spaceship one

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:41:16 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Hey Ron, help me out some more here on
rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft.

For the reentry phase from orbit...
For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required)
wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem?

Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat?

Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry
physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly
shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly.

But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
add a burst of power to catch the bounce.

I'm having one of those moments...

I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's
atmosphere, cooling down in between hops.

AC

"pacplyer" wrote in message

Naa. These people are colonizing space in a much more efficient
manner than the government ever could. For the first time manned space
is going to be commercially viable. I would think "Colonaut" would
be a much better name for them.

Cheers "aye"

pacplyer

I think we saw the last possibility of space colonization for the next
century when project Orion was canceled. Someday some one will make it
cheap enough but for now it's something to dream about.

Tony

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:41:36 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
add a burst of power to catch the bounce.

I'm having one of those moments...

I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's
atmosphere, cooling down in between hops.

I think you'd re-enter at steeper and steeper angles each time, since you
lose velocity at each encounter with the atmosphere. I suspect, at some
point, you can't "pull out" and may break up due to the overly steep
re-entry.

Just a guess, mind you.

Ron Wanttaja

On 25 Jun 2004 04:37:45 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

-- Charlie Springer

That was long after DynaSoar was killed. DynaSoar was to be a
followon to the X15 project, with the goal to put, first, men into
space, then a space laboratory. This goal died when NASA took over
and dictated "men sitting on rockets run by us". The X15 carried on,
but with the goal of going higher and faster, not developing a manned
space presence.

The lifting body accident in question was part of the development
program for the STS. The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

See ya

Chuck

Charlie

Some of the Mars shots used aero braking by dipping into the upper
atmosphere of Mars. Some were successful and some not as I remember.

Won't go into the why's and where fores but it's possible but may not
be practicable.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 24 Jun 2004 01:35:58 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

(Steve VanSickle)

This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?

I suppose it can be dome somehow, but you are talking 18,000 mph instead of
3,000. If there is a way to skim along and slowly loose energy I'd love to find
it. But as it now stands, as you lose energy you start to drop into more
atmosphere and more drag and loose it faster and drop faster and more heat
and....

Anyway, an ninformed quick calculation. Kinetic energy is proportional to the
square of the velocity. So, 18,000 mph is six times faster than 3,000 mph but
you will have 36 times as much kinetic energy, which will become heat (mostly I
think).

-- Charlie Springer

On 25 Jun 2004 01:05:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

Let's see, he's done quite a bit towards making aircraft cheaper with his
composite designs and innovations. Who knows what spinnoffs will come from this
program?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I continually bump up against my perceptions of what cheap is, and
what other people consider to be cheap. I don't consider the EZ
series of airplanes to be cheap. I also feel that they are tiny,
don't carry much and are compromised towards the high speed end of
flight such that they land at excessively high speed. But that's just
me.

What spinnoffs might come from the X prize venture Good question, I
can't think of any.

Corky Scott

"Regnirps" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???



(better, faster, stronger)

In article ,
Dillon Pyron wrote:

The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.

So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

Bernadette

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:37:12 -0400, Doc Font
wrote:

In article ,
Dillon Pyron wrote:

The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.

So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

Bernadette

I would guess so (and was thinking the same thing when I made my
post). That said, there's little drive to do such a thing. Even
though I think it would be much safer than the current design for the
ISC "lifeboat".
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.