Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 05/20/2014 View Mon 05/19/2014 View Sun 05/18/2014 View Sat 05/17/2014 View Fri 05/16/2014 View Thu 05/15/2014 View Wed 05/14/2014
1
2014-05-20 Science & Technology
Review on progress of the 3 commercial manned space efforts in light of Russian problem.
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 01:59|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ]  Top

#1 Big issue is man-rated boosters even though crew transport module is getting the press.

Space-X probably in the lead for the Crew transport module, but in terms of looks, everybody seems to love the SNC lifting body mini-orbiter. Its designed to sit on an Atlas-V. I wonder if it can be lifted by some version of the Space-X Falcon booster?
Posted by OldSpook 2014-05-20 07:49||   2014-05-20 07:49|| Front Page Top

#2 VTHL Lifting Body = SNC's Dreamchaser




Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing (q.v. Lifting Body)
Posted by OldSpook 2014-05-20 07:55||   2014-05-20 07:55|| Front Page Top

#3 Reminds me of my H2O Water Pump Rocket. I've got it around here somewhere.
Posted by Besoeker 2014-05-20 07:56||   2014-05-20 07:56|| Front Page Top

#4 OS - they claim it's booster agnostic. Just that wind tunnel tests have only been done with the Atlas. Lockheed is building the actual airframe for SNC. Second choice of LV for the Dreamchaser is Falcon 9.1. Folks think it could use a Delta too if Delta ever gets man rated. Same for the CST-100 from Boeing.
One of the optional upper stages on a delta is the same as the one they are spec'ed with on the Atlas.

Delta's primary man rating problem appears to be older avionics.
Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 11:14||   2014-05-20 11:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Boeing built the X37-B which last time I checked was still in orbit. SpaceX will likely be first though with a man rated vehicle.
Posted by Squinty 2014-05-20 14:20||   2014-05-20 14:20|| Front Page Top

#6 Damn Great Society, damn Vietnam War:

Posted by Shipman 2014-05-20 14:43||   2014-05-20 14:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Dead-on Ship. Something like this should have been in space 40 years ago. Johnson wanted "the n****** (his words) voting for Democrats for the next 200 years", so that what we got. Plus Vietnam. That got the 3 Apollo missions scrubbed, and left NASA flatfooted.

NASA screwed it up post-Apollo. They let the military dictate that the shuttle become a cargo truck, instead of a manned flight only system.

Now it looks like heavy goes on its own, and manned goes on a less complex, lighter reusable platform. Should have been this way all along - put the heavy lift on a different (unmanned) launch platform, since its almost completely a different beast, aerodynamically speaking. Keep the manned stuff smaller, safer to recover, and easy to launch (think rescue). Gemini,Apollo and Skylab showed orbital rendezvous can be routinely accomplished between manned and unmanned space platforms.
Posted by OldSpook 2014-05-20 15:27||   2014-05-20 15:27|| Front Page Top

#8 I watched man walk on the moon in a NCO club in Quang Tri.
Posted by bman 2014-05-20 15:33||   2014-05-20 15:33|| Front Page Top

#9 As for heavy lift: Think about a hollowed out Shuttle, sans all that crew space and equipment. Why not make a thick kinda like the X37B only jumbo sized, with higher sustainable G forces, etc (due to not needing to be man rated).You'd think that would work, re-using the SRBs, Fuel Tank, main engines, and much of the shuttle design with newer materiel and electronics.
Posted by OldSpook 2014-05-20 15:33||   2014-05-20 15:33|| Front Page Top

#10 And the cancellations actually go to Nixon and the Dems in Congress.
Posted by OldSpook 2014-05-20 15:34||   2014-05-20 15:34|| Front Page Top

#11 Thank you for your service bman.
Posted by Besoeker 2014-05-20 16:01||   2014-05-20 16:01|| Front Page Top

#12 NASA screwed it up post-Apollo. They let the military dictate that the shuttle become a cargo truck, instead of a manned flight only system.

As I recollect, NASA was trying to justify budgets by saying that the space shuttle could be a truck. Dumb, dumb, idea. Too dangerous for the truck drivers. The military was happy with its own cheaper unmanned delivery systems. After Challenger, the military went back to them.
Posted by Squinty 2014-05-20 16:07||   2014-05-20 16:07|| Front Page Top

#13 Actually, Squinty, the military wanted to try to build an RLV (or many) back in the 90's, but the Clinton Administration moved their RLV efforts to NASA, where they were quietly strangled. The military got EELV, which turned into two expendable vehicles: one paperworked to death, and the other half-built by Russians, which is where we are today.

Shipman: Have you seen the XCOR Lynx vehicle? It looks a lot like that X-20.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-05-20 18:20||   2014-05-20 18:20|| Front Page Top

#14 Snowy Mountain,
I was talking about budget wars back in the 1970's before Columbia was built. Today, the military has the X-37B.
Posted by Squinty 2014-05-20 18:31||   2014-05-20 18:31|| Front Page Top

#15 It looks like the X-37 scales:
Wikipedia: X-37C
In 2011, Boeing announced plans for a scaled-up variant of the X-37B, referring to the spacecraft as the X-37C. The X-37C would be between 165% and 180% larger than the X-37B, allowing it to transport up to six astronauts inside a pressurized compartment housed in the cargo bay. Its proposed launch vehicle is the Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. The X-37C may compete with Boeing's CST-100 commercial space capsule.
Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 18:35||   2014-05-20 18:35|| Front Page Top

#16 Blue Origin is still in the game too:
Recent NASA report on them
Their web site

Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 18:41||   2014-05-20 18:41|| Front Page Top

#17 XCOR Lynx appears to be in sub-orbital competition with Virgin Galactic. Sort of X-15 realm.

Nobody outside of XCOR has a clue if it could go orbital and they are not saying.
Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 18:51||   2014-05-20 18:51|| Front Page Top

#18 Squinty: I wasn't talking about the X-37, I was talking about a real RLV. A followup to DC-X, for instance. The X-37 is just another reusable payload.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-05-20 20:46||   2014-05-20 20:46|| Front Page Top

#19  Reminds me of my H2O Water Pump Rocket.

I kinda favor the Giant Trampoline idea for launching and recovering payloads from LEO.
Posted by SteveS 2014-05-20 21:30||   2014-05-20 21:30|| Front Page Top

#20 On the guy who gave the 36 rocket Block Buy to ULA this just came out:
Here's the link to the Correll story mentioned above:
http://nlpc.org/stories/2014/05/18/space-launch-deal-puts-spotlight-revolving-door

"One of his last official acts before his "retirement" in January was to oversee a deal with a company called United Launch Alliance (ULA) for a whopping 36 future launches."

"This month, Correll popped up with a new job with Aerojet Rocketdyne, which just happens to supply rocket engines to ULA. His title is Vice President for Government Acquisition and Policy, seemingly more than befitting of his role."

Posted by 3dc 2014-05-20 21:37||   2014-05-20 21:37|| Front Page Top

23:39 Bubba Clirt3226
23:34 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:44 Lottomayor
21:37 3dc
21:30 SteveS
21:28 Mikey Hunt
21:24 SteveS
21:20 Silentbrick
21:10 ed in texas
20:46 Thing From Snowy Mountain
20:36 Frank G
19:55 JosephMendiola
19:50 JosephMendiola
19:49 Squinty
19:43 Bubba Graiting8281
19:41 Bubba Graiting8281
19:37 Squinty
19:32 Shipman
19:26 AlanC
19:18 trailing wife
19:17 Shipman
19:17 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com