Orbital Sciences Corp. today confirmed it is proposing to build a space plane resembling a mini-shuttle that could fly four astronauts to the International Space Station or other destinations. The so-called "blended lifting body" vehicle would build upon studies Orbital preformed under NASA's Orbital Space Plane program between 2000 and 2003.
The space plane is proposed to launch on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, but Orbital says other vehicles could be used. It would land on a runway like the shuttle. Orbital submitted the proposal under the second rouund of NASA's Commercial Crew Development program, or CCDev. The Boeing Co. said Monday that it has proposed continued development of an Apollo-like capsule that could carry seven people.
IMAGES: Orbital Sciences Corp.'s proposed space vehicle for NASA's Commercial Crew Development-2 program is depicted in rendezvous and berthing operations with the International Space Station and on the tarmac of a landing strip. Credit: Orbital
19 comments:
Did OSC redesign the docking mechanism? In the above art, a possible docking ring can be seen just behind the cockpit.
I thought I had seen earlier sketches of the vehicle with a docking mechanism in the aft of the spacecraft, near the retro-rockets.
Rick Steele
Sarasota, Florida
Now THIS I like!
So if it's being designed today will the ISS be burning reentry debris before this space-plane is ready. no?
Very much Resembles a long ago Military ship that was canceled ,I think it was called Dyna-Soar. Hey, please put it on TOP of the stack this time !!!! No more sweating out the foam debris.
More OSC renderings. How about some real hardware?
Agree with Anonymous 7:11. OSC has a habit of pumping out flashy graphics. It's not just limited to OSC either. Several companies have said they were going to produce a similar craft. I think a lot of people underestimate how much more work is involved with developing a winged spacecraft or even a lifting body spacecraft vs. a capsule. The technical risk is also much greater. I'd be surprised if this results in real flight hardware that flies commercially.
Yep, if SpaceX isn't the outfit behind it, it couldn't possibly be any good
Go Dragon!
Looking at the picture of this craft gave me a sudden flashback...
Tracking: It looks good at Mach One.
Control: Uh, Roger.
Pilot: DCS arm switch is on.
Control: OK, Victor.
Pilot: Landing rocket arm switch is on. Here comes the throttle. Circuit breaker's in.
Tracking: We have separation.
Pilot: Roger. Inboard and outboards are on. We're comin' forward with the sidestick.
Tracking: All looks good.
Control: Uh, Roger.
Pilot: I've got a blowout. Damper three.
Control: Get your pitch to zero.
Pilot: Engine's out. I can't hold altitude.
Control: Correction. Alpha hold is off. Trip select is emergency.
Pilot: Flightcom, I can't hold it. She's breaking up. She's break ....
7:57 Anonymous, I dont think there are many (if any) people that think OSC's Cygnus spacecraft and Taurus II launch vehicle will be less successful than SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle. However, have been many proposals (that's all this is) to develop a lifting body reusable spacecraft that turned out to be nothing more than pretty pictures.
Are those dots near the nose reaction control system nozzles? Assume there are jets in the back as well? If so, where are they mounted? Don't see anything on the winglets.
Is this comparable to the Sierra Nevada / SpacDev Dreamchaser ??
(see http://www.spacehorizons.com/id9.html )
Any new ideas are better than what NASA engineers have come up with in the last decade - which was Nothing. Collecting huge payrolls off original shuttle engineering from the past with no focus to future planning. Good to see more competition to come up with a vision for future spaceflight & not reflective of the past wastefulness of Cx program. Billions of taxpayers money lost on something that NASA knew would never work. The real NASA engineers will always find good jobs in other aerospace companies. The layoffs were a needed wake-up call for NASA to weed out staff who will collect unemployment for a while or continue their "free govt-paid for education" to remain in the aerospace field or move on to other jobs they are more suited for. Still milking the taxpayers for every dime they can & complaining about it. Unbelievable how ungrateful some NASA workers are.
A breath of fresh air, and a great reason for commercializing the transportation of astronauts. It should not go unnoticed that the proposed crew vehicle is about the same size as the X-37B, which was successfully launched by an Atlas 5 and returned to earth a short while ago. NASA's decision to ditch plans for a vehicle that could land on a runway was a huge mistake. It is good to see Orbital Sciences stepping in to fill the void.
It's NOT a "blended wing body." It's a wing body vehicle with a huge and probably unnecessary wing-body fillet - and it's (the fillet) adding to the inherently large base drag. Additionally, there's a lot of work to be done on the design as the subsonic a/c is far forward of both the entry center of pressure and the CG.
OMG, they've revived Europe's Hermes spaceplane!!!
To Anonymous @6:41 am: No, this nothing like the Sierra Nevada DreamChaser - that is based directly on the original NASA/Langley HL-20 lifting body spacecraft as further developed by (then) Rockwell.
To Anonymous @ 6:32 pm: Yes, it vaguely resembles the X-20 Dynasoar as well as the XCOR Lynx and a host of others that have been proposed over the years, including the Shuttle orbiter. That's because when one makes an informed decision for developing a wing-body reusable spacecraft they all resemble each other in broad general terms - the devil is in the details (e/g., mission requirements, propulsion systems, aerodynamics, etc., etc.).
Orbital received more money than SpaceX for less missions to resupply the ISS, and they have yet to produce anything except artists depections. And to all the crybabies snivelling about the end of the shuttle or wasting taxpayers money, get over it. SpaceX is here launching and showing results. So as The Rock used to say, "It doesn't matter what you think!"
The more designs contending the better the chance that at least one will prove practical. I agree there isn't much evidence to support the "bended wing" approach. I think the X-37 planform is probably better; the separated all-moving v-tails give greater CG tolerance than the pure delta and avoid putting hinge points on the hot lower surface, and the division between wing and fuselage is abrupt. But I think the Orbital design will have a better low-speed L/D and lower touchdown speed than the lifting body based concepts like the Dream Chaser.
As much respect as I have for SpaceX, ultimately I think runway landing is more practical.
Post a Comment