ESA Complete Spaceplane Test Flight; IXV Safely Returns To Earth

hypnosec writes The European Space Agency has successfully completed the first test flight of its Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV), as planned, wherein it saw the wingless spaceplane land in one piece in the Pacific Ocean. A Vega VV04 rocket took the IXV to an altitude of 340 km, from which it separated and continued up to 412 km. Reentering from this suborbital path, it recorded a vast amount of data from more than 300 advanced and conventional sensors. According to ESA the spaceplane few east around the globe during its descent and finally landed safely in the the Pacific Ocean west of the Galapagos Islands at about 15:20 GMT.

Comments

Great Job!

[rmdingler]

China, India, Europe, SpaceX, XCOR, and good old NASA...

perhaps a bit of competition will bode well for space exploration development.

It's probably not the incentive military superiority or corporate profit would be, but it's still promising.

Re:Great Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably not the incentive military superiority or corporate profit would be, but it's still promising.

It could be. People in surveillance agencies tends to be so delusional that they just assume ulterior motives with everything everyone else does.
As far as some retards in powerful positions are concerned this could very well be a competition for military superiority.

Re:Great Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

People in our intelligence agencies continue to fund our development of space. They're not delusional; they have direct experience. They assume that their counterparts are competent; if other intelligence agencies aren't; they're negligent. All of those countries mentioned, China, India, the ESA states individually and collectively, and the US have real enemies and real intelligence needs.

Re:Great Job!

[MightyYar]

Most of the agencies you listed cooperate with one another, but I totally agree that the more the merrier. Great to see the Europeans excited about space travel, and spending time and money on making vehicles cheaper.

Re:Great Job!

[jedidiah]

Lack of good intelligence helped start the nuclear arms race. We took Kruschev at his word regarding his missile program without understanding the full implications of the blusterous comments he was making.

Re:Great Job!

[Jane Q. Public]

Lack of good intelligence helped start the nuclear arms race. We took Kruschev at his word regarding his missile program without understanding the full implications of the blusterous comments he was making.

For the most part I disagree. Russia's nuclear program DID become the second most capable (some even say the most capable) in the world. Not necessarily technologically, but definitely in numbers. It was therefore a real and credible threat.

Kruschev probably meant his bluster to be more of an economic threat that technology-military, but I think we can all agree that's all THAT was: bluster. Though even he might not have realized it at the time. Their real problem was that they could not keep up economically, and the nature of their economic system did not fund their science well.

But don't ever think they are stupid, or only blustering.

Re:Great Job!

[nojayuk]

Don't forget Japan which has delivered cargoes to the ISS using their home-grown launcher. They also launched a spacecraft, Hayabusa deep into the Solar system to rendezvous with a comet and return particle samples back to earth. The Hayabusa-II followup mission launched in December 2014 and it plans to return samples of an asteroid as well as landing three small hopping "rovers" on it for close-up study of the surface.

Re:Great Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviets had low numbers of both bombers and missiles for a LONG time after the bluster started. And until we knew better (limited data from U2, then more and better from surveillance satellites), we had to take the boasting seriously when making plans.

Scary times.

ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[NotDrWho]

I never thought I would live to see the day when other countries and agencies were moving forward with manned space flight, while NASA had to beg for a ride.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't manned spaceflight.

It'd be a good joyride though!

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

Suborbital at 412 km? I just checked and the ISS is at 402 k. WTF

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't manned spaceflight.

It will be once they're done testing it. And that will make several more countries with manned space flight capability--a growing club to which the U.S. no longer belongs.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[camperdave]

Orbital isn't about how high the highest point of your trajectory is. It is about how high the lowest point of your trajectory is. In other words: at its lowest point, does it clear the planet or crash into it?

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Jarik C-Bol]

you can have the altitude and still not be orbital. Orbital means you have the lateral velocity to never fall back down. the ISS is moving around the earth at 7.66mm/s which makes it fall around the earth in an orbit. This craft's velocity was close (7.5 km/s) but the flight profile was designed to be non orbital, while achieving speeds close enough to orbital to accurately test the re-entry procedures. its all about how fast you are going, and in what direction.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[MightyYar]

They went straight up instead of giving it an orbital velocity.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

The US just decided it wasn't something that should belong to tbe government alone, so they privatized space travel to give everyone a shot at it. SpaceX and Boeing are both finishing up crew vehicles. Just because the government is done with space travel doesn't mean that it stops: it means the real progress is just beginning.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[nitehawk214]

In a couple of years NASA will have access to 2 operational manned vehicles. I don't think any other space agency in history has had two different manned launch vehicles operational at once.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[nitehawk214]

Somebody did not play Kerbal Space program.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

the ISS is moving around the earth at 7.66mm/s

7.6 millimeters per second? That's not even as fast as an 8-track tape!

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[MightyYar]

The US has several manned programs in "testing". There is NASA's own Orion, which has flown unmanned, and should be ready to carry people in about 6 years. Boeing and Bigelow have the CST-100, which has not flown yet - but is scheduled to be crewed in late 2017. Furthest along is probably SpaceX, with their Dragon V2, scheduled to be crewed in early 2017. The last two options are particularly exciting, since they promise to cut the cost of getting an astronaut to the space station by up to 2/3 compared to a Soyuz launch.

We are still recovering from the lack of development that occurred when NASA was using every dime to fly the space shuttle and construct the space station.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the worst explanation ever.
It's like saying that flying is all about missing the ground.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[cyberchondriac]

Well, that sorta works for Douglas Adams.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Eunuchswear]

No, it's absolutely the best way to explain what an orbit is.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[dj245]

Boeing and Bigelow have the CST-100, which has not flown yet - but is scheduled to be crewed in late 2017. Furthest along is probably SpaceX, with their Dragon V2, scheduled to be crewed in early 2017. The last two options are particularly exciting, since they promise to cut the cost of getting an astronaut to the space station by up to 2/3 compared to a Soyuz launch.

Sorry, I have to correct you there. Unless Russia has been publishing their internal costs and markup of their launches, we only know the launch price of the Soyuz. Unless they are very foolish, the cost is a secret.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they only had so many dimes to spend.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[MightyYar]

Well, that's true, right?

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[MightyYar]

You are correct. I was referring to NASA's cost.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Jane Q. Public]

The US just decided it wasn't something that should belong to tbe government alone, so they privatized space travel to give everyone a shot at it. SpaceX and Boeing are both finishing up crew vehicles. Just because the government is done with space travel doesn't mean that it stops: it means the real progress is just beginning.

Nonsense. Certain people realized that NASA+government bureaucracy was failing the space program and the people, repeatedly, and that we sorely needed alternatives.

If that were not so, we would not have needed Russian boosters for our own rockets or Russian launches to supply ISS, while the private companies ramped up. But we did indeed need them, without which our manned space program would indeed have failed, pretty much completely.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Jane Q. Public]

In other words: at its lowest point, does it clear the planet or crash into it?

Almost.

I mean, that IS the basic idea. But it's just a bit too simplistic.

If your gravitational body has an atmosphere, the lowest point has to be high enough to not create significant drag. Or else sooner or later it very definitely WILL crash.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Jarik C-Bol]

Typos prove that proof reading is important when posting early after waking up. Make that 7.66km/s.

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[cheesybagel]

It is just some demonstrator aircraft. The USAF has the X-37 to do the same kinds of tasks and it is operational. As for manned space flight SpaceX basically has the required capabilities if they really needed someone up.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[cheesybagel]

NASA was failing hard by insisting on using the Shuttle to launch everything. The Russians had really good LOX/Kerosene staged combustion rocket engine technology so it was a good idea to get the engines. The problems started when the US contractors cheapened out and decided not to start US manufacturing of the engines as originally planned. The Russians transferred all the required technical documentation and provided a production license to do it.

The ISS probably wouldn't be orbiting right now if the Russians weren't part of the program due to the Shuttle being canned but the USA will have capabilities to fully resupply it once COTS is up.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[cobbaut]

In a couple of years NASA will have access to 2 operational manned vehicles. I don't think any other space agency in history has had two different manned launch vehicles operational at once.

Why would ESA not have access to SpaceX manned vehicles ?

Re:ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Anonymous Coward]

km? Science uses furlongs per fortnight you backwards clod!

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[Jane Q. Public]

NASA was failing hard by insisting on using the Shuttle to launch everything. The Russians had really good LOX/Kerosene staged combustion rocket engine technology so it was a good idea to get the engines. The problems started when the US contractors cheapened out and decided not to start US manufacturing of the engines as originally planned. The Russians transferred all the required technical documentation and provided a production license to do it.

I don't dispute any of this. My point was that lack of planning and foresight on the part of the existing NASA bureaucracy was what led to this whole situation.

Any idiot should know that for any strategically essential technology, you should have not just a robust, maintainable program, but also a ready backup. NASA had neither.

I'm not placing the blame on them solely. Short-sighted politicians were definitely a part of the problem too.

Re: ESA moving forward, NASA moving backward

[nitehawk214]

Well NASA is paying for the things, there is already a contract in place. I suppose nothing is stopping the ESA from buying SpaceX missions.

But I expect that any Europeans that fly to the ISS on Dragon would be doing so as a part of a NASA mission launched from Cape Canaveral. Just like everyone currently flying to the ISS on Soyuz is doing so as a part of a Roscosmos launch.

I highly doubt that the ESA would purchase Falcon/Dragon to fly from their own facility. This is the entire reason why IXV is a thing. Hopefully eventually there will be an ESA manned mission, and I think this is a great thing for everyone.

What makes a plane a plane?

[Scyber]

This just seems to be a different shape for a re-entry capsule more so then a plane. It uses a parachute and splashes down in water.

Re:What makes a plane a plane?

[WillAdams]

The term you are missing is "Lifting body" --- it has control foils and is able to steer in the air using them (as opposed to using thrusters as capsules must).

Re:What makes a plane a plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the long term goal is to have it land on conventional runways.

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[peragrin]

You know like the lifting body x-38 that was supposed to be the iss crew return vehicle that was canceled by congress.

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[Rei]

Yeah, sort of, though IXV is much smaller (half the length and a fifth the weight). IXV is just a test vehicle, while X-38 was much closer to a realistic production spec.

That said, I like the general concept. You get maneuverability and you can stretch out your deceleration time (aka, lower peak heating), but don't have to take a big mass or complexity penalty to do so. And of course, a key for simplifying reentry is "no bigger or heavier than absolutely necessary". Even the X-38 would have fit in side the shuttle's cargo bay; IXV is the size of a passenger car.

Re:What makes a plane a plane?

[dotancohen]

The "plane" in "airplane" or "spaceplane" refers to the shape of the lifting body (i.e. the wing, technically the bottom of the wing). Just like your hand forms part of a geometric plane when outside that car window, so does the bottom of the wing form part of a geometric plane. It is this plane which forces the air down, hence the term "air-plane".

Since this design generates lift by pushing the air down, it is a "something-plane".

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[kellymcdonald78]

Sounds very similar to the ASSET program from the early '60's http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think ESA had too much choice for the size of IXV.

IXV is rafly the maximum that the Vega rocket can send.

The only other available launcher that could send something of the size of something like X-38 is Ariane 5... and only the launch of Arian would explode twice the budget of the project.

Re:What makes a plane a plane?

[MightyYar]

Aerodrome is better. "Air Runner". Too bad it flew like a rock.

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[deadweight]

Now if you make it look like a Corvette and can use the wipes to get reentry residue off the windshield my Heavy Metal wet dream will be complete!

Re: What makes a plane a plane?

[Dragonslicer]

Now if you make it look like a Corvette and can use the wipes to get reentry residue off the windshield my Heavy Metal wet dream will be complete!

Is the commanding officer of the mission Major Boobage?

Re:What makes a plane a plane?

[camperdave]

The Apollo capsule was somewhat of a lifting body as well (details here). The capsule had an off-axis center of mass, which meant a canted entry angle. This generated lift, which was used to correctly position the capsule within the entry corridor. Judging from the slanted scorch marks on the Dragon capsule, it does the same thing, and presumably so will the Orion capsule if it ever gets to do a re-entry.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

My Kerbals have been flying much harder missions for years now.

Re:Meh

[Rei]

Of course, Kerbal makes things waaaay easier on you than real life, in so many ways ;) The only advantage real life has is that MechJeb isn't considered cheating in RL ;) But real life makes you put up with unreliable hardware, dangerous heating, heavy life support requirements, electricity generation is several orders of magnitude less, costs several orders of magnitude more, your delta V requirements are half an order of magnitude worse, and you have to play with Ferram installed.

Re:Meh

[JaredOfEuropa]

And after a horrible crash in RL, you don't get to "revert to vehicle assembly" for a free retry.

Also, re-entry seems rather easy in KSP. NASA worries over loose tiles on a heat shield, whereas KSP lets me aerobrake insane contraptions on a hot trajectory without any problem.

Re:Meh

[GNious]

KSP lets me aerobrake insane contraptions on a hot trajectory without any problem.

There's a mod available to fix that...
(Deadly Reentry)

TLA violates RNR

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Roman Numeral Rules, IXV is not a valid number. I, for one, have little hope in the continued success of this program.

Re:TLA violates RNR

[ic3m4n1]

From the TFS:
"Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV)"

Its not model number. Its abbreviation.

Flotation Devices

[CanEHdian]

and finally landed safely in the the Pacific Ocean

Good thing there were no passengers, or they'd be in need of their IXV seat cushions which double as flotation devices just in the event of a water landing like this.