NASA Eyes Spaceplanes For Crew Transport

"Private industry could be prepared to
go where NASA fears to tread and
develop a spaceplane to replace the
space shuttle and ferry crews to and
from the International Space Station.
But if industry succeeds, it will be
thanks to decades of work by the
space agency on lifting-body reentry
vehicles."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&channel=space

On 2/8/2011 2:50 PM, wrote:
"Private industry could be prepared to
go where NASA fears to tread and
develop a spaceplane to replace the
space shuttle and ferry crews to and
from the International Space Station.
But if industry succeeds, it will be
thanks to decades of work by the
space agency on lifting-body reentry
vehicles."

I wish someone would point out that the HL-20 design was developed from
a wind tunnel model NASA made from photos an Austrailian P-3 Orion took
of the splashdown and recovery of the Soviet BOR-4 unmanned reentry
vehicle in the Indian Ocean:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
We were always yelping about the damn Russians copying our designs;
here's a case where just the reverse was the literal truth.

Pat

In article
tatelephone,
says...

I wish someone would point out that the HL-20 design was developed from
a wind tunnel model NASA made from photos an Austrailian P-3 Orion took
of the splashdown and recovery of the Soviet BOR-4 unmanned reentry
vehicle in the Indian Ocean:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
We were always yelping about the damn Russians copying our designs;
here's a case where just the reverse was the literal truth.

Now, now, Pat! We don't want to admit that the US sometimes steals the
best Russian ideas, do we? Can't we just let NASA quietly take all the
credit (by not setting the record straight), just like they do for
inventing Tang and velcro? ;-) ;-)

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Jeff Findley wrote:
Now, now, Pat! We don't want to admit that the US sometimes steals the
best Russian ideas, do we? Can't we just let NASA quietly take all the
credit (by not setting the record straight), just like they do for
inventing Tang and velcro? ;-) ;-)

Jeff

And the microchip....

Dave

wrote:

"Private industry could be prepared to
go where NASA fears to tread and
develop a spaceplane to replace the
space shuttle and ferry crews to and
from the International Space Station.
But if industry succeeds, it will be
thanks to decades of work by the
space agency on lifting-body reentry
vehicles."

There have been numerous abortive attempts at building a laucnh
industry. I remember supporting a network of engineering workstations
where my clients were mechanical engineers working on the Kistler
project. Working in IT there aren't all that many space related jobs
available so I was very happy to be able to do that.

There have been other such projects that looked more airplane-like. One
started from the F-5 Tiger airframe. That was even shorter lived than
Kistler.

On 2/9/2011 2:10 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

There have been other such projects that looked more airplane-like. One
started from the F-5 Tiger airframe. That was even shorter lived than
Kistler.

I still like Canadian Arrow and their V-2 - that at least _looked_ like
a classic rocketship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arrow
Passengers should dress in chrome silver spacesuits with bubble helmets.

pat

(Pat Flannery) wrote:
On 2/8/2011 2:50 PM, wrote:
But if industry succeeds, it will be thanks to decades of work by the
space agency on lifting-body reentry vehicles."

And not just the space agency... anybody else remember the Aeron 26?

I wish someone would point out that the HL-20 design was developed
from a wind tunnel model NASA made from photos an Austrailian P-3
Orion took of the splashdown and recovery of the Soviet BOR-4
unmanned reentry vehicle in the Indian Ocean:

Sure, but the BOR-4 had the advantage of coming after the M2-F1/2/3,
HL-10, X-24A/B, and the Space Shuttle... I wonder if the Russians had
any photos of those.

--
djb@ | Dan Birchall - Observation System Associate - Subaru Telescope.
naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer.
..org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! He is a _naughty_ person.

On Feb 9, 5:53*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...



I wish someone would point out that the HL-20 design was developed from
a wind tunnel model NASA made from photos an Austrailian P-3 Orion took
of the splashdown and recovery of the Soviet BOR-4 unmanned reentry
vehicle in the Indian Ocean:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
We were always yelping about the damn Russians copying our designs;
here's a case where just the reverse was the literal truth.

Now, now, Pat! *We don't want to admit that the US sometimes steals the
best Russian ideas, do we? *Can't we just let NASA quietly take all the
credit (by not setting the record straight), just like they do for
inventing Tang and velcro? *;-) *;-)

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Perhaps the first viable commercial spaceplanes for accessing ISS will
have to come from China or India, because anything from William Mook
isn't going to fly, and there's nothing viable that we can afford from
NASA.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 2/13/2011 4:49 AM, Dan Birchall wrote:

Sure, but the BOR-4 had the advantage of coming after the M2-F1/2/3,
HL-10, X-24A/B, and the Space Shuttle... I wonder if the Russians had
any photos of those.

BOR-4 was a subscale offshoot of the Spiral Spaceplane design, which
dated back to 1965: http://www.buran.ru/htm/str126.htm
....around the time we were building our lifting bodies, although the
M2-F1 predated it.
What interested NASA about the BOR-4 design was that the vehicle
reentered inside of its own shockwave, which reduced reentry heating on
the main body.

Pat