Indian Space Plane
Discussion
Seems like the subsonic hypersonic test conducted this morning went well.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/05/india-laun...
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/05/india-laun...
Toilet Duck said:
Eric Mc said:
Rather condescending and insulting - don't you think?
Nope, not one iota. Would you have made the same comments if the test was carried out by the major space agencies of the US, Europe, Japan or Russia?
The fact that you or no one else has in the past when similar tests were carried out seems to indicate to me that you are placing the Indian test on a different level.
Why?
Toilet Duck said:
Nope I wouldn't have made the same comment because US, Europe, Japan and Russia are "developed" and don't have millions upon millions of their citizens leaving in slums and absolute squalor with no sanitation systems or running water, never mind electricity etc. But hey, what does that matter when they have a Space Plane to be proud of! Thank god for all that Foreign Aid India receives!
P.S. If you don't find the YouTube clip funny then you lack a sense of humour.
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.P.S. If you don't find the YouTube clip funny then you lack a sense of humour.
PH is rapidly becoming a nasty, nasty place full of small minded people.
I'm rapidly becoming very disenchanted with the place.
Aha - a more reasonable comment. It certainly does seem to share some attributes.
However, the purpose of this flight was to check for aerodynamic controllability at hypersonic speeds (over Mach 6) so I don't know at this stage what type of thermal protection system was fitted - if any.
However, the purpose of this flight was to check for aerodynamic controllability at hypersonic speeds (over Mach 6) so I don't know at this stage what type of thermal protection system was fitted - if any.
It's really a proof of concept test article. Both the US and the Soviets flew similar type test vehicles over 40 years ago. This was boosted to speed by a solid rocket launcher but the rocket wasn't big or powerful enough to get the craft up to orbital velocities. I'm sure they will have a go at an orbital; test as soon as they can get it onto a bigger rocket. This test flight glided down to a ditching in the Indian Ocean. Eventually, they will want it to land on a conventional runway - like the X-37 does.
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.
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.
NASA didn't really want to bother with Dream Chaser but were forced to reconsider their decision not to inject any further funds their way. NASA felt that Dream Chaser wasn't making enough progress. It seems now that NASA is only interested in an unmanned version for resupplying the ISS rather than a manned version.
It all got a bit legal and even had a knock on effect on the two capsule based systems NASA is continuing to support - Dragon and the CST.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
It's interesting that NASA are not mad keen on a winged spaceplane sitting exposed on the top of a rocket. It seems that they only will consider Dream Chaser if it can sit within a streamlined fairing - a bit like the X-37 does.
It all got a bit legal and even had a knock on effect on the two capsule based systems NASA is continuing to support - Dragon and the CST.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
It's interesting that NASA are not mad keen on a winged spaceplane sitting exposed on the top of a rocket. It seems that they only will consider Dream Chaser if it can sit within a streamlined fairing - a bit like the X-37 does.
Flooble said:
At least there is now fifty years of advances in software & hardware together with the knowledge from all the fly-by-wire aircraft such as the F-22, which are inherently unstable by design. Didn't they simulate the shuttle aerodynamics for pilot training by bolting bits to a regular aircraft until it could barely fly?
NASA used a converted Grumman Gulfstream II biz jet as a Shuttle simulator - 
It was modified to simulate the characteristics of the Orbiter during landing and approach, but obviously couldn't simulate the flight behaviour at hypersonic or supersonic speeds.
Because of the problems of the movement of the centre of pressure during the re-entry, descent and landing phases, the Orbiter always had to carry some lead ballast. The amount carried on each mission depended on the payload requirements for the mission - but it did mean that on each flight into space, the Shuttle was hoisting dead weight into orbit.
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.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff