E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sierra Nevada Corp.
In this artist's conception, Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Dream Chaser space plane is shown alongside a docking port at the International Space Station.
NASA's Kennedy Space Center signed a deal today to let Sierra Nevada Corp. use its facilities to develop and launch a mini-shuttle for servicing the International Space Station, beginning as early as 2015.
"This is a really great step toward a bright future for us," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said at the signing, which took place in the Florida space center's briefing room.
Previous deals have awarded Sierra Nevada $100 million in NASA funds to aid in the development of the company's Dream Chaser, a winged space plane that's based on a design considered but rejected by the space agency in the 1980s. The Dream Chaser would launch on an Atlas 5 rocket and carry as many as seven passengers and cargo to the space station.
Sierra Nevada is one of several companies funded by NASA's effort to promote the development of commercial spacecraft that could fill in for many of the functions of the shuttle fleet, which is headed for retirement after Atlantis' upcoming station resupply mission. The Dream Chaser is the only proposed spaceship that has wings. The others — such as SpaceX's Falcon, Boeing's CST-100 and Blue Origin's OSV — are conical capsules like the Apollo command module.
Mark Sirangelo, head of Sierra Nevada Space Systems, noted that the Dream Chaser's look was similar to that of the shuttle, though without the shuttle's commodious cargo bay. When one journalist made a remark about the craft's sleek design, Sirangelo joked, "We like the word 'sleek.'"
He said the design similarities suggest that the reusable Dream Chaser, which would land on a runway like a glider, might well be serviced like the shuttle. But when Sirangelo was asked exactly which facilities would be used at Kennedy Space Center, he said "we're still working out the details" on that issue. NASA said the space center would help Sierra Nevada "define and execute" activities for launch and for post-landing processing.
Last week, NASA reported that all of its partners for crew vehicle development, including Sierra Nevada, were meeting their specified timelines. Sirangelo said Sierra Nevada's schedule called for suborbital test flights in 2013, orbital test flights in 2014 and the start of space station operations in 2015.
Kennedy Space Center's director, Bob Cabana, joined Sierra Nevada in signing today's Space Act agreement. He said the venture was in line with NASA's efforts to give private companies a greater role in low-Earth-orbit operations, thus freeing the space agency to concentrate on beyond-Earth-orbit exploration.
"We are going to transform human space flight for future generations," Cabana said.
Today's Space Act agreement isn't the first of its kind: Sierra Nevada previously reached agreements with Johnson Space Center in Texas, Langley Research Center in Virginia and Dryden Flight Research Center and Ames Research Center in California. Among the other companies that have made Space Act agreements under the auspices of NASA's Commercial Crew Program are Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp.
"There are others in the works," Cabana told me after the signing.
Do you think such agreements point the way to the future of spaceflight? Or are you worried that private enterprise isn't up to taking a leading role on the final frontier, as some of the space effort's veterans fear? Either way, feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
Update for 6 p.m. ET: Sierra Nevada's Sirangelo discussed the deal in more depth with me during an interview this afternoon. Among other things, he told me that the Dream Chaser could be launched atop an Atlas 5 from California as well as from Florida, and it could land on any runway. If it happened to land in California, or anyplace else, that's no big deal. "It returns home in a cargo plane," Sirangelo told me. The mini-shuttle is compact enough to fit within a C-5 transport plane, he noted.
He suggested that the Dream Chaser could touch down in, say, Madison to deliver fresh experimental samples to a lab at the University of Wisconsin — or make a landing at the EAA AirVenture air show to give the crowds a thrill. A spaceship coming to your hometown ... how's that sound as a way to build interest in the space program?
Stay tuned for more from Sirangelo and other players in the commercial space race next week, once I transcribe my notes.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Its a good looking design I hope they can make it work.
This is similar to what they originally wanted the shuttle to be. Should have been the design all along.
Get too many committees involved, try to please everyone, and no one is totally happy.
But we get to spend a lot more money trying to generate a compromise!
True dat, and spread the money over more states.
I like this design much more then the capsules that land anywhere and have to be picked up in the ocean. Its a shame they didnt throw some $$$ at Dreamchaser years earlier so we wouldnt have this gap but then again not much from the Bush Gang made much sense.
Are you unaware, or do you just choose to ignore, that Obama had the opportunity to reverse the Bush decision, but he happened to agree with it? There just seems to be this 6-sigma fringe from both sides of the bell curve who can march a direct line to the Kool Aide stand, no matter what the topic.
Well, when you lose 5 years of development time, its kind of hard to reverse course, its either follow through, and pick up what you can, or potentially run into disasterous, or expensive, or both, situations in maintaining the current program. Now, had Bush put replacement programs on hold, to allow the technology to catch up with design, rather than cancel them outright in a move that proved to be almost entirely political, under the surface, we would be in a much better position. However he did not do that, instead he scrapped the shuttle replacement programs in favor of Constellation, which had woeful funding, and was behind schedule, and would have proven too costly to maintain, and did not develop any additional contingency to the shuttle program. And here we are now. You can have Obama share some of the blame, but the root cause of the problem lies with Bush.
Actually, the root problem goes back to Nixon and the approval of the Shuttle program. He chose even those the numbers were dicey because it would provide jobs to California.
Ending the Shuttle as part of the VSE was the correct choice. However, NASA became focused on building a new rocket (Constellation) instead of getting boots on the ground with the result that we have neither.
Turning LEO over to private enterprise is the right choice even if made for the wrong reasons by Obama. The next step should be to either turn the ISS over to our partners or privatize it. NASA should be focused on HSF beyond LEO.
Considering that the ISS is, as the name implies, an international effort, that would not be happening on Obama's say so, nor is it the best of ideas, for it would cause the ISS to be a venture based on profitability, rather than a venture of scientific value, and a promotion of internation cooperation, and relations(there is no defined nation in space, we are all from the same place at that time, Earth), and I was refering to our current situation in that after this last flight, we will be relying on the russians until private corporations are up and running with their orbital systems. For the record, it was Bush's mandate that NASA focus on the Constellation program to return to the Moon. He ended all other programs in development at that time, and devoted the additional funding to development of Constellation, which as I said was woefully underfunded($100 over the life of the program? Even Apollo cost more than that, at $156 billion, and it was developed for the same purpose). Obama just put the program out of its misery when he came into office, and had a choice of trying to get Congress to allocate funding to NASA to develop a viable launch system to replace the shuttle program in short order, or turn over that responsibility to private business. Given how the House is currently treating NASA regarding the development of the Orion system(behind schedule, and in threat by the house to have its funding decreased), that latter is readily showing to be the more viable option to replace the shuttle
Well... it's cool and all....
But it's 2011.... why in the 21st century are we still using the mode of transport used most notably by Wile E. Coyote... strap yourself to an ACME rocket and hope for the best...
Where are the electromagnetic propulsion crafts already???
@ V...
Totally agreed! But fledgling technology going big-time is a lot easier when all you have are a Nazi rocket scientist and a dream of beating the Russians.
Nowadays we've got rockets as a relatively tried and true method of launching crap into orbit.
There's a large amount of inertia when it comes to shifting paradigms. A lot of money, personnel and infrastructure has been devoted to rocket launches, it'll be hard to change directions, even if there are far better economies of scale in doing so.
I personally don't see it happening until well after we're out of this economic turmoil and NASA can have a chance to operate somewhat independently to get the technology functioning fully and effectively.
Than again, the Navy has been working wonders with their railgun tech launching aircraft and plans to replace the deck guns with those suckers. I guess this time the military will flush out the designs and NASA will take up the cause after the patents declassify in 25 years and there's enough funding in 50 ;P
"But it's 2011.... why in the 21st century are we still using the mode of transport.."
If this isn't enough, then pray that Skylon pans out...
However, that's a British effort, not accessible to CCDev.
"Where are the electromagnetic propulsion crafts already???"
Where's the physics? Right now, rockets (and I don't just mean chemical ones) are the only known way to create a change of motion on a vacuum. I'd like nothing more than a reactionless drive (if that's what you meant), but you gotta show me. Sagan's 'extraordinary claims' principle (and the 'Missouri Test') applies here.
Even Wile E. couldn't change the laws of physics (to the extent they even apply in his universe)...
@ Frank Glover
Perhaps I misinterpreted what V... was talking about.
But I think he was referring to a Linear_Accelerated_ScramJet to reach Earth orbit.
It's too bad that while both the accelerator and the SCRAM jet are both making great progress, there's so little funding to take this big-time.
Were you referring to the Relativity_Drive? Because that looks like a fraud
@ Frank.
Ion... Possible, fuel efficient. Rocket isn't the only known way(regardless of how absolutely ridiculously difficult trying to get past earths gravity with the technology would be), i'm just saying.
@Ser & V
Rockets work, they have been working. They launch what have you, into the air like it's no ones business. It's more likely they would still use that way to get INTO orbit, then use another method once they're in orbit.
Some things are just a matter of physics rather than technology. Rockets are like a big stick, simple and effective as hell.
I do seem to recall that they are, once again, working on a gun to shoot objects into space. Despite how absurd, and inane the concept might be, it could feesibly be possible with rail gun-esque methods. Although with current technology, it would take insane amounts of energy, and an obsenely gigantic barrel, or track to propel said object to the required speeds to escape Earth's gravity well.
The problem with a gun is it needs to be fast enough for it's momentum (being that it being launched is it's only energy) to leave earth. While the structural integrity of the object launched would need to be astounding to survive that kind of G and pressure, being that there is stuff in the way of it, like air and air hurts when you go really, really fast.
It WOULD work, it would be very sleek and very, very big and would require an even larger "gun" to fire it.
The only REAL(unfeasible to the best of my knowledge) problem with it is that it would not be able to carry people. Again, the speeds would need to be high enough to sustain momentum against earths gravity but low enough so a person could survive it... Being that (I assume) the object would be propulsion-less after successfully "fired" I'm pretty sure that is, dare i say. "Impossible." (under these circumstances)
Currently, the only known system to get humans into orbit and beyond are chemical rockets. The nice thing about them is the acceleration curve corresponds nicely to what humans can withstand and still make it to orbit. We'd have to come up with some kind of crazy technology to best chemical rockets. Once we are up there we wouldn't need that huge initial impulse. We can slowly build speed, gradually increasing the diameter of the orbit until we reach the escape velocity of Earth. Plasma, ion, impulse drives can all be used.
One item I have not seen discussed here is the space elevator. Nothing complex beyond the cable and crawler.
John Mack
Sure nothing more complex then having passengers sit in an elevator for 2 weeks...right ??
So tell me John what do you know about the " Electric tether" experiment and what does that have to do with the space elevator?
Sadly, I think we're still a long ways off from building a space elevator.
There are so many different risks involved.
I've seen a couple of possible solutions for 1 and 3, but there's not a whole lot of solutions for 2.
I do believe we will eventually be able to design continuous nano-fibers that could be used to make a space elevator, but I think that by the time that type of materials science develops, it will also open up new types of airframes and techniques for propulsion leaving the space elevator reminiscent to Jules Verne's cannon in From the Earth to the Moon.
what is the Longest nano tube in existence so far?
One that does not self distruct in Sunlight.
So basically by 2015 we will be where the Air Force wanted to be with the Dyna Soar program in the 1960s.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm
I understand what you're saying, this is something that should've (and could've) been in the late 60;s-early 70's. but back then, as with capsules, it was something that few would have dreamed could ever be done by a private company, and with the idea of ultimately making a buck at it...
I think of this could be summed up as "DeVinci Syndrome"
Great concepts, far too ahead of their time to be done practically.
In this case, thanks to advancements in materials sciences, rocketry and aerodynamics, it's far more practical now than ever to be able to make a small space plane that can actually be lifted to orbit on a smaller rocket.
Trying decades ago would have been significantly more expensive, less capable and less reliable since we would be utilizing more primitive equipment including heavier and more primitive flight computers and airframes.
Fly-by-wire and computer stablizing has been a blessing in allowing more advanced airframes that wouldn't otherwise be possible because of inherent instabilities or too many control surfaces for a human to interface with using only manual controls.
See:
X-29
F117
B2
Well at least NASA has an old project to fall back to. Wether it adds to the free competitive development of commercial enterprises, Sierra Nevada being backed by NASA and government funding would likely squash the competition and wind up dominating the market for commercial space exploration, or at least in relation to the International Space Station's needs for re-supply and crew replacement. All of the other commercial space venture companies would have to compete against the design concept and production of the Dream Chaser.
As a computer PC game enthusiast, I like my space games, such as EVE Online, Sins of a Solar Empire, even Star Trek Online. In purely fantasy and science fiction, we're there already. Space development, commerce, trade, and industry, its all laid out in the games. But in the real world we're not there yet and nowhere near those levels of development. And Moore's law doesn't quite apply as it does with advances in computer technology or processing power.
We need more globally developed projects such as was done with the International Space Station, which is merely a very small scientific research lab. Either I haven't been following it much or there needs to be more information on the results of any science experiments being conducted aside from human endurance in space.
We need to build a new space station as an International project, a space station larger or as large as any that has been imagined by computer game developers. We have it within our grasp and it is within our technological capabilities to do so. Economically there may be road bumps but hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created in every participating nation. And I'm talking about a space station that can accomodate up to at least a million people and would orbit somewhere between the Earth and the Moon.
To build such a massive Space Station capable of accomodating up to a million people, possibly even more, well it wouldn't be built out of Trusses and modules like the current ISS. And we would need much more than heavy lift rockets for cargo and building materials. We would have to be certain that artificial gravity could be employed, so that people could walk around that space station unencumbered. Gyroscopic centrifugal force and rotational motion comes to mind. The hull would have protective layers and the outer hull could be electrically or magnetically charged to repel any space debris, though at that orbit and distance between the Earth and Moon there would be no man made debris. Viewing windows would be 3-4 feet thick capable of generating solar power.
So yes we could start such a global project tomorrow producing the components for such a massive space station. It will eventually become the central hub and launching platform for all future space related commercial activities. And we could manufacture, launch, and assemble most of this space station long before any gravitational components are included into the overall project.
China and North Korea could be invited to join in the development of such a project, and we have been working with the Russians of the former Soviet union in space for quite some time now with both MIR and the ISS. Ideally in the long term if the Soviet Union can depart from its former Communist ways toward a more open Democratic society, so could China and North Korea. International projects such as the International Space station can lead to those changes in governments that allow for greater cooperation between nations and their people.
What a waste of time and technology and economic benefit it would be if we didn't venture to make space liveable and more accessaile for the human race.
It took the lifetime of one Pharao in Egypt to build the Great Pyramid, and they must have had one heck of an employment training program.
reply to Eric-420884:
See the NASA Ames 1970s "Space Colony Summer Studies" for far more work that's already been done on such things.
Video game writers are stealing the work done starting decades ago.
Note that for adequate shielding against cosmic rays and their secondary showers of radiation, about 2 meters of sand is required over the exterior. Equivalent of 1.6 meters of reinforced concrete (or some space-manufactured erzats concrete), and that's pretty much the material preferred for the hull.
Asteroid mining or EM catapluts for lifting much of the building materials from the Moon is a prerequisite.
Space Settlements: A Design Study
see also the NSS maintained site for the "Colonies in Space" complete online book
1977 by T.Heppenheimer
nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/index.html
as a reply to "Seriously? No...Really?!" of Jul 7, 2011 3:40 PM
It wasn't too far ahead in the '80s, when NASA Langley came up with the HL-20. It was too cheap & regular; even if they did get the Shuttles flying again after Challenger, this would show them up as the over-expensive highly risky experimental vehicles they were. They'd have been able to get a few DOD payloads and maybe eventually a station as payloads for the Shuttles, but beyond the necessary air crews, they would've been flying everybody in these.
No doubt it would have spurred development of alternative cargo vehicles as well (a booster that could lift the HL-20 could carry the Shuttle's 22 tons to orbit far cheaper, and flights of HL-20 would have opened up the construction lines for such boosters.)
@ John in Boulder
Good points! It would certainly be interesting to see a hybrid Apollo+Shuttle program with a space plane and a docking payload on the tail end as you describe with an HL-20 atop a standard booster!
Think it would be practical to dust off something like Ares V to use as a super-heavy-lifter? Or are we getting far too tall to send both crew+cargo on the same rocket?
No reason not to separate the two. I think better to dock with a supply module in orbit than try to push them both up together.
@ TonyInDallas
Agreed, that's gotta be why there are two launch platforms at Kennedy in the first place.
It might cost a bit more, but probably safer, and you don't need as big a rocket.
Also, you wouldn't necessarily need to launch them from the same place. You could launch the crew from Kennedy and the cargo from, oh, California, or Mexico, or Europe.
And if it's an ISS resupply or crew change, you don't need the same type of vehicle anyway. Soyuz already does a lot of the resupply with unmanned ships.
I've been anticipating this announcement for a long time, ever since Space Development Corporation, (SpaceDev) began work on the project.
*Sierra Nevada, Corp purchased SpaceDev Corp. a few years ago.
Correction: The SpaceX Capsule you referred to in this article is called 'Dragon', not 'Falcon'. The Falcon is the Spacex suite of launch vehicles.
-
Correction: The SpaceX Capsule you referred to in this article is called 'Dragon', not 'Falcon'. The Falcon is the Spacex suite of launch vehicles.
x
Yes this " Going Back tot he 60s" irks so many and rightly so, those that have been following the space launch system probably are aware that for decades NASA has been " looking" at what variable is called " Maggun", " Maglev" " Electromagnetic launch system" yes while NASA has been " looking" China has a Maglev other wise called a " electromagnetic linear accelerator" on its plans and dare i say that it probably be functioning at the same time as they will have same system on their Aircraft carriers. So much about " lead in space"
NASA Tsts showed that a " Maglev assist launch can get a craft UP to 6000 m/h.
And while here are on this topic how many here believe in the HOAX that a piece of foam with some Ice that Peals of a Tank can develop momentum to Punch a Hole in an orbiter, if you want to know a little more have a look at the Album Hoaxes and see the Photo of the NASA Scientist holding a piece of foam of the size in question.
6,000 mph. 23.6 G's
+the 1 G already acting downward on you.
Pancakes anyone?
I may be over stepping what I actually know about physics but I would assume that if the object propelled doesn't leave earths pull in 23.6 seconds... it would be going downward? maybe? Plus i'm sure, aerodynamics help too.. so let's say 23 seconds...
If this is correct, god help me, the object would barely pass moving 39 miles straight up. Is that far enough? And if it is.
That's only 30-40% higher than achieved by the technology we already have established in planes since 1977 without turning people into floor wax.
Lets pretend that the "gun" did work.... It did fire far enough. How accurate will this be finely tuned down too... Is it going to be within a mile of it's desired destination. So now the object has a secondary source of energy to get to where it needs to be, or stop it in the case it goes too far. How safe is this... Is it worth wasting energy to figure all this stuff out, firing projectiles into space test after test.
Crosses it a bit off the list for our own orbit. But to be used as a cannon to shoot stuff into space at what have you, why not.
I like the rocket, if you can't tell. Accurate, domestic, doesn't turn people into pancakes and we already made it.
Don't mistake my numbers for a pro, it's a lot of guessing.
Shameless
Nice someone with " half a brain cell" so tell me, what do you know about Liquid filled suits?
And did you even Bother to look at the Photo Album about " Space MagLev" and how it would use both electricity from the PV panels as well as the Reuse of the Momentum generated by incoming objects to redirect them, the Maglev is sectional like a snakes body so it can redirect any load in any direction, the Platform is counter-weighted, so that any force in any one direction is negated by " the opposite" force so then net on the Maglev track will be ZERO the Use of Gyroscopes can be utilized to redirect the track as well as to change its elevation and or locale.
When you see the 7 YearOld chat we had about the " Maglev Assist" launch system to launch the Shuttle (orbiter" and how at that stage we talked about Using the Solid rockets Buster to get to orbit after separation, i think you will see the simplicity in that.
Locating " Maglev" System throughout the Solar System one would not have to use Planetary assist, think of the time saving, What some mistake about MARS human flights is SPEED actualy faster one Goes to Mars the Longer it will take to Land, on Mars Know why? If you do then you might understand why i state that a MagLev Track system orbiting Mars, is the way, see also the chat we had a few weeks beck about a " Sky Hook System" on Mars for Landing and Taking Load to Orbit.
"G suits" (liquid filled suits) will add about 1 G to the limitations of the human body and it's blood pressure. 9 g's(someone with some balls) vs 23 G's, it's not a "simple fix" you're testing way over the limitations of a human.
Ok so, it's practical with it's ability to be angled (obviously, it's an accelerator and requires time to push an object along to get any real results) and it has solar panels and blah blah blah. So what, it's a sling shot.
Its use is only that of one with a target of lets say, a planet. They're predictable. Secondary use being, putting something that has it's own propulsion (partical or chemical thrust) into an area of space so that the engines can do the rest.
This technology has two attributes really. 1, it accelerates said object. 2, it is not sustained.
Do what you will with it, it's just not that impressive. Money would be better spent on making another technology that is more flexible better.
What Ever gives YOU a Bang for your Buck....go for it!!
My understanding is that the reason why a SCRAMjet is coupled with a linear accelerator for launching is that the track only needs to be long enough to get the projectile up to speeds necessary for the SCRAMjet to light-up (~600mph). This would conceivably reduce the amount of G's experienced in the initial launch by comparison to imparting ALL the force necessary for escape velocity in the first stage.
Don't forget that this could be built as a long rail, gradually picking up speed until it left the rail, with rockets or scramjets kicking in before leaving the track.
Seriously, you got there first. I answered after lunch without refreshing.
@ TonyInDallas
It's quite alright!
I'm Director of Direction-Directing in the Deptartment of Redundancy Department.
It's quite alright!
Yes but a low speed of 600 mph can be achieved without using a magnetic accelerator. We use this kind of technology to see how car crashes affect cars and what not. Bump it up a notch and you have a scram jet launcher. 600 mph easy, less complex, less parts to it.
I'm guessing there are a couple things that make a magnetic accelerator interesting, w/o the fact that it's just a cool technology, the practical bits. One is that, being that it launches things and does not follow it, it doesn't add weight to a flight but starts it off. Two is that it's electric and can be used over and over again.
A simple steel rail with a said "car" that has rockets on it will do the same thing, is completely reusable, has less moving parts, cost less to make, cost less to run, requires little maintenance, and any that it does require will be fixed easily.
I think the object would have more use as a high velocity launcher than a low one. Just because it's less cost effective at 600 mph. It needs to be a high enough speed that's almost impossible without using something else that we already have and be more effective.
"Why" just comes to mind. Generally no technology should replace another one, the replaced just doesn't survive. Until an accelerator idea is made that cannot be replaced easily by another source I don't think we'll be seeing one.
@ Shameless-
You raise some good qualms about the linear accelerator, but I think the reason why NASA is pushing the concept is scalability.
We've indeed designed Rocket_Sleds that can accelerate easily to 600 mph back in the 1950's, but those were quite small.
I think there's a very early decreasing marginal return for trying to accelerate a load of many tons to many hundreds of miles per hour. Remember that the rocket sleds that were tested were quite small and carried a person or just a little bit of sensory equipment. I imaging that trying to design a rocket-sled to launch heavy payloads would be quickly limited by not having materials to build the wheels or barrings capable of surviving the intense heat/pressures generated from moving a many-ton load up to at least 80% of Mach1.
Next, considering the masses that EMALS will be launching off of the USS Gerald Ford, the NAVY most certainly recognizes the value of a linear accelerator.
Serious
Wheels?? MagLev does not use the wheels once it is in motion, it is frictionless, or as close as it can get, it rides on a magnetic field no physical contact, so loads are not the issue, some jump on the problem with acceleration on the human body, guess what whatever method one uses one still has to get to escape speed to get into orbit, the length of the Track can be variable, longer hence slower acceleration for Manned flights, shorter faster acceleration for " non critical loads".
Sorry if my post was confusingly worded, I was basing my statement off of
Shameless-'s statement
He's arguing that a rocket sled could suffice to launch heavy loads into orbit. I'm suggesting that while they are great at accelerating quickly to very high speeds, they only do so efficiently because they haul almost nothing.
I'm pro-linear accelerator. And yes, they don't need wheels ^_^
As an interesting note, the manned rocket sled tests in the 1950's and 60's showed that humans can survive many horizontal G's, certainly far more than what an acceleration up to even Mach1 over 2-3 miles would have. Secondly, the reasoning behind coupling the launcher with a SCRAM as second stage is so that the LA only has to get up to a speed to light the SCRAM (~600mph), rather than get up to a speed to reach escape velocity (6,000 mph).
Thank you for the clarification, but escape speed is not 6000 miles/hour the Boeing NASA tests on maglev went over 6000 miles/hour.
Oh oops! hehehe, I just grabbed that number from above without verifying what it was
lol No Problem i thought as much, i will have to mark you grade down tho ;-))
Comment from teacher:
Well... First I'd like to say, yes. Linear G is completely different than negative G. It's just a direction really. You go up blood goes down. What knocks people out is blood away from their brain, I.E G pushing blood down. It's very simple. This being said it's not always the rate of acceleration that is the problem but rather the direction.
Interesting points here, what I'd gather from all this personally is: MagLev staying relatively horizontal, releasing a "ship" of some sort at a very high speed... some hundred or thousands of miles an hour, which would start it's climb at a very low angle, may be suitable for humans if everything was kept at a low enough G. And would still be efficient. Something with airplane like controls that could adjust it's angle to account for speed loss/gain and keep a safe G.
I still adore rockets and the simplicity of a railed system. And I believe that they'll never be ruled out. But i can definitely see the difficulty of moving anything over 10 tons effectively. Rails get bigger, rockets get bigger.
It is not very hard to leave earth, it's really not, once you get to a certain speed all you're doing is accounting for what you're losing. Which is very easy if you've not expelled most of the energy getting to that speed. The difficulty is mostly scale and cargo safety.
Eh, also. The exact speed maglev is currently capable of isn't very important. It's going to get faster and faster, it's the idea of it really.
Shameless
Yes Once we start on the concept it will grow exponentially, what we need is to get away from the " Sitting on a Roman candle" to get to space . Have you see the album about Maglev and space? some very simple illustrations there made about 10 years ago to help a friend explain the process to school children.
I thought NASA or the Air Force had a shuttle on the way---FEATHER!
What Eric sez; word.
All right, this is what I am talking about! Way to go, NASA, you are up to speed. With the aid of computer assisted aerodynamic flight controls there are many things which are possible today which were not possible back in the 1970s and 1980s. (Don't forget redundancy!) I can not express how greatly relieved I am to read this article. For a moment I thought we were slipping out of first place. - RC
(If they use things like carbon fiber composites in the construction, they should be able to reduce reentry shielding to just one or two inches of fabric shielding. I would be reticent about having those rocket nozzles protruding in the rear, however. They can recess them and increase the planing capability of this shuttle on reentry in the process.) - RC
Agreed!
(I hope they investigate things like protein reinforcement fibers for fiber composites in the process of designing this latest space shuttle. Synthetic proteins are turning out to be the latest in material science. Always remember the "trickle down" effect in space R&D.) - RC
(i.e., laminates.) - RC
All I know about flight I learned in a Cessna 152 trainer. I know nothing about policy or anything else you folks are discussing. But as a flight enthusiast I am thrilled that there is a forward-moving plan.
This "mini shuttle" was what was first proposed AS THE SHUTTLE during the Nixon admin. At which point the military became involved, which in turn because of the military's needs. Bloated the shuttles size, from a small nimble craft, to a 737 sized space vehicle.
That fact of the matter is, right now the US needs multiple orbital vehicles. For instance.......You're not going to see any type of "Hubble" type of repair jobs preformed by the Orion capsule. The US needs the capabilities of both types of craft, if anything the "Dream Chaser" needs to be a bit larger. So as to be able to accomidate some sort of resonable storage bay.
Which brings us back to lift capabilites, we don't need a one size fits all. Space X's Falcon 9 is a pretty interseting idea. It's a launch platform that's a medium lift / heavy lift capable launch platform. In it's basic form it would fill the Orions and Dream Chaser needs to LEO and it's other config. it would support the heavy lift role. The Falcon 9 configed. for heavy lift role would be the US's largest lift capable rocket EVER. It would only be behind the MIGHTY SATURN V in lift plus, the Falcon 9 is entirely reusable rocket.
Big Daddy
Did you read 12 and 13-1 above?