Slashdot Mirror
NASA's X-37
jacobm wrote with a story about the NASA/Boeing project. Called
the X-37, it's not like other X-class planes - it can actually stay in orbit. The purpose of the plane is to test "new reusable rocket technologies".
Apparently, it designed to reach only a mere Mach 25, but a Boeing VP says another goal is to make
space travel as affordable as travelling by plane. The article also includes a neat little insert with pictures of the other X-class planes.
Personally, I can't wait for Orbital Disneyland. The zero G gymnasium would be a blast! As for the risks of space travel? Strap me in baby! Life is short anyway, may as well take some risks and keep it interesting. Besides, I fully expect space travel to eventually become as complace and safe as air travel.
Thad
We are living in a sci-fi future world, and all I have to say about it is... I wan't my flying car! ;-)
The Bolachek Journals
>I think I remember terminal velocity being 186 miles an hour or something close to that
Near the ground, yes. Terminal velocity is dependent upon atmospheric drag. He started in the much thinner atmosphere at 59,000 feet, so less drag.
If you fell from orbit around the moon, there would be no terminal velocity limit -- you would just keep accelerating until the rather sudden stop.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>What does it mean when the shuttle tells NASA they've throttled up to 104%?
It's based on the maximum thrust of the original shuttle engines, they've tweaked them for slightly higher performance since.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"what if the blades stopped rotating?"
:)
Then your glide angle resembles that of a set of car keys.
(One of my dad's favorite sayings. I couldn't resist
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Of the projects you mentioned...
Some were failures. NASP spent years in development, and was eventually given up as infeasable as designed. Perhaps the same should have happened with the shuttle. But the others...
DC-X (aka Delta Clipper) was not originally a government project, but rather a privately funded testbed. The DC-X was built as a proof-of-concept, to show that the idea had merit, then the companies involved went looking for money for step two (of three), the DC-Y. Neither the DC-X nor the DC-Y were designed or intended to be orbital -- that would have been the third step.
When no money was forthcoming, NASA bought it, and tested it to (unintentional) destruction -- a landing strut failed on the planned final landing, causing the vehicle to fall over and burn. It successfully served its function as a testbed and proof-of-concept vehicle.
The DC-Y was pitched as a potential candidate for the X-33 project, but was turned down in favor of the Lockheed project. X-33 is also supposed to be a testbed, instead of an orbital vehicle. It's goal is not to -be- the Shuttle replacement, but to be a prototype for the RLV.
Similarly, the X-34 appears to again be a testbed and demonstrator, not an cheap-to-orbit vehicle. The X-37 is also a testbed, not a cheap-to-orbit vehicle.
I expect that the various technologies pioneered and tested in these various projects will be used in future full-scale project. Those projects will likely have lower development and operating costs because when they are designed and built, we will -know- what will work already, rather than trying to forge lots of new ground.
In a way, I think that NASA learned from the Shuttle and NASP projects. Instead of one giant, expensive, project like the Shuttle or NASP, which are great if they work, and a big boondoggle if they don't, they are funding many less expensive, demonstration projects, each with modest goals. If they fail, it's less of a problem, and they've spend less money to find out what doesn't work.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Mach 25 was orbital velocity. Sounds good enough to me.
Of course, I'll be surprised if this project is successful and not just another "interesting technology testbed" that runs over budget and way over schedule... but that's just me. Someone already posted links to Kistler and Rotary in another comment; take a look there if you're interested in private gambles toward the goal of cheap spaceflight.
Actually the X- designation really has nothing to do with being a space plane but rather designates that the aircraft is expiremental. Then again I could be completely wrong.
It looks like I'll be able to get into space eventually. At the rate things were going I thought I'd be well into heart attack age before cheap space travel came about. Happy, happy, Happy! Joy, joy, joy!
So does the X37 server support antialiased fonts finally?
The X37 gets launched into orbit by something else, it doesn't get there on its own. From the Marshall fact sheet, it's a testbed for "the orbital and reentry phases of flight". It's not nearly as cool as the article lead made it sound. OTOH, the X38 "Space Lifeboat" has a certain sort of appeal... "We're hit! Order the crew to the escape pods!"
If you look out of the right windows you'll see Boston, I mean Rhode Island, I mean Long Island, I mean New York, no, Atlantic City, oh screw it.
Boy would commercial spaceflight be fun.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It does not use the O2 from the atmosphere on the way up. It's aerospike engines use the atmosphere to gain better rocket effeciency over regular bell shaped rocket because the outside air pressure contains the rocket plume instead of a bell nozzle. there's still a large o2 tank in it. check out the schematics... www.venturestar.com
The biggest reason is because there's no real need to do so. NASA doesn't want to spend the time needed to strip the insulation off the tank safely, and if noone else does it, it will flake off, providing a massive debris hazard.
the Shuttle is cool and all, but its not designed NEARLY as well as it should have been imho. Too expensive for what it does!
The shuttle design process was full of tradeoffs... the decision to go with solid boosters a prime one. Still, it represents the triumph of 1970s technology.
As for publicity... there's a reason why they bumped up the next mission so it launches on the 20th. (Most shuttle missions launch on Thursday, BTW... so they can do a 3 day countdown w/o overtime. This one's going up on a Tuesday, and the 30th anniversary of something important...)
aka blackbird, possible typing mistake? While the x-15 was incapable of self powered takeoff, it was capable of much faster speeds than mach 1. check out this. the unofficial speed is over 4500 mph. If my math works like it used to do in high school-- mach 1 is the speed of sound at sea level. .2 mps * 60 sec * 60 min = 720 mph, then this gives the x-15 around mach 6.25 if the speed of sound remained constant up to the height which I do not think it does, but I would think that it wouldn't decrease by a factor of 6.25.
I think the author was possibly kidding, I doupt he could possibly be serious when he calls Mach 25 "mere". I mean geez sure, my sports car can go close to that speed, but I still don't consider that slow. (note: I have no sports car unless you call a tercel a car.)