency escape system from a spacecraft that invoved the use of a heat shield in a can. A foam filled bag that froze into a giant blob was deployed from the back of an astronaut that acted as a balute and heat shield. The astronaut actually used a hand held rocket gun to de-orbit. I've heard of ballutes with relation to other projects, but can't think of the source at the moment.
The Roton launch vehicle (1990's) looked something like DC-X (tail-first SSTO and landing) intended to use rotors to slow it down as it descended tail first from orbit, much like a helecopter during an unpowered landing. A prototype was flown that demonstrated a landing using rocket-powered rotors. Tom Clancy was involved in funding it, but he had to back out when his finances got scrambled by a divorce, eventually leading to the company's demise.
science is a religion
If you are referring to $1000 toilet seats, I have news for you, that is not why the seats cost $1000.
Do you understand anything about orbital mechanics? Orbiting spacecraft cannot "loiter" except in a very few, very special kinds of orbits. The cannot meaningfully "reposition" with the specific impulse limitations of the engines and fuel available today. Oh, the heck with it: for all intents and purposes they cannot meaningfully do ANY of the things your message suggests.
12% of Americans are starving? That's absolutely ridiculous. That would be 36 million people.
v. starved, starving, starves
v.intr.
1. To suffer or die from extreme or prolonged lack of food.
You can't be serious.
As long as space technology is as expensive as it is, that might be, to some extent. As long as we still need rocket power to get into space, it'll always be an expensive endeavor.
However, we'll always need space research for satellites, etc., at least in the foreseeable future.
Delta Clipper (which the DC-X was a prototype of) was supposed to enter nose first, and turn in midair for a base-first landing.
The crew compartment was finished, its just that the test regimine called for an unmanned flight first.
The life support system was not installed and no software was installed on the CRT displays.
Flight 5 (3K1) - 1994 or 1995 - first flight of third orbiter. First manned flight; the third orbiter was the first outfitted with life support systems and ejection seats.
It wasn't just flight characteristics that caused the rejection of the Faget type Shuttle, tere were also serious concerns about reentry areodynamics. The sharp junction of wing and body in particular lead to shock waves impinging on the vehicle body, which means the the area where the shockwave impinges is subjected to full reentry heating instead of being protected by the shockwave the way the Shuttle is, as are capsule type vehicles. (The ablatives or tiles merely protect against the heat radiated from this shockwave.) Additionally, there were concerns about weight problems with the 'hot structure' type of heatshield, as well as engineering problems with accommodating thermal expansion.
It's a common belief that the Faget Shuttle was rejected because of the USAF's requirements - but that belief is wrong. NASA was already moving away from the big 'balloon' (internal tankage) orbiters and towards smaller, denser orbiters protected by tiles (which were easier and cheaper to engineer) and having an external tank. (The SRB's came about fairly late in the process, and likely would have been inevitable even without USAF participation.)
A capsule designed to use ballistic lift (which Apollo was and Soyuz is not entirely) does not have 'low control' - Apollo routinely came down within 3 kilometers of its splashdown target. (And they didn't even try particularly hard.) With modern guidance systems there is no particular reason to expect misses (on average) to exceed 1 kilometer, _without_ parasails or other complications.