Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tech Dream: Designing A New Aerospace Vehicle  
User currently offlineBOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 611 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

For those a.net professionals here is IMHO a fun Scenario for us to spend our time on. If you can submit anything, you won't get recognition right away, so there is no prize here - except if a consensus develops in a serious manner, perhaps there are aerospace companies that will be calling you.


Assignment: {if you choose to accept the mission}

You have been tasked to conceptualize and present a 1 page proposal for a new carrier vehicle that takes off using conventional runways and cruises at high altitude. Choose one of the two configurations below based upon what you believe is possible with technology available at present, and that can be used to design and fly a prototype by 2013.

Format: 66 lines, 80 chars per line ! No diagrams. Size 8.5" x 11"
(ok, I am making this stuff up)

Quote:
[configuration A] The carrier vehicle will have have a primary payload
which will detach and accelerate into Low Earth Orbit after which it will return when its mission is complete and return to the carrier vehicle. The combined airframe will land on conventional runways.



Quote:
[configuration B] The carrier vehicle will have a design suitable for use as a hybrid aerospace vehicle with (a) variable geometry flight profile (b) LEO rated manned space capability and (c) reentry profile - similar to the existing STS (see below excerpt from Wikipedia) but with certain different standards:

* Must have powered flight in both air flight and space flight regimes
* Must have the ability to take off and land on conventional runways
* Must have the ability to eject crew in hypersonic flight if vehicle is disabled in rescue capsules
* Must be equipped with onboard communication system capable of maintaining comms during reentry
* Optional requirement is to have gentle descent profile instead of rapid deceleration

Science Fiction? Ah, but you haven't forgotten the great book 20,000 Leagues under the Sea have you ? How about the dreams of a guy called Icarus ?

Quote:
From Wikipedia:


NASA's Space Shuttle, officially called the Space Transportation System (STS), is the spacecraft currently used by the United States government for its human spaceflight missions and is scheduled to be retired from service in 2010. At launch, it consists of a rust-colored external tank (ET), two white, slender Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), and the orbiter, a winged spaceplane which is the space shuttle in the narrowest sense.

The orbiter carries astronauts and payload such as satellites or space station parts into low earth orbit, into the Earth's upper atmosphere or thermosphere.[1] Usually, five to seven crew members ride in the orbiter. The payload capacity is 22,700 kilograms (50,000 lb). When the orbiter's mission is complete it fires its Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) thrusters to drop out of orbit and re-enters the lower atmosphere.[1] During the descent, the shuttle orbiter decelerates from hypersonic speed primarily by aerobraking and then for the landing phase it acts as a glider, making a completely unpowered ("deadstick") landing.

BOACVC10


Up, up and Away!
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

I've been daydreaming about a concept just like this for some time now, except I want to try to come up with a feasible conventional/catapult take-off hybrid jet/rocket orbital aircraft, to carry 5-10 people. A tall order but its really just a trade off of weight+fuel load vs available specific impulse to get you high and fast enough to orbit, plus the challenge posed by the different flight regimes (initial climb, acceleration to orbit, re-entry and convential landing) and the variable geometry flight configurations necessary to fly in them. Watching 'the right stuff' recently also got me thinking about it alot. So far Im picturing a delta-winged citation X with SRBs attached, or a bullet nosed one with variable sweep wings. I'll sit down and work it out sometime...


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19617 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1992 times:

I don't like this idea that it lands not on the ground, but on top of the carrier vehicle. That strikes me as in no way economical. You have to schlep that big carrier plane to catch something that, if left to its own devices, would come all the way down on its own.

Besides, the docking procedure with two aircraft in high-atmospheric flight. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?


User currently offlineBOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1956 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):

Besides, the docking procedure with two aircraft in high-atmospheric flight. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?

docking not suggested, rather I would have suggested capturing the Spacecarft into cradle as it rendezvous with the carrier vehicle.

However of course the spacecraft could deploy wings during its descent trajectory and after it has reentered the atmosphere.

BOACVC10



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19617 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1942 times:



Quoting BOACVC10 (Reply 3):

docking not suggested, rather I would have suggested capturing the Spacecarft into cradle as it rendezvous with the carrier vehicle.

Still, you have to bring two aircraft at high altitude together with a high degree of precision. Even with computers helping out, that's a humdinger of a logistical task.

On the one hand, the orbiter would save the weight of not having to have landing gear.

But on the other hand, we would save the cost of having to fly the catch-plane up there to collect the descending orbiter. I can't imagine that landing gear is that much more expensive.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Tech Dream: Designing A New Aerospace Vehicle
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Stansted Control Tower First To Use New Tech! posted Mon Jan 24 2005 23:50:15 by Thenoflyzone
Semi-Tech Airliner (Airbus) Question posted Tue Apr 21 2009 09:33:27 by SAA201
What Did Boeing Have In Mind When Designing The75? posted Sat Apr 4 2009 11:49:12 by FlyASAGuy2005
Airbus New Wing Root Fairing Technology posted Sat Apr 4 2009 01:47:25 by Aviationbuff
Help Me Pick A New Headset posted Fri Mar 20 2009 16:21:15 by FLY2HMO
Are New Airliners "too Advanced?" posted Sun Mar 8 2009 14:49:12 by PC12Fan
New Type Certification: Test Equipment Question posted Sat Feb 7 2009 13:14:59 by Trav110
Boeing & Airbus Tech Pubs Question... posted Thu Jan 29 2009 15:52:35 by SlimShady
New Pilot Starting Off posted Thu Jan 15 2009 18:30:01 by BWIA330
New US-Hawaii Routes On 01/13/2009 posted Sat Jan 10 2009 15:52:42 by AAH732UAL

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format