Spacecraft are NOT Airplanes I
A fellow space-geek discusses the new CEV, and gives some very good commentary on the significant advantages of capsules over "space-planes", which exist in the public mind in that annoying, fixed, way-things-are-going-to-be-to-the-exclusion-of-every-other-possibility type mindset. I agree, and have commented about this before on various forums that there is only 1% of a spacecraft's mission profile where wings are anything but a hobbling disadvantage.
His podcast is here:
http://geekcounterpoint.net/audio/GC002_NASAGoneHollywood.mp3
His podcast is here:
http://geekcounterpoint.net/audio/GC002_NASAGoneHollywood.mp3
posted by qwerty182764 at 10:53 AM
1 Comments:
When you look at the old (1950's) Von Braun photos he's usually holding a spaceplane with large delta wings, even though even back then he was busy making rockets and missiles, and as far as I know never got far in designing a spaceplane.
I wonder if he just did that to capture the public's imagination, since those wings were so huge that you'd think even then they would have obviously been inappropriate.
In any case, I think these spaceplane ideas have stuck in a lot of folks minds. PBS did a special about 10 years ago that argued that in the 1950s, most folks expected we would reach space through continued progress with X-plane vehicles that flew faster and higher.
The X-15 began about the same time as Mercury, but X-plane research continued on in the right direction toward space applications, with the lifting bodies, but not too many folks were paying attention.
Since about 1990 when Langley promoted the HL-20, we've seen increased interest in lifting bodies, such as in the X-33 program and X-38 (which was a rather promising program, unfortunately cancelled). Now SpaceDev is reportedly developing its Dream Chaser, rather akin to the HL-20.
At least for manned flight, where g-loads and landing flexibility are very important, lifting bodies may represent the best compromise.
Post a Comment
<< Home