tater Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 15, 2020 Author Share Posted May 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 15, 2020 Author Share Posted May 15, 2020 X-37 would merit its own thread, except that it is so secret there would be little but launch related stuff in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 OK, i have to say that: With every launch and successful return X-37 validates Dreamchaser. It can precisely land on any decently long runway in range. And it's reuseable. Perfect lifeboat\crew return vehicle for ISS. Or any other station up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Scotius said: OK, i have to say that: With every launch and successful return X-37 validates Dreamchaser. It can precisely land on any decently long runway in range. And it's reuseable. Perfect lifeboat\crew return vehicle for ISS. Or any other station up there. I guess I don't follow. Does Dreamchaser have even a single part in common with the X-37B? I mean, yeah, they are kind of conceptually similar, but that's the only commonality I know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 16, 2020 Author Share Posted May 16, 2020 47 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I guess I don't follow. Does Dreamchaser have even a single part in common with the X-37B? I mean, yeah, they are kind of conceptually similar, but that's the only commonality I know of. It validates the concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 I believe the concept of a lifting-body spaceplane was long-since validated. I guess maybe this validates the idea of one that is fully autonomous (although the Buran made an automated orbital flight and landing in 1988). But I still don't see how the X-37 validates the Dreamchaser in any significant way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 16, 2020 Author Share Posted May 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I believe the concept of a lifting-body spaceplane was long-since validated. I guess maybe this validates the idea of one that is fully autonomous (although the Buran made an automated orbital flight and landing in 1988). But I still don't see how the X-37 validates the Dreamchaser in any significant way. Unless the TPS is related, or they share some NASA heritage, yeah. (meaning if NASA has shared technical info that was used on X-37) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 3 hours ago, tater said: It validates the concept. Pretty much. Every other orbital vehicle is 'deorbit-and-pray' capsule. It lands where it lands, and then you have to run recovery operation - extensive one in many cases. With X-37 you can choose landing point. And recovery operation consist of ground crew plus a tow vehicle to drag the ship to nearby hangar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 Pretty strong wind, rain and... are those storm clouds? Yeah, not looking good atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 16, 2020 Author Share Posted May 16, 2020 Hold released... Still 90% no go weather. Scrub. 24 hour recycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 Well, see you tomorrow Atlas... 80% probability of launch compliance though. That will probably affect Starlink-7 ("8") with a 24 hours delay too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 16, 2020 Author Share Posted May 16, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 This could be interesting: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: This could be interesting: I don't see how it could be interesting. I think ChrisG simply didn't understand ULA's launch procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I don't see how it could be interesting. I think ChrisG simply didn't understand ULA's launch procedure. ChrisG must have agreed with me, because he seems to have deleted this tweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 I suppose it could be libelous if he's screwed up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 Explanation. Good on Tory for hopping on the phone to explain! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 and liftoff!!! Man it's slow to get off the pad without SRBs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 17, 2020 Author Share Posted May 17, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 On 5/16/2020 at 12:16 AM, mikegarrison said: I believe the concept of a lifting-body spaceplane was long-since validated. I guess maybe this validates the idea of one that is fully autonomous (although the Buran made an automated orbital flight and landing in 1988). But I still don't see how the X-37 validates the Dreamchaser in any significant way. It certainly helps validate that NASA still loves to buy lifting bodies... On 5/16/2020 at 2:46 AM, Scotius said: Pretty much. Every other orbital vehicle is 'deorbit-and-pray' capsule. It lands where it lands, and then you have to run recovery operation - extensive one in many cases. With X-37 you can choose landing point. And recovery operation consist of ground crew plus a tow vehicle to drag the ship to nearby hangar. This has to be one of the reasons SpaceX abandoned recovering boosters with parachutes (even coming down from much lower and slower, once the parachutes opened there was no telling where you would land). Mass (of the parachutes) had to be the other (and likely bigger) reason. Bringing the entire upper stage back might help re-entry (much larger surface area for more drag), but they certainly have their work cut out for them. Oddly enough, Scott Manley's latest video concerns a Soyuz that went off course and landed in a lake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 17, 2020 Author Share Posted May 17, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 2 hours ago, wumpus said: It certainly helps validate that NASA still loves to buy lifting bodies... Not so much, because NASA actually declined to move forward on the X-37. It was eventually the Air Force that dusted off the project files and ordered the X-37B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 22, 2020 Author Share Posted May 22, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.