Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESA's Experimental Wingless Space Plane IXV Ready For a Test Flight

Posted by timothy on from the price-performance dept.

hypnosec writes The European Space Agency has revealed its preparedness for the launch of its experimental "space plane" dubbed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV). ESA's car-sized, wingless vessel is being tested for re-entry and could build a platform on which design of future reusable spacecraft are based. IXV will be launched on Vega flight VV04 at 13:00 GMT (14:00 CET) for a suborbital flight to test technologies and critical systems for Europe's future automated reentry systems from Kourou, French Guiana, 11 February 2015.

35 comments

  1. X-23? by TWX · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone dusted-off the plans for the nearly fifty-year-old X-23...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:X-23? by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      X-14 - FIFY

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    2. Re:X-23? by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      X-24 TWENTY FOUR (damned fat fingers)

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:X-23? by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      I guess you're not fat enough to use the "damned fat fingers" quote...

      I would have accepted it if your first message looked like this :
                x - 2 4
      zsdccx -0p[= 21qwe343ert5...

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    4. Re:X-23? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      1. IXV in Roman Numerals is not 24. It's not even proper Roman numeral format.
      2. I don't think I can ever accept a Frenchie as Col. Steve Austin.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:X-23? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      X-14 - FIFY

      They clearly call the vehicle Experimental Wingless Space Plane IXV for that reason!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:X-23? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      IXV in Roman Numerals is not 24. It's not even proper Roman numeral format.

      I know it's not customary to Read The Fancy Article, but to not read the very first line of the summary? Laziness.
      The European Space Agency has revealed its preparedness for the launch of its experimental "space plane" dubbed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV).

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:X-23? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      The last X-24s flew in the mid 70s as precursors to the Space Shuttle. I'm glad to have someone working on this kind of technology, even if both known vehicles are unmanned, and even if this one is tiny - only about 1/2 the length of the X-37 which is itself very tiny... it's just a test mule.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:X-23? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS !

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. IXV ? by rossdee · · Score: 1, Funny

    IXV ? What sort of number is that?
    XIV would be 14 in decimal

    1. Re:IXV ? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I wasn't the only person who ended up with a type mismatch. I did RTFS to find that it was an acronym.

    2. Re:IXV ? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Um, 95?

    3. Re:IXV ? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      No, 115.

    4. Re:IXV ? by camperdave · · Score: 1
      From the first line of the summary:

      The European Space Agency has revealed its preparedness for the launch of its experimental "space plane" dubbed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV).

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:IXV ? by rHBa · · Score: 1

      maybe -4?

    6. Re:IXV ? by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      Um, 95?

      so you're saying it is in RNCD (Roman Numeral Coded Decimal)?

  3. Actually Hermes v. 1.5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least some of the components and hardware are direct descendants from the dis-continued hermes shuttle.

  4. No Wings = Not a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because it uses aerobraking doesn't make it a plane, does it? Capsules do too. Is its TPS reusable or replaceable?

    1. Re:No Wings = Not a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its a lifting body design, the entire fusalage "is" the wing.

    2. Re:No Wings = Not a Plane by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Yes. This was the kind of vehicle that Steve Austin crashed before he became the 6 million dollar man.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:No Wings = Not a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? At $6 mil, I'll personally take one, and I suspect the Pentagon might want a few...the original prototype cost less I suspect.

  5. Not a number, its the sound you make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you zip your fly to fast. iiiiixxxxxxxvvvvvvvvvvv!

    1. Re:Not a number, its the sound you make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Dwarf.

  6. Wingless plane? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Wingless Space Plane

    Oxymoron, innit?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Wingless plane? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on your defintion of "wing" and possibly of "plane".

      On one hand, you might consider wings to be appendages sticking out the side. So it's wingless. On the other hand you might consider a lifting body itself to be a wing. Of course if a plane is "a fixed wing aircraft" then it needs a wing in order to be a plane.

      Still, we know what they mean. It's a plane that doesn't have any distinction between wing and fuselage.

    2. Re:Wingless plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Aeroplanes fly because they have engines, not because they have wings. Plenty of things that don't have wings fly.

    3. Re: Wingless plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are gliders than?

    4. Re: Wingless plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things which fly which may or may not have wings *or* engines.

    5. Re:Wingless plane? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Aeroplanes fly because they have engines, not because they have wings.

      Aeroplanes fly because they have both. Take one away, and no flying.

      Plenty of things that don't have wings fly.

      Yes, and they are not aeroplanes.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Wingless plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wingless Space Plane

      Oxymoron, innit?

      I think you meant: Oxymoron, systemd

  7. Cat was always my favorite, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dwarfer.

  8. Steve Austin. Astronaut. A man barely alive. by wrench+turner · · Score: 1

    We have separation. I've got a blow-out in damper three! Pitch is out! I can't hold altitude! Flight Con! I can't hold it! She's breaking up, she's break ... --Colonel Steve Austin

  9. How is this a 'plane'? by crispytwo · · Score: 1

    A 'rocket', sure. But a 'plane'?

    Come on! Here is my wingless rock 'plane' and my wingless shoe 'plane'.

    It lands via a parachute, just like a... a 'plane'!

    (roll-eyes)

    1. Re:How is this a 'plane'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that "plane" is a misnomer. It's an evolution of the capsule shape into a more-airplane-like lifting body.

      (Technically, most airplanes wings aren't truly "planes", as they're airfoils...)

    2. Re:How is this a 'plane'? by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      All right then, let's see you do better.