[HN Gopher] The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't (2008)
        
       Author : CDSlice
       Score  : 34 points
       Date   : 2022-10-10 17:24 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.space-travel.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.space-travel.com)
        
       | focusedone wrote:
       | Space nerds are running down the street with pitchforks and
       | torches on the way to this guy's house right now (or were in 2008
       | I'm sure).
       | 
       | But he's not wrong.
        
       | JKCalhoun wrote:
       | Poor Dyna-Soar. Even its name seems to have jinxed it.
       | 
       | Some cool tech was there. They got so far with it as well --
       | search for it on YouTube and you can find videos of various
       | aspects of research that went into it. [1..6]
       | 
       | I like the landing skids that used the stretching of metal as the
       | means to adsorb the shock of landing - reminds me somewhat of the
       | metal honeycomb that collapsed to adsorb the lunar module landing
       | on the moon.
       | 
       | I believe water circulated through the skin of the craft near the
       | astronaut compartment to take heat away during reentry.
       | 
       | I recall that the nose of the craft was made of a rather
       | interesting material. That may've been shared with the X-15 as
       | well.
       | 
       | Enough blueprints too are available for the craft-that-never-flew
       | that I enjoyed creating a kind of balsa-kit-that-never-existed.
       | [7] A very pretty plane it was/wasnt.
       | 
       | [1] https://youtu.be/TkWg4dd7e8w
       | 
       | [2] https://youtu.be/8Bn5A0oNpuM
       | 
       | [3] https://youtu.be/drfcrl_vc8M
       | 
       | [4] https://youtu.be/muNYhj9DFrM
       | 
       | [5] https://youtu.be/TikodTMGdP0
       | 
       | [6] https://youtu.be/NXD6oAEDKqA
       | 
       | [7] https://imgur.com/a/VEqKG13
        
       | adolph wrote:
       | The author was writing just ahead of the Dream Chaser development
       | but does mention the X-37 "(This problem cropped up again in the
       | X-37B program and resulted in a big payload shroud being
       | added.)." I think that DC and X-37 are great capabilities to have
       | even if they require shrouds on the way up.
       | 
       |  _Dream Chaser is an American reusable lifting-body spaceplane
       | being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Space Systems.
       | Originally intended as a crewed vehicle, the Dream Chaser Space
       | System is set to be produced after the cargo variant, Dream
       | Chaser Cargo System, is operational._
       | 
       |  _The Dream Chaser design is derived from NASA 's HL-20 Personnel
       | Launch System spaceplane concept, which in turn is descended from
       | a series of test vehicles, including the X-20 Dyna-Soar, Northrop
       | M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin X-24A and X-24B,
       | and Martin X-23 PRIME._
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
       | 
       |  _The Boeing X-37, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV),
       | is a reusable robotic spacecraft. It is boosted into space by a
       | launch vehicle, then re-enters Earth 's atmosphere and lands as a
       | spaceplane._
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | The operational uselessness of X-37 is demonstrated by their
         | leaving it parked in orbit for months or even years at a
         | stretch.
         | 
         | Apparently they park it in orbit instead of a hangar to make it
         | look as if it is actually "on a mission".
        
           | sterlind wrote:
           | how do you know it's not on a mission? aren't its missions
           | heavily classified? I have no idea what it's supposed to do,
           | but e.g. spying on or interfering with enemy spy satellites
           | would give it a reason to stay up there for a long time.
        
       | pfdietz wrote:
       | And SpaceX showed a non-winged recoverable first stage can be a
       | winner.
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | > It's an odd feature of aerospace history that many prototype
       | aircraft that never went into production become "cultplanes".
       | Some prominent examples are flying wings, Avro Arrow, B-70
       | Valkyrie, anything designed by the Nazis in 1945.
       | 
       | I don't care about the other planes on the list, but the B-70
       | Valkyrie absolutely deserves to be a cult plane.
       | 
       | It is one of the most visually striking and beautiful planes ever
       | built. Combine that with an absolutely insane performance
       | characteristics and engineering, and you can see why it is a cult
       | plane.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | Every aircraft is a compromise, some more or less than others.
         | 
         | But those that never get into production often have less
         | compromise in some areas, and that is probably a large factor
         | in why they become cult planes.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-10 23:00 UTC)