Indian Space Plane
Discussion
A couple of questions ?
Was the launch rocket bespoke built for this test flight or was it converted ? What does it normally launch ?
I believe they need to make a 3.5km long landing strip somewhere by the coast ?
Was the plane recovered after its 'landing' in the sea ? I can't imagine much of it being re-usable if they tried a glide approach landing or did they splashdown using parachutes ?
Was the launch rocket bespoke built for this test flight or was it converted ? What does it normally launch ?
I believe they need to make a 3.5km long landing strip somewhere by the coast ?
Was the plane recovered after its 'landing' in the sea ? I can't imagine much of it being re-usable if they tried a glide approach landing or did they splashdown using parachutes ?
John_S4x4 said:
Was the plane recovered after its 'landing' in the sea ? I can't imagine much of it being re-usable if they tried a glide approach landing or did they splashdown using parachutes ?
Recovery wasn't attempted on this flight - the vehicle was just ditched in the sea. No information so far if any debris was recovered
The Aussies were doing similar with Queensland Uni and their Hyshot program back in the early 2000's. Essentially strapping a hypersonic scramjet to the top of a large solid fuel booster nicked from an atmospheric sounding rocket, presumably as they could scrounge them from the Woomera test range.
Slightly off topic....
Had a colleague from DSTO (Aussie defence research) working at our university on sabbatical last year. She was telling me that when she was doing her degree they would spend the summer out at Woomera launching old, surplus 5" Zuni rockets that they'd loaded up with instrumentation before running off to a bunker as the recovery systems failed more often than they worked.
Back on topic...
Wonder if this will reignite interest in the 'waverider' concept whereby an aircraft uses the compression that occurs aft of a shock wave to improve it's overall lift?
Slightly off topic....
Had a colleague from DSTO (Aussie defence research) working at our university on sabbatical last year. She was telling me that when she was doing her degree they would spend the summer out at Woomera launching old, surplus 5" Zuni rockets that they'd loaded up with instrumentation before running off to a bunker as the recovery systems failed more often than they worked.
Back on topic...
Wonder if this will reignite interest in the 'waverider' concept whereby an aircraft uses the compression that occurs aft of a shock wave to improve it's overall lift?
Wave riding comes into play if you want to build an atmospheric hypersonic vehicle. The Indian studies are more about evaluating the hypsersonic characteristics of a re-entering winged orbital craft. At the hypersonic speeds it would encounter, it would in effect by an unpowered htpersonic glider - like the Space Shuttle or the X-37.
They have said that they would like to install jet engines on their winged spacecraft but that would be for use in the more familiar territory of supersonic transonic and subsonic regimes.
Hypersonic jet engines are proving a very tough nut to crack and I don't think that India will be at the forefront of that particular technology.
They have said that they would like to install jet engines on their winged spacecraft but that would be for use in the more familiar territory of supersonic transonic and subsonic regimes.
Hypersonic jet engines are proving a very tough nut to crack and I don't think that India will be at the forefront of that particular technology.
I agree that engines that can operate in the hypersonic regime are a very tough nut to crack. They're either extremely experimental or you fall back to old fashioned rockets and ramjet combinations. Not that there is anything wrong with rockets, but having to carry both your fuel and oxidiser is a drawback if you want to operate for more than a few minutes.
I once applied for a PhD looking at a novel form of Mach 12 scramjet engine, where the idea was to use some form of electric propulsion to help slow incoming air through the combustion process. Even though you have supersonic combustion occurring, the amount of time a particle of air takes to pass through the engine is on the order of a couple of milliseconds, so conventional processes used to manipulate the air to do things like provide fuel mixing and turbulent combustion zones, wouldn't suffice. So the idea was mooted to have some form of ion drive pointing upstream, within the combustion zone to shorten the overall engine length as the gas inside the engine would essentially be a plasma and should then be able to interact with the ion drive. But it strikes me as we are at the limits of what we can do in terms of chemical propulsion and trying to eke out extra performance from technology already at the limit rather than there being a step change in engine design. (Didn't take it up as one person doing CFD at high Mach numbers, with supersonic combustion with all the multiphase flow and combustion chemistry going on, coupled with trying to model ion propulsion in the middle of it all seemed a very, very, very daunting task and still does when I think about it)
The guy involved with the Sabre engine has an interesting solution to this whereby you have the benefits of using atmospheric oxygen while converting that to extremely dense form, essentially creating a liquid oxidiser on the fly (pun firmly intended). There's the pulse detonation concept too, which operates similarly to a pulsejet but uses supersonic combustion and controlled ignition allowing a much higher operating frequency, rather than deflagration and tuning the engine based on the resonating harmonics as is the case for pulsejets. Apparently they should be good for flight regimes from Mach 0-4 and there are a few examples being tested and demonstrated around the world, again how practical they will turn out to be is anybody's guess. But at least these new concepts get you away from needing a kick from something like a rocket, to get you up to speed.
Anyway back on topic, I'd only skimmed the article and didn't realise it was a test bed for re-entry vehicles, although that was an interesting comment regarding conventional engines on their winged spacecraft. Will be an interesting few years if they start testing down that route.
I once applied for a PhD looking at a novel form of Mach 12 scramjet engine, where the idea was to use some form of electric propulsion to help slow incoming air through the combustion process. Even though you have supersonic combustion occurring, the amount of time a particle of air takes to pass through the engine is on the order of a couple of milliseconds, so conventional processes used to manipulate the air to do things like provide fuel mixing and turbulent combustion zones, wouldn't suffice. So the idea was mooted to have some form of ion drive pointing upstream, within the combustion zone to shorten the overall engine length as the gas inside the engine would essentially be a plasma and should then be able to interact with the ion drive. But it strikes me as we are at the limits of what we can do in terms of chemical propulsion and trying to eke out extra performance from technology already at the limit rather than there being a step change in engine design. (Didn't take it up as one person doing CFD at high Mach numbers, with supersonic combustion with all the multiphase flow and combustion chemistry going on, coupled with trying to model ion propulsion in the middle of it all seemed a very, very, very daunting task and still does when I think about it)
The guy involved with the Sabre engine has an interesting solution to this whereby you have the benefits of using atmospheric oxygen while converting that to extremely dense form, essentially creating a liquid oxidiser on the fly (pun firmly intended). There's the pulse detonation concept too, which operates similarly to a pulsejet but uses supersonic combustion and controlled ignition allowing a much higher operating frequency, rather than deflagration and tuning the engine based on the resonating harmonics as is the case for pulsejets. Apparently they should be good for flight regimes from Mach 0-4 and there are a few examples being tested and demonstrated around the world, again how practical they will turn out to be is anybody's guess. But at least these new concepts get you away from needing a kick from something like a rocket, to get you up to speed.
Anyway back on topic, I'd only skimmed the article and didn't realise it was a test bed for re-entry vehicles, although that was an interesting comment regarding conventional engines on their winged spacecraft. Will be an interesting few years if they start testing down that route.
Edited by Fugazi on Saturday 28th May 17:09
In the early designs for the Space Shuttle it was envisaged that the craft would be fitted with pop out turbofans or turbojets to allow a normal airliner style cruise and descent - once you had come out of the hypersonic and supersonic regimes.
In the end, the idea was abandoned for a number of reasons, namely complexity, cost, weight and, most importantly, knowledge that they already had a good understanding of the lift/drag ratios for high speed rocket craft stemming from the X-1 right through to the X-15.
As it turned out, maintaining the right flight path and approach patterns required for a glide back from the edge of space was never an issue with the Space Shuttle (despite its other problems). That part of the concept worked very well. As a result, I think all future fly back space craft will be unpowered gliders too.
In the end, the idea was abandoned for a number of reasons, namely complexity, cost, weight and, most importantly, knowledge that they already had a good understanding of the lift/drag ratios for high speed rocket craft stemming from the X-1 right through to the X-15.
As it turned out, maintaining the right flight path and approach patterns required for a glide back from the edge of space was never an issue with the Space Shuttle (despite its other problems). That part of the concept worked very well. As a result, I think all future fly back space craft will be unpowered gliders too.
tuffer said:
Eric Mc said:
Well, sadly I thought that by posting the news in the "Science" forum I would avoid the accusatory nonsense that goes on elsewhere on PH. Clearly, I was wrong.
PH is rapidly becoming a nasty, nasty place full of small minded people.
I'm rapidly becoming very disenchanted with the place.
Its actually just an internet forum where people can express their opinions, it does not matter which forum you choose. My comment was in no way intended to be nasty towards you or anyone else Eric, it was just my opinion on your post and the fact that India have a space program of sorts. Having visited the Country many times I think I have enough insight to be able to comment on the matter.PH is rapidly becoming a nasty, nasty place full of small minded people.
I'm rapidly becoming very disenchanted with the place.
Eric Mc said:
"I think all future fly back space craft will be unpowered gliders too".
Stating the obvious to be honest Eric there are three returning options 1) Systems such as NASA/Russia have done for decades a capsule with a parachute 2) A Glider such as the shuttle 3) Return system such as Space X There is one other system.....Teleportation
Toaster said:
Stating the obvious to be honest Eric there are three returning options 1) Systems such as NASA/Russia have done for decades a capsule with a parachute 2) A Glider such as the shuttle 3) Return system such as Space X
There is one other system.....Teleportation
Gravity field manipulation will come before teleportation, just don't hold your breath. There is one other system.....Teleportation
Crack that and you'd really take the wind out of Musk's sails...
Simpo Two said:
Leithen said:
Gravity field manipulation will come before teleportation
My thought too. My centrifugal force accumulator is still in the early stages though.Professor Ronald Hanson:
"Prof Hanson's team showed for the first time that it was possible to teleport information encoded into sub-atomic particles between two points three metres apart with 100% reliability."
Unconditional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/0...
Eric Mc said:
I think there is a place for spaceplanes - but not following the Space Shuttle concept.
Firstly, a future spaceplane would have to be smaller (maximum size one half of the Shuttle Orbiter).
Secondly, it would be positioned on top of any booster during launch, not on the side of the booster.
Thirdly - it need not have to be manned.
Fourthly - it may need to be protected within a jettisonable shroud - like the X-37. During ascent, the wings of a spaceplane produce asymetric aerodynamic loads on the stack which can place structural and payload limits on the mission. One of the reasons why the Shuttle stack rotated into the inverted "heads down" attitude during ascent was to try and alleviate some of the aerodynamic loads being generated by the wings. Placing the spaceplane within a shroud removes this problem.
Fifthly - I think future spaceplanes should have smaller wings in proportion to their body - or be lifting bodies with no wings at all. The large wings of the Shuttle came about because of the requirement to carry large and heavy DoD payloads into orbit, and to give the Orbiter the ability to alter its landing spot by 1,000 miles either side of its initial re-entry point (cross range). If you reduce the cross range requirement, you reduce the size of the wings.
In many ways, the X-37 is showing what can be done with winged re-entry and so far it seems to have performed its tasks (whatever they are) fairly succesfully
Regarding your comments on India's space expenditure - I am 100% in agreement with what you say. It is a topic worthy of discussion - but not on this thread which I wanted to keep about the spacecraft and related issues.
Why not have deployable wings? you have a high-lift wing that doesn't need heat shielding etc as it only slides from the body once you've re-entered and slowed ready to land, rather than compromising the vehicle for it's entire flight.Firstly, a future spaceplane would have to be smaller (maximum size one half of the Shuttle Orbiter).
Secondly, it would be positioned on top of any booster during launch, not on the side of the booster.
Thirdly - it need not have to be manned.
Fourthly - it may need to be protected within a jettisonable shroud - like the X-37. During ascent, the wings of a spaceplane produce asymetric aerodynamic loads on the stack which can place structural and payload limits on the mission. One of the reasons why the Shuttle stack rotated into the inverted "heads down" attitude during ascent was to try and alleviate some of the aerodynamic loads being generated by the wings. Placing the spaceplane within a shroud removes this problem.
Fifthly - I think future spaceplanes should have smaller wings in proportion to their body - or be lifting bodies with no wings at all. The large wings of the Shuttle came about because of the requirement to carry large and heavy DoD payloads into orbit, and to give the Orbiter the ability to alter its landing spot by 1,000 miles either side of its initial re-entry point (cross range). If you reduce the cross range requirement, you reduce the size of the wings.
In many ways, the X-37 is showing what can be done with winged re-entry and so far it seems to have performed its tasks (whatever they are) fairly succesfully
Regarding your comments on India's space expenditure - I am 100% in agreement with what you say. It is a topic worthy of discussion - but not on this thread which I wanted to keep about the spacecraft and related issues.
hairyben said:
Why not have deployable wings? you have a high-lift wing that doesn't need heat shielding etc as it only slides from the body once you've re-entered and slowed ready to land, rather than compromising the vehicle for it's entire flight.
Horribly heavy hinges needed, the only "swing-wing" aircraft were military and generally only when there was an overriding priority (either political - Tornado; or practical - Su-24). As you scale up the weight for the hinge gets silly (I think the Americans tried to design a hinged SST wing and gave up, reverting to a Delta wing like Concorde).I suppose you might be able to do some sort of inflatable wing, I think that was originally planned for Gemini.
hairyben said:
Why not have deployable wings? you have a high-lift wing that doesn't need heat shielding etc as it only slides from the body once you've re-entered and slowed ready to land, rather than compromising the vehicle for it's entire flight.
The FDL-5 design from the '60s featured pop-out wings
I think weight is the issue. As Flooble mentions, you need very heavy pivots for each wing. The airliner he refers to was Boeing's original 2707 concept - which was abandoned when it was realised that the wing pivots would weigh far too much.
Some early space shuttle concepts did have short stubb wings but a delta format eventually won out.
Some early space shuttle concepts did have short stubb wings but a delta format eventually won out.
Flooble said:
hairyben said:
Why not have deployable wings? you have a high-lift wing that doesn't need heat shielding etc as it only slides from the body once you've re-entered and slowed ready to land, rather than compromising the vehicle for it's entire flight.
Horribly heavy hinges needed, the only "swing-wing" aircraft were military and generally only when there was an overriding priority (either political - Tornado; or practical - Su-24). As you scale up the weight for the hinge gets silly (I think the Americans tried to design a hinged SST wing and gave up, reverting to a Delta wing like Concorde).I suppose you might be able to do some sort of inflatable wing, I think that was originally planned for Gemini.
As as aside can modern composites handle re-entry without the need for the heavy heat shielding?
Simple answer, no - although composites come in lots of different versions and their heating properties vary. Their main advantage is lightness. That is why the new Orion space capsule is mainly composite material. However, its sides are protected by ceramic tiles evolved from those used on the Shuttle. Of course, we have moved on a lot in ceramic materials since the mid 1970s when the Shuttle tiles were originally devised so modern tiles will be more efficient and resilient than those initially used on the Shuttle.
Orion's underside heat shield, which has to withstand much higher heat than the Shuttle (it will be re-entering at 25,000 mph compared yo 17,500 mph), traditional tiles will not be good enough due to the higher temperatures. For Orion's engineering test flight in December 2014, the heatshield used was essentially the same as used on the Apollo, i.e. a glass fibre, resin impregnated ablative material. These are very labour intensive to make and are a single use heat shield.
NASA still hasn't decided whether to retain this style of shielding on the Orion. If they do, they will have to replace the heatshield after each mission - which is doable. They would prefer a permanent heat sink style material that could be used multiple times so they are looking at upgraded versions of the ceramic tile technique.
Orion's underside heat shield, which has to withstand much higher heat than the Shuttle (it will be re-entering at 25,000 mph compared yo 17,500 mph), traditional tiles will not be good enough due to the higher temperatures. For Orion's engineering test flight in December 2014, the heatshield used was essentially the same as used on the Apollo, i.e. a glass fibre, resin impregnated ablative material. These are very labour intensive to make and are a single use heat shield.
NASA still hasn't decided whether to retain this style of shielding on the Orion. If they do, they will have to replace the heatshield after each mission - which is doable. They would prefer a permanent heat sink style material that could be used multiple times so they are looking at upgraded versions of the ceramic tile technique.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff