The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
cacambo43
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:39 am
Location: The Space Coast
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by cacambo43 »

Michael wrote: I'm afraid I don't remember the name of that company...
I believe you are referring to Skylon.

Here's a discussion topic about it on a forum I belong to. Its last post is from about a year ago:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... ne-by-2020

Also, the Wikipedia page has some good information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29

I think they've gotten some of the SABRE engine milestones met so far, and they are making steady progress. I'm still on the fence on whether I think it will work or not.

CJSF

Keter
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:42 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Keter »

Skylon is discussed in fairly deep detail at NasaSpaceFlight's Advanced Concepts subforum. An (now ex-) employee at Reaction Engines Ltd reads and sometimes posts in that very (series of) thread.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Yutu: "Goodnight, Humanity"

Post by Arioch »

I have been enjoying a bit of schadenfreude at the recent failures of the Chinese space program; I had a bit of a chuckle when the Mars probe Yinghuo-1 failed to even leave Earth orbit, and raised an eyebrow when the Moon lander Chang'e-3 missed its target landing site by about a thousand miles. And now Chang'e-3's lunar rover, Yutu ("jade rabbit"), is not responding and will probably perish in the cold of the 14-day-long lunar night.

But I must say that the Chinese government has been clever in its handling of the problem, and has managed to elicit an empathetic response by personifying the Yutu rover as a brave little explorer, providing diary messages from the rover to the public.
Gillian Wong, AP wrote:In the Xinhua diary entry, the Jade Rabbit takes on the tone of a heroic adventurer who has encountered an obstacle that might prove insurmountable, and who is trying to put on a brave face as it pens what might be its final farewell.

“If this journey must come to an early end, I am not afraid,” said the six-wheeled, solar-powered rover. “Whether or not the repairs are successful, I believe even my malfunctions will provide my masters with valuable information and experience.”

The personification of the rover has been a hit with the Chinese public. Parts of the Xinhua report were quoted by an unofficial Chinese microblog account written with the Jade Rabbit’s voice, and the blog was flooded with tens of thousands of sympathetic comments.

As for the rover’s fate, a report Thursday by the state-run Science and Technology Daily newspaper said that would only be clear at the end of the lunar night. Calls to the space program rang unanswered Friday, a public holiday.

On Sunday, the rover said its “masters” — the space program’s engineers, presumably — had found an abnormality in its control mechanism and were working through the night to fix it. It provided no details on what the problem was, but hinted that it was serious.

“Even so, I know I may not make it through this lunar night,” it said, striking a sombre note.

The Jade Rabbit began operating last month after making the first soft landing on the moon by a space probe, Chang’e 3, in 37 years. The moon lander is named after Chang’e, a mythical goddess of the moon, and the rover, after Yutu, or “Jade Rabbit” in English, the goddess’ pet.

In the diary entry, the Jade Rabbit recounted its achievements in the 42 days it spent on the moon, saying it travelled more than 100 metres and collected a large amount of scientific data with a panoramic camera, radar and other equipment.

But in a line clearly written with the aim of tugging at heartstrings, the Xinhua report had the Jade Rabbit appealing to its readers to take care of the space craft that brought it to the moon, Chang’e, in the rover’s absence.

“If I really cannot be fixed, when the time comes, I hope everyone will remember to help me comfort her,” it said.

The rover was designed to roam the lunar surface for three months while surveying for natural resources and sending back data. Then it ran into problems as it was shutting down in preparation for the lunar night when the temperature drops to minus 180 C.

“The sun has already set here and the temperature is falling very quickly. I’ve said a lot today, yet still feel like it’s not enough,” the rover said in its concluding paragraphs. “I’ll tell everyone a secret. Actually, I’m not feeling especially sad. Just like any other hero, I’ve only encountered a little problem while on my own adventure.”

“Good night, planet earth. Good night, humanity.”
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/ ... bnormality
Keter wrote:Skylon is discussed in fairly deep detail at NasaSpaceFlight's Advanced Concepts subforum. An (now ex-) employee at Reaction Engines Ltd reads and sometimes posts in that very (series of) thread.
Here's a link for those interested: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=26.0

CptWinters
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by CptWinters »

Communist or not, we could probably use a little of that kind of enthusiasm here in the states...

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by fredgiblet »

That's what you get when you steal our technology and replace the expensive metals with lead.

Keter
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:42 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Keter »

I forgot how cluttered the NSF forums can get, esp for newbies.
Reaction Engines thread 1
Reaction Engines thread 2
Reaction Engines thread 3

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Defense Secretary Hagel's soon-to-be-announced defense cuts include retiring the A-10.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/po ... level.html

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by NOMAD »

NOOOOOOOOOOO, I thought the good old hog was staying until 2028 ????
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by fredgiblet »

Nope, it's been on the chopping block for a long time. The F-35 is supposed to replace it...somehow.

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Mr.Tucker »

Arioch wrote:Defense Secretary Hagel's soon-to-be-announced defense cuts include retiring the A-10.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/po ... level.html
Lol, I'm not even American, but still:
Image

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

It's a pity, especially for an aviation enthusiast, but when I read in the headline that "an entire class of jet" was due to be cut, I was actually relieved that they only meant the A-10. Though it is a superb aircraft and the most efficient and cost-effective tank-killing platform out there, it flies low and is therefore vulnerable to ground fire, and despite its ruggedness the A-10 was always at or near the top of the list of aircraft being shot down. In today's world when just one or two captured pilots can become a crisis bigger than whatever the original mission was about, it's easy to see why both civilian and military planners are more comfortable killing tanks with JDAM's dropped by a stealth aircraft from 30,000 feet, or Hellfires fired from a drone... even though they are many times more expensive. The hordes of Soviet tanks that the A-10 was designed to cope with are not likely to be a threat any time soon. If in future another Evil Empire arises, fear not... the A-10's will be sitting, well-preserved, in the boneyard in Arizona, waiting for the call.

User avatar
pinheadh78
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by pinheadh78 »

I've been thinking long and hard about this whole retiring the A-10 thing. I love love love the Hog but lets play devils advocate for a moment and the reason to retire it starts to make sense. And darn it I find myself starting to think that its not so bad.

What does the A-10 do that nothing else can do?
- Low and slow with long loiter time so it can stay with troops
- Withstand all small-arms and some missile fire
- Easy maintenance with seasoned ground crews
- 30mm gun is cheap low-cost fire support for shooting up light-cover and light armor / bunkers
- Withstand small-arms fire and small man-pad SAMs

So what is replacing it? Lets look at the contenders

Drons (Predator Avenger coming soon)
- Avoids small arms and most missile by being so high up
- Ultra long loiter time to provide over-watch support
- Can stay with convoy for duration of trip or clear path well in advance
- 4 Helfire-II missiles and 2 bombs is limited

C-130 (Harvest Hawk and Gunship)
- High enough to avoid small arms
- Long loiter time with strong flight range
- Lots of these things for parts, crews, maintenance
- Bolt-on kits or mods allow for missiles, guns, etc
- Lots of Brimstone missiles in cargo bay
- Hard points on wings for 8 Hellfire

Fast Jets
- Quick response to troops in-need (Hog limited to 460 mph)
- Precision bombs and missiles
- 20mm internal cannon for strafing

Attack helicopters
- Not really as these are as slow as drones with even shorter range and loiter time
- Lots of guns and missiles; fairly durable to most small arms
- Low and slow but usually show up late to the fight unless the fight is near a FOB

Very long-range rockets
- The newest MLRS is GPS guided and can put 12 missiles 110nmi in about 5 minutes
- Cheap over-all cost compared to a full on aircraft or drone (services, runway, etc)
- Requires fixed FOB or base to be within 110 miles and have semi-clean ballistic arc to target

Fast-Jets and drons and bout the speed of the A-10; I'd heard once that the insurgents had actually began to plan their attacks around how fast the A-10 could get from an airbase to the battlefield. They know that if they can start and finish the attack fast enough then it can be over before fire-support arrives on-station. Now with drones those are very slow but they are also almost always there due to long loiter times so fire-support is either already on-station at high-altitude or can be vectored in from a nearby drone. Having fast-jets supplement the drons further compresses the time to conduct an attack without having to worry about air support or surveillance over-watch.

Then the fast-jets can get on-station in under an hour which further compresses the time insurgents have to conduct an attach without having to worry about over-watch fire support.

Using a C-130 sounded stupid to me at first as that thing is big and slower than the A-10; but then I realized that its not such a bad idea. Here is why. The A-10 can only operate completely in the absence of major air opposition (IE we have air superiority) and most long-range or heavy-hitting SAMs have to be suppressed leaving only Man-Pads as the primary threat. This are the same conditions as the C-130 and other gun-ship variants require to conduct missions of any type; and Afghanistan doesn't have SAMs or Aircraft. In addition we have a huge inventory of C-130 aircraft and crews; lets pack the cargo-hold and its two outboard hard-points with short-range AG-missiles and bombs and use them.

At this point the A-10 has going for it is its 30mm gun and durability. The 30mm gun is fantastic but lets be honest, we have reached a point where smaller missiles are accurate enough to do CAS and cheap enough to use in quantity without much problem. You can build and fire dozens of those mini-missiles from a drone or C-130 for the cost of an A-10 being kept ready to fly and fight. Durability is less of an issue as the drones and C-130 just fly above the limited range of small-arms and man-pads but are still low and slow enough to provide air-cover for troops using those same mini-missiles.

I loved the hog as a kid and I think retiring it sucks; but if the budget is tight and other platforms can do the job then its redundant. Redundancy drives up cost and takes money that can be better spent else where.

F-35 sucks for CAS by the way; they aren't fooling anyone by saying it will do fine. The only way the F-35 will be useful for troops is by fast-response times to get bombs-on-target quickly as noted earlier. IF the F-35 is as stealthy as its proponents claim (and that's a big if) then it might be able to support forwards troops where some of the longer-range and heavy SAM sits are still active and some air opposition remains. If the F-35 can stealthily avoid those large SAM sites then it would indeed be able to provide rapid-response bombing to troops active in areas where large SAM sites and air opposition might still be active.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by RedDwarfIV »

I'm sad that we just glanced over Skylon with a few links. Has everything about it already been said on those sites or something?

Skylon would look awesome with a cockpit at the front, though obviously that space is needed for propellant and fuel. It will be rated capable of carrying people though, which is great.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by discord »

pinhead:
makes no sense either economic nor military, the only 'logic' is PR related, and USAF not liking the A-10 or it's mission.
okey, lets go through these 'replacements'.
drone, lets assume MQ-9 Reaper for the job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9
at 17 million a pop it's actually not that expensive, but it is basically a high altitude bomber and surveillance craft, does not really have the staying power for CAS but it would be damn useful for carrying heavy anti armor weapons as fire support, and overhead cameras for situational awareness.

C130 conversion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130
it's a conversion and therefor not that expensive...relatively, high altitude bomber and precision firepower, can actually do CAS.
biggest issue is the USAF chronic shortage of airlift capacity, which this takes away from, secondary issue is to do a good job you need to go low, which makes you vulnerable to manpads.

F-35, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
anyone saying this craft can do CAS is delusional, sure it can drop some bombs, but dropping some bombs(which are well known for going slightly off target) does not make for good CAS, the gun is also a nono, the official stall speed is unknown, but if it is even as low as double the 220km/h of the A-10 i would be surprised, so strafing runs is a joke.
cost: 153 million USD/unit flyaway.

bottom line, to do CAS you need either a very stable platform very high(gunships) or a durable one slow and low, fast and low(which the F-35 can do) is not such a great idea against non-stationary targets, high chance of blue on blue.
so, replacing A-10(current dollar value around 19 million) with MQ-9 reaper(17 million) and F-35(153 million) and you need both to approximate CAS(but not equal a single A-10), makes economic or military sense....how?

after thinking about it, i think a major problem is you CAN'T micromanage a good CAS craft, it's like trying to micromanage a single soldier, to fluid, and limits the effectiveness too much, this bugs USAF and leaders, delegating initiative is not liked, and very stupid.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by RedDwarfIV »

Today I discovered Bristol Spaceplanes Ltd. They are working on updated 1960s spaceplane design concepts, using existing aerospace technologies. A two-man SSTO of theirs called Ascender could be operational before Skylon.

Ascender:
Image

A few years after that, they hope to have SpaceCab running, a 6-passenger craft intended for taking small satellites to orbit or crews to the ISS.

SpaceCab:
Image

And a few years after that, they hope to have a prototype for SpaceBus, a 50-passenger tourist carrier capable of hauling medium satellites to orbit.

SpaceBus:
Image

I assume that what lets those two larger craft reach orbit when SpaceShipOne/Two can't, is that their carrier aircraft are also spaceplanes, capable of suborbital hops with their rocket engines.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by GeoModder »

RedDwarfIV wrote:I assume that what lets those two larger craft reach orbit when SpaceShipOne/Two can't, is that their carrier aircraft are also spaceplanes, capable of suborbital hops with their rocket engines.
Heh. Manned rocket stages. :lol:
Image

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Mr.Tucker »

I thought I'd just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-pDGR6DaU

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »

Hey Arioch, where are we (real life humans) in Gurps tech level system? 8 going on 9?

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Grayhome wrote:Hey Arioch, where are we (real life humans) in Gurps tech level system? 8 going on 9?
When GURPS was designed in 1986, TL7 was meant to be "modern" technology. We have since progressed into the very early stages of TL8.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »

That is interesting and rouses another question Arioch, according to GURPS tech level guide of the Ultra-tech rule book (page 9), at what level would you rate humanity's real life tech progression? Will humanity have grav cars, life extension drugs and sensie entertainment in our lifetime?

Post Reply