Quantcast

Time for a new NASA vehicle!

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,468
Reaction score
5
I think it's time.

Personally I like the simplicity of the Lockheed Martin design.

sandman
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,468
Reaction score
5
OK, here is my concept of Lockheed Martin's concept.

sandman
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,468
Reaction score
5
I made this while watching TV.

(for all our UK members, I was watching "Heartbeats")

It's only rough shaped and needs some finish sanding. I am only down to 100 grit. This is a BT-60 sized version.

sandman
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,716
Reaction score
10
Looking good sandman! I like the Lockmart conept also.

My 'TV' projects are generally made out of paper and the like.

:eek:
 

Chilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
1
I'm rooting for the Boeing concept, if only to boost my 401k! :p

Gotta admit LockMart's got a good idea, though. Apparently it would have all the benefits of a capsule design but with better cross-range and recovery options. The only potential weakness that strikes me is getting it into orbit. Supposedly the twisting moments from any kind of winged vehicle on top of an EELV are going to be a big problem. Maybe one of you real engineers out there can enlighten us...but I digress.

Boeing's got some interesting concepts already sketched out, too. Check out www.projectconstellation.us/news/
 

DavRedf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
I told Orville and I told Wilbur that thing will never get off the ground. :)

Seriously Sandman it looks good but is it a lifting body as I think those wings are too small to give enough lift.

David
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,468
Reaction score
5
Seriously Sandman it looks good but is it a lifting body as I think those wings are too small to give enough lift.
I like the Lockmart design because of how small the wings are. This will have very little detrimental effect on lift-off.

Maybe not "lift" per se...but a controlled fall.

Concider the fact that at re-entry the "capsule" is traveling forward at about mach 23 (17,500mph = mach 23.6). It wouldn't take much attitude and control change to deflect the decent by as much as 2,000 miles in any one direction over a 100 mile decent.

That can mean the difference between landing near Edwards AFB or back to the cape.

That's all they need really. Just enough to give them some control of the landing site.

The wings being so small will not allow a runway landing and the pyrotechnics involved in a parachute recovery is far simple than landing gear.

Since this is not a"reusable" design, who cares.

Payload capacity can be changed by adding different "service modules" behind the capsule.

The only drawback to this design is the inability to recover large satelites.

sandman
 

Justy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by sandman
The only drawback to this design is the inability to recover large satelites.
I was thinking about that the other day... then I flipped through a list of the shuttle missions up to 2001, and saw that they only captured & brought back satellites two or three times (Long Duration Exposure Facility, for example, which got a LOT longer exposure than planned). It's a nice capability to have, but if it's not used, it's unnecessary...
 

Chilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
1
Yeah, I think the capabilities aren't up to the demand just yet. That's one reason I really like this new direction and hope it stays in place (insert new thread here___!). It recognizes that NASA needs to be in the role of research and exploration, and will hopefully leave any follow-on development to private industry. I.E., assuming their exploration finds something out there interesting (economically), and private spaceflight has matured sufficiently to get up there and do something about it. Blaze the trail and let industry follow.
There's already some hints that this may well be part of the long-term thinking but they're not about to come out and state it as policy yet. I think the "giggle factor" is still too high. Let's just wait for Burt Rutan or XCOR to prove it can be done!

BTW, Rutan is also building a very interesting space launcher for DARPA (not on paper, he's actually cutting metal). It's called RASCAL and uses mass-injector pre-compression cooling to boost the high-altitude performance of 4 F100 fighter engines. It's supposed to zoom-climb straight out of the atmosphere to over 200,000', then release a hybrid-fuel upper stage to launch satellites. WAY cool. Someone should model a boost-glider of it. :cool:
 

Gus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
51
The only drawback to this design is the inability to recover large satelites.
The other drawback is that they apparently used those goofy clear plastic fins on the booster, because I can't see them. :rolleyes:
 
Top