Interesting Kliper seats

This is from Mark Wade's "Encyclopedia Astronautica" website update:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
Neat flip-down seat design:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zklip376.jpg
It's sure spacious enough inside, isn't it?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in news:11hc9lv3m222mf3
@corp.supernews.com:

This is from Mark Wade's "Encyclopedia Astronautica" website update:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
Neat flip-down seat design:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zklip376.jpg
It's sure spacious enough inside, isn't it?

Looks spacious but it appears those seats have to
flip back to stand on shock absorber posts for the
terminal landing phase.

With a reduced/minimal crew, there'd be plenty of
cubage for bulky cargo.

If the winged version can do horizontal landing, then
the seats wouldn't have to fold back. Would the design
retain the parachutes for emergency landings? Might
be prudent for aborted launches or vertical landing if
no runway was available.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

If the winged version can do horizontal landing, then
the seats wouldn't have to fold back. Would the design
retain the parachutes for emergency landings? Might
be prudent for aborted launches or vertical landing if
no runway was available.



I look at those wings, and I think "here we go....get ready for the
Dyna-Soar/Hermes upward weight and complexity spiral."

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:



Damon Hill wrote:

If the winged version can do horizontal landing, then
the seats wouldn't have to fold back. Would the design
retain the parachutes for emergency landings? Might
be prudent for aborted launches or vertical landing if
no runway was available.



I look at those wings, and I think "here we go....get ready for the
Dyna-Soar/Hermes upward weight and complexity spiral."

Yeah, they took a payload hit at the least; we'll see if they
can stick to the weight budget before downscoping the design.
It could knock the Soyuz 3 launcher out of the picture and force
improvements on the Zenit.

Better to go with the lifting body now and develop the
winged body in the Mk 2 design phase.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Yeah, they took a payload hit at the least; we'll see if they
can stick to the weight budget before downscoping the design.
It could knock the Soyuz 3 launcher out of the picture and force
improvements on the Zenit.

Better to go with the lifting body now and develop the
winged body in the Mk 2 design phase.

I can see the need for floor space to allow the seats to swing down
ninety degrees for reentry and landing- but did you see the headroom
inside of it? Toward the back end it looks around nine feet high, and
the space doesn't seem to be used for anything.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Damon Hill wrote:

Yeah, they took a payload hit at the least; we'll see if they
can stick to the weight budget before downscoping the design.
It could knock the Soyuz 3 launcher out of the picture and force
improvements on the Zenit.

Better to go with the lifting body now and develop the
winged body in the Mk 2 design phase.

I can see the need for floor space to allow the seats to swing down
ninety degrees for reentry and landing- but did you see the headroom
inside of it? Toward the back end it looks around nine feet high, and
the space doesn't seem to be used for anything.

Hey, these were artistic renderings of a purely hypothetic craft. If
this thing will be flight-ready ever those spaces will be packed with
controls, pipes and equipment. Just look at images of *flight-ready*
russian (or US) crafts to get an impression how such things look when
everything is installed.

By the way, having good free room on such renderings is a good sign. If
it were cramped yet it'd be even more cramped when ready.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Pat Flannery wrote:
Toward the back end it looks around nine feet high, and
the space doesn't seem to be used for anything.

Fluffiness, for better reeentry characteristics.

/dps

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
I can see the need for floor space to allow the seats to swing down ninety
degrees for reentry and landing- but did you see the headroom inside of
it? Toward the back end it looks around nine feet high, and the space
doesn't seem to be used for anything.

Aren't the Firewomen pretty tall?

snidely wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Toward the back end it looks around nine feet high, and
the space doesn't seem to be used for anything.

Fluffiness, for better reeentry characteristics.

The natural size for capsules trends towards the largest
thing you can transport and/or the largest tolerable
hammerhead on the launch vehicle(s) of choice.

And sometimes larger, as heat shields can be assembled
out of smaller parts which are individually small
enough to transport.

But if you look say at the C-17 and An-124, you can fit
fairly large things in them. C-17s have a 18 foot
loadable width, and An-124 has about 21 ft.
C-17s have a max height 14.8 ft behind the wing
and 12.3 ft under it. An-124 has a max height
of 14.4 ft behidn the wing and 10.5 ft under it.

C-130s have a 10 ft max loadable width and 9 ft
max loadable height.

Intermodal containers have a door width of 7'8",
door height of 7'5" for the 8'6" tall containers
and door height of 8'5" for the 9'6" tall units.

How you a) normally and b) in extremis such as
recovery from middle of the Amazon or the Congo
transport the vehicle is a major design constraint.


-george william herbert