9 ms·

The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)

42 points by CDSlice 4y ago

focusedone 4y ago
Space 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.
adolph 4y ago
The 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 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
- ncmncm 4y ago
  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".
  - sterlind 4y ago
    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.
    - ggm 4y ago
      A device capable of making orbital change already in orbit is a shedload faster to redeploy to some useful orbit, than having to prep for launch. But against that, they should have 50 of these, if they are really as useful as implied: if not, why isn't the one in orbit suspiciously failing in service? I really don't beleive there is asymmetry in capability to mess with orbital devices here.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      A vehicle whose chief feature is that it can take off and land and be launched again not landing and being launched again tells us all we need to know. If it is just changing orbit while up there, it doesn't need reusability. Just launch another one.
      - Fatnino 4y ago
        It's is far cheaper to temporarily bring down and upgrade a spy satellite than to build a new one. Probably leads to faster iteration on new designs as well. Also, the fact that the secret satellite stuff is in the payload bay with doors that can close is likely very desirable when a Russian or Chinese nosey satellite matches orbit. And once that does happen, the ability to move to another orbit is on tap as well. I'd say that the fact China has launched their own nearly identical copy is evidence that the X37 is not useless, but China copying someone's space thing is just another day ending in y and not actual evidence of anything except their copying prowess.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Copying is how China and Japan became industrial powerhouses. There is no shame in copying, except where you have been tricked into copying something useless.
  - adolph 4y ago
    Could be true, hard to say. In political jargon, a self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase appeared to have been first used in 1991–1992, in a book about Gulf War weapons systems by Norman Friedman, and On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones, a paper by Pete Worden about NASA's bureaucracy, to describe the relationship between the Space Shuttle and Space Station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      And now we have SLS, and a planned lunar space station whose only purpose is to be a place SLS can get to; the moon itself being out of reach. Make no mistake, a lunar space station, no matter its name, is not a gateway to anywhere. The only defensible place to pause on the way from low earth orbit to anywhere else in the solar system is high earth orbit. Stopping at high lunar orbit is pure cost, no benefit. It might be useful to park spare fuel in low lunar orbit for a moon landing, but there is no value in a space station there.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
- bombcar 4y ago
  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.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  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.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Do photos exist from directly after that 32 minutes flight of sustained Mach 3? I've read that most of the paint was gone then. (German: Da war der Lack ab!)
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      I used to know a little German, but I'll admit I had to look up "ab sein" to get that. At least my dictionary claims it's colloquial...
      - 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Poor 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 https://youtu.be/TkWg4dd7e8w [2] https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM [3] https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M [4] https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM [5] https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0 https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0 [6] https://youtu.be/NXD6oAEDKqA https://youtu.be/NXD6oAEDKqA [7] https://imgur.com/a/VEqKG13 https://imgur.com/a/VEqKG13
- canadianfella 4y ago
pfdietz 4y ago
And SpaceX showed a non-winged recoverable first stage can be a winner. (Compare to the proposed flyback first stage for the Space Shuttle.)
- abudabi123 4y ago
  The snakes and critters in the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress diverted attention and funding away from SpaceX's remake vision of propulsive capsule landing on land as if the DC-X.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I wouldn't say that. Simple engineering conservatism would suffice as an explanation.

42 points by CDSlice 4y ago

Space 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.

adolph 4y ago

The 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 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

ncmncm 4y ago
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".
- sterlind 4y ago
  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.
  - ggm 4y ago
    A device capable of making orbital change already in orbit is a shedload faster to redeploy to some useful orbit, than having to prep for launch. But against that, they should have 50 of these, if they are really as useful as implied: if not, why isn't the one in orbit suspiciously failing in service? I really don't beleive there is asymmetry in capability to mess with orbital devices here.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    A vehicle whose chief feature is that it can take off and land and be launched again not landing and being launched again tells us all we need to know. If it is just changing orbit while up there, it doesn't need reusability. Just launch another one.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      It's is far cheaper to temporarily bring down and upgrade a spy satellite than to build a new one. Probably leads to faster iteration on new designs as well. Also, the fact that the secret satellite stuff is in the payload bay with doors that can close is likely very desirable when a Russian or Chinese nosey satellite matches orbit. And once that does happen, the ability to move to another orbit is on tap as well. I'd say that the fact China has launched their own nearly identical copy is evidence that the X37 is not useless, but China copying someone's space thing is just another day ending in y and not actual evidence of anything except their copying prowess.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Copying is how China and Japan became industrial powerhouses. There is no shame in copying, except where you have been tricked into copying something useless.
- adolph 4y ago
  Could be true, hard to say. In political jargon, a self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase appeared to have been first used in 1991–1992, in a book about Gulf War weapons systems by Norman Friedman, and On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones, a paper by Pete Worden about NASA's bureaucracy, to describe the relationship between the Space Shuttle and Space Station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    And now we have SLS, and a planned lunar space station whose only purpose is to be a place SLS can get to; the moon itself being out of reach. Make no mistake, a lunar space station, no matter its name, is not a gateway to anywhere. The only defensible place to pause on the way from low earth orbit to anywhere else in the solar system is high earth orbit. Stopping at high lunar orbit is pure cost, no benefit. It might be useful to park spare fuel in low lunar orbit for a moon landing, but there is no value in a space station there.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie

bombcar 4y ago
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.
aidenn0 4y ago
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.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Do photos exist from directly after that 32 minutes flight of sustained Mach 3? I've read that most of the paint was gone then. (German: Da war der Lack ab!)
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    I used to know a little German, but I'll admit I had to look up "ab sein" to get that. At least my dictionary claims it's colloquial...
    - 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Poor 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 https://youtu.be/TkWg4dd7e8w [2] https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM [3] https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M [4] https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM [5] https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0 https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0 [6] https://youtu.be/NXD6oAEDKqA https://youtu.be/NXD6oAEDKqA [7] https://imgur.com/a/VEqKG13 https://imgur.com/a/VEqKG13

canadianfella 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

And SpaceX showed a non-winged recoverable first stage can be a winner. (Compare to the proposed flyback first stage for the Space Shuttle.)

abudabi123 4y ago
The snakes and critters in the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress diverted attention and funding away from SpaceX's remake vision of propulsive capsule landing on land as if the DC-X.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I wouldn't say that. Simple engineering conservatism would suffice as an explanation.