The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
space-travel.com
The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#2Space nerds are running down the street with pitchforks and torches on the way to this guy's house right now (or were in 2008 I'm sure).
But he's not wrong.
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#3The author was writing just ahead of the Dream Chaser development but does mention the X-37 "(This problem cropped up again in the X-37B program and resulted in a big payload shroud being added.)." I think that DC and X-37 are great capabilities to have even if they require shrouds on the way up.
Dream Chaser is an American reusable lifting-body spaceplane being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Space Systems. Originally intended as a crewed vehicle, the Dream Chaser Space System is set to be produced after the cargo variant, Dream Chaser Cargo System, is operational.
The Dream Chaser design is derived from NASA's HL-20 Personnel Launch System spaceplane concept, which in turn is descended from a series of test vehicles, including the X-20 Dyna-Soar, Northrop M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin X-24A and X-24B, and Martin X-23 PRIME.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
The Boeing X-37, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV), is a reusable robotic spacecraft. It is boosted into space by a launch vehicle, then re-enters Earth's atmosphere and lands as a spaceplane.
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#4The author was writing just ahead of the Dream Chaser development but does mention the X-37 "(This problem cropped up again in the X-37B program and resulted in a big payload shroud being added.)." I think that DC and X-37 are great capabilities to have even if they require shrouds on the way up. Dream Chaser is an American reusable lifting-body spaceplane being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Space Syst…
The operational uselessness of X-37 is demonstrated by their leaving it parked in orbit for months or even years at a stretch.
Apparently they park it in orbit instead of a hangar to make it look as if it is actually "on a mission".
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#5> It's an odd feature of aerospace history that many prototype aircraft that never went into production become "cultplanes". Some prominent examples are flying wings, Avro Arrow, B-70 Valkyrie, anything designed by the Nazis in 1945.
I don't care about the other planes on the list, but the B-70 Valkyrie absolutely deserves to be a cult plane.
It is one of the most visually striking and beautiful planes ever built. Combine that with an absolutely insane performance characteristics and engineering, and you can see why it is a cult plane.
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#6Poor Dyna-Soar. Even its name seems to have jinxed it.
Some cool tech was there. They got so far with it as well — search for it on YouTube and you can find videos of various aspects of research that went into it. [1..6]
I like the landing skids that used the stretching of metal as the means to adsorb the shock of landing - reminds me somewhat of the metal honeycomb that collapsed to adsorb the lunar module landing on the moon.
I believe water circulated through the skin of the craft near the astronaut compartment to take heat away during reentry.
I recall that the nose of the craft was made of a rather interesting material. That may've been shared with the X-15 as well.
Enough blueprints too are available for the craft-that-never-flew that I enjoyed creating a kind of balsa-kit-that-never-existed. [7] A very pretty plane it was/wasnt.
[1] https://youtu.be/TkWg4dd7e8w
[2] https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM
[3] https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M
[4] https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM
[5] https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#7And SpaceX showed a non-winged recoverable first stage can be a winner. (Compare to the proposed flyback first stage for the Space Shuttle.)
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#8The author was writing just ahead of the Dream Chaser development but does mention the X-37 "(This problem cropped up again in the X-37B program and resulted in a big payload shroud being added.)." I think that DC and X-37 are great capabilities to have even if they require shrouds on the way up. Dream Chaser is an American reusable lifting-body spaceplane being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Space Syst…
The operational uselessness of X-37 is demonstrated by their leaving it parked in orbit for months or even years at a stretch. Apparently they park it in orbit instead of a hangar to make it look as if it is actually "on a mission".
how do you know it's not on a mission? aren't its missions heavily classified? I have no idea what it's supposed to do, but e.g. spying on or interfering with enemy spy satellites would give it a reason to stay up there for a long time.
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#9> It's an odd feature of aerospace history that many prototype aircraft that never went into production become "cultplanes". Some prominent examples are flying wings, Avro Arrow, B-70 Valkyrie, anything designed by the Nazis in 1945. I don't care about the other planes on the list, but the B-70 Valkyrie absolutely deserves to be a cult plane. It is one of the most visually striking and beautiful planes ever built. Co…
Every aircraft is a compromise, some more or less than others.
But those that never get into production often have less compromise in some areas, and that is probably a large factor in why they become cult planes.
Re: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
#10> It's an odd feature of aerospace history that many prototype aircraft that never went into production become "cultplanes". Some prominent examples are flying wings, Avro Arrow, B-70 Valkyrie, anything designed by the Nazis in 1945. I don't care about the other planes on the list, but the B-70 Valkyrie absolutely deserves to be a cult plane. It is one of the most visually striking and beautiful planes ever built. Co…
I think the XB-70 is useful in the way that TFA suggests the Dyna Soar could have been useful; it collected data that future airplanes did use.
Its flight performance is quite impressive (32 minutes of sustained Mach 3), but as a theoretical bomber, it leaves a lot to be desired.