Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2008, 12:57 AM   #31
tblaxland
Webmaster
 
tblaxland's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiberianTiger View Post
 I am as serious as Energia designers who presented this design at Farnborough. They are going to position the crew (4 or 6 persons) in the camomile petals pattern, legs to center, heads outwards. It's clear that areas behind each of the cosmonauts will be structurally weakened to enable the ejection seat breaking the hull through.
It would be quite a show when (if) that goes off!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiberianTiger View Post
 The legs are there for reusability's sake.
So that means the heat shield will be reusable also. I though they might have gone for an ablative solution that could be re-applied for the next mission.
tblaxland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 01:02 AM   #32
GregBurch
Donator
 
GregBurch's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spcefrk View Post
 I'll be the first person to sing the many praises of a lifting body reusable manned vehicle, but until you can convince the people signing the checks to support the development of a lifting body, they won't leave the drawing board.
Ahh, but those checks were signed (and cashed) -- thirty to forty years ago:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-011-DFRC.html
GregBurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 02:32 AM   #33
pattersoncr
Tutorial Publisher
 
pattersoncr's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiberianTiger View Post
 The main jet cushion system will kick in at 100 metres altitude and quickly decelarate the spacecraft to stop at the ground. SRM's are there to provide additional robustness, also they are believed to be safer than Peroxide liquid engines proposed two decades ago for the similar Zarya capsule design.
What's the point of having ejection seats?
If your braking rockets fire at 100m, by the time you realize that they don't work, you'll be too low for a parachute to open.
pattersoncr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 02:39 AM   #34
spcefrk
Ph.D Student
 
spcefrk's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregBurch View Post
 Ahh, but those checks were signed (and cashed) -- thirty to forty years ago:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-011-DFRC.html
Which in conjunction with the X-15 program significantly influenced the design of the space shuttle, X-33, and X-38. The Dryden Lifting body program (using that term loosely) was a first stab in the dark at subsonic lifting body flight. It was a bitter uphill fight to get any money for lifting body research. What little public domain information we have on lifting bodies dries up pretty quickly after that program. Most of the X-33 aero work remains proprietary property of Lockheed Martin with the exception of a few shallow technical papers.
spcefrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 04:33 AM   #35
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
 
Andy44's Avatar
Default

Quote:
What's the point of having ejection seats?
If your braking rockets fire at 100m, by the time you realize that they don't work, you'll be too low for a parachute to open.
Zero-zero ejection seats might do it, if the descent speed is reasonable.

I'm just wondering how you eject 5 or 6 people from a capsule. Someone mentioned that they would lay backs to the heatshield, heads pointing outboard. Neat. So now you need 6 blow-off hatches, and when the ejection seats fire each seat is blowing rocket exhaust up the opposite astronaut's ass.

And BTW, the whole idea behind using a capsule is that you don't need ejection seats, or so I thought.
Andy44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 07:25 AM   #36
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tblaxland View Post
 So that means the heat shield will be reusable also. I though they might have gone for an ablative solution that could be re-applied for the next mission.
Not necessary. It seems logical to apply here the solution already in use in Soyuz: the ablative heat shield covers the entire bottom of the capsule, leaving no gaps and gets jettisoned after decelerating below M3 or so, thus opening the thruster exhaust ports.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 07:28 AM   #37
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pattersoncr View Post
 What's the point of having ejection seats?
If your braking rockets fire at 100m, by the time you realize that they don't work, you'll be too low for a parachute to open.
I agree with Andy44 on his point here, however I have to add that what we are talking about is little more than an idea yet, so the numbers may vary in the final design: they might decide to ingite the landing thrusters at 300 metres instead of 100 or add a small braking chute to keep the descent rate sane, who knows.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 07:39 AM   #38
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Photos

For your consideration, here are the slides of the presentation made by Energia at the recent scientific conference in Korolev (May, 2008). These series illustrate the decision making among several possible designs of the perspective manned spaceship (taking the existing Soyuz capsule as a base for comparison, and contamplating Clipper with wings, lifting body Clipper, Transformer Clipper and the Cone shaped capsule). It seems like the author of the presentation favoured the Transformer most:

meaning of rows:
  • The spacecraft's exterior
  • G-load during reentry (nominal / during touchdown / during LV failure)
  • Maximum cross range, km (lateral / axial)
  • Landing accuracy, km
  • Reusability coefficient
  • Number of orbits per day which allow to land in Russia


meaning of rows:
  • The spacecraft's exterior with emergency recovery devices attached
  • Mass, kg (space ship \ orbit insertion/escape block \ escape tower)
  • Initial orbit apo/per, km (reclined trajectory launch)
  • Orbit after final insertion, km
  • Free space in cabin per person


Market requirements
  • Crew of 6 persons, payload 500 kg (1000 kg with crew of 2)
  • Autonomous flight time 14 days, able to stay docked to a space station for up to 1 year
  • Crew saving capability at all flight stages from before launch to landing
  • Landing system reliability no less than 0.999
  • Shortened crew training time and less strict requirements for the candidates
  • Lowering maximum G-load down to 14g (escape tower's operation)
  • Providing for launch and landing within continental Russia
  • Minimum cost for R&D and minimum running costs
  • Putting into operation no later than 2018
  • 30 to 40 years of effective operation of the spacecraft's class


Project requirements for the new generation manned spacecraft:

(1) Functional
  • Safety and reliability (one system failure allows for mission accomplishement; two system failires allow for crew saving)
  • Crew saving capability at all flight stages from before launch to landing
  • Crew up to 6 persons
  • Improved landing accuracy (in 15 km raduis circle or on a runway)
(2) Technological
  • Increased crew comfort (free space per person no less than 2 cubic metres)
  • Lowering maximum G-load during descent (nominal < 5g, off-nominal < 12g)
  • Using environment friendly components
  • Avoiding leaving space garbage
(3) Operational
  • Minimum cost for R&D and minimum running costs
  • 30 to 40 years of effective operation of the spacecraft's class
  • Adaptivity and modularity

Last edited by SiberianTiger; 07-24-2008 at 09:41 AM.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 12:08 PM   #39
GregBurch
Donator
 
GregBurch's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spcefrk View Post
 Which in conjunction with the X-15 program significantly influenced the design of the space shuttle, X-33, and X-38. The Dryden Lifting body program (using that term loosely) was a first stab in the dark at subsonic lifting body flight. It was a bitter uphill fight to get any money for lifting body research. What little public domain information we have on lifting bodies dries up pretty quickly after that program. Most of the X-33 aero work remains proprietary property of Lockheed Martin with the exception of a few shallow technical papers.
I don't disagree. But, in hindsight, I think you can put yourself back at the end of the X-24 program and realize that the gap from there to a manned, orbital X-plane testbed is pretty short, considering that, by that point, the STS TPS was already developed.

Build it small and light -- for just one man -- and slap it on top of the already man-rated Titan. It could have flown before 1982. Fly 5 or 6 R&D flights. By 1990, you could have had an X-38 equivalent on top of a man-rated Titan 3C, even at NASA's increasingly glacial speed in those days.
GregBurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 01:43 PM   #40
ar81
Orbinaut
Default

Russians, Europeans or Americans can't match my futuristic spacecraft design and space technology.
These designs are top secret, ready to be patented, but here they go anyway...

Hab module with greenhouse with coffee plants and lander vessel with landing gear extended.
Cabin of lander is filled with a special liquid fluid that is saturated with O2 that allows human breathing.



Waste recycling system



Orbital hab module capsule (time travel capable)



Capsule with tehter attachment system for easy storage



Interior of hab module



ar81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 01:59 PM   #41
SpaceCowboy
Orbinaut
 
SpaceCowboy's Avatar
Default

I thought the Russians were too strapped for another new spacecraft. Besides, weren't they going to upgrade the Soyuz to seat 4?
SpaceCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008, 06:40 AM   #42
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy View Post
 Besides, weren't they going to upgrade the Soyuz to seat 4?
You can see that the current requirement is a crew of 6 and 500 kilos of stuff. No variety of Soyuz would be able to carry these.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 03:39 AM   #43
Kodiak
Addon Developer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy View Post
 I thought the Russians were too strapped for another new spacecraft. Besides, weren't they going to upgrade the Soyuz to seat 4?
nope, 4 people would require soyuz to be scaled up in size. Soyuz will recieve an upgrade in the form of,
-switching from analogue to digital automated systems(reduces soyuz empty weight and increases payload)
-thiner but stronger parachute material(reduces bulk of parachute and increases cabin volume)
-Unisex toilet(currently women have to urinate on absorbent pads)
-other minor upgrades(reduceing wire count and gauge, better power managment, etc...)

Upgrades to soyuz are planed out and funded under the current russian space program bugdet. Klipper and this new ACTS, (+follow on design) are funded as concept programs only
Kodiak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 12:51 PM   #44
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default A Zenit derivative for the CSTS

This is an LV proposed by Energia for the joint manned spaceship project (though at the first picture you can clearly see an Ariane in the corner):

1st stage is propelled by 4 RD-0163 engines, the second has 1 RD-120. Hull diameter is 4.1 m. The launch mass is about 590 tons.

I doubt that the producer will be Yuzhmash, given that it's a real marvel they still can produce operable Zenits thus far.





SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2012, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.