Discussion
Not necessarily.
The technology behind Concorde was late 50s/early 60s in regards to structures and aerodynamics. The flight control system was semi-fly by wire, but analogue.
It will make far more use of composite materials and may have a heat protection system to allow higher Mach numbers to be achieved. Since the 1960s, an awful lot of work has gone into making supersonic aircraft that produce a much attenuated sonic bang.
Concorde used afterburning turbojets, which were not very fuel efficient, and woefully inefficient by modern standards. A new supersonic airliner design would use a turbofan of some sort.
On the outside it may look superficially like a Concorde, but internally it will be quite different.
The technology behind Concorde was late 50s/early 60s in regards to structures and aerodynamics. The flight control system was semi-fly by wire, but analogue.
It will make far more use of composite materials and may have a heat protection system to allow higher Mach numbers to be achieved. Since the 1960s, an awful lot of work has gone into making supersonic aircraft that produce a much attenuated sonic bang.
Concorde used afterburning turbojets, which were not very fuel efficient, and woefully inefficient by modern standards. A new supersonic airliner design would use a turbofan of some sort.
On the outside it may look superficially like a Concorde, but internally it will be quite different.
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, very sad to hear that. Killed in a light plane crash with one other person, Thomas Fischer - the pilot presumably.
Glen De Vries is on the left in this photo:
Just found out about this yesterday - very sad. Ironic too in that flying a small Cessna should be way less dangerous than riding a rocket.Glen De Vries is on the left in this photo:
Blue Origin has just had an abort 64 seconds into the launch and at an altitude of around 34,000 feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y1xsvahKQ
No one on board this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y1xsvahKQ
No one on board this one.
The original use of the word "shuttle" for a spacecraft dates back to the 1950s when it was assumed that some sort of rapidly reusable craft would be required to "shuttle" backwards and forwards between an earth orbiting space station. The notion of "shuttling" into earth orbit only was not part of the thinking.
From the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
From the very beginning, these shuttle concepts always assumed that they would be winged craft which could glide back to land on a normal runway. The eventual Space Shuttle as flown in 1981 was the culmination of that line of thinking. The problem was that the space station envisaged for a space shuttle to attend to had long since been cancelled. Therefore, in order to justify the programme to Congress, NASA had to dream up ways in which a stand-alone "shuttle" could be made to work.
Later on in the Space Shuttle's career, it did eventually fulfill that original concept, making regular flights to and from the Mir space station and then the International Space Station.
Flooble said:
Is the one top right a sort of boosters-wrapped-around-the-shuttle type design?
Fuel tanks.There was a lot of debate as to where the fuel was going to go. If the fuel was contained within the body of the spacecraft, then it would have made the spacecraft huge (and heavy). Having a "wrap around" V shaped jettisonable fuel tank was one solution. Over wing tanks (like on the Lightning F6 - only much bigger) were also looked at.
In the end, a massive "drop tank" (bigger than the spacecraft itself) was chosen.
The capsule (top left) was never considered as an actual proposal. It was included as a baseline comparison for showing how big (or small) a simple capsule set-up would be compared to a winged design. They were always going to go with a winged craft as it was considered essential for reusability for the machine to be able to land like an aeroplane. The downside is that adding wings and tail surfaces - plus undercarriage - and the associated hydraulics, was always going to make the spacecraft heavier than a comparable capsule.
The original orbiter concepts were also quite a bit smaller than the one finally chosen. When the Space Shuttle was intended to be mainly a people carrier to a space station, it didn't need to have such a big cargo bay. When the space station idea was shelved and when the DoD got on board, the cargo bay was increased (to accommodate Keyhole spy satellites) and the delta wing was selected over lifting body types. It was these final choices that determined how the Space Shuttle eventually looked.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff