• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Virgin Galactic Successfully tests 'feather' re-entry design

T

TechBoyJK

Lifer
FUCKING AWESOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9-sTDhJ58&feature=player_embedded

Seems like such a simple design.

Rather than burning up fuel launching the space shuttle from the ground, have a plane taxi it up to about 80,000 feet where the air is thinner and there is much less resistance. Significantly less fuel and energy has to be used to launch the craft from so high up. And rather than having to create all these heat panels (still needs it to some degree) because the space shuttle is flying in a full speed, they simply fold the wings back so the craft is feathered, greatly slowly the craft down, and in a way that pilots can just let the craft float down.
 
I'm not entirely sure about the "feather" thing, but I do know they did a very similar "launch" method with SS1. The feather re-entry method, just kind of slowly catching a lot of air but without heat, I think this is a new approach to re-entry.
SS2's mother-ship (no idea what it's called) is roughly the same idea as SS1's mother-ship, just sort of configured a little different.

Virgin is entirely set on the let's use conventional aircraft to the highest altitude we can and then drop/launch the rocket-plane. A lot cheaper, though maybe not as good for the environment/air quality.

But in short:

amazing! :thumbsup:
 
TechBoyJK said:
FUCKING AWESOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9-sTDhJ58&feature=player_embedded

Seems like such a simple design.

Rather than burning up fuel launching the space shuttle from the ground, have a plane taxi it up to about 80,000 feet where the air is thinner and there is much less resistance. Significantly less fuel and energy has to be used to launch the craft from so high up. And rather than having to create all these heat panels (still needs it to some degree) because the space shuttle is flying in a full speed, they simply fold the wings back so the craft is feathered, greatly slowly the craft down, and in a way that pilots can just let the craft float down.
Click to expand...

Definitely awesome but you have no understanding of the major differences between a tiny little suborbital rocket glider and the shuttle...flying the shuttle with a multi-ton payload to 80,000 feet isn't going to help, to reach orbital speeds (7000mph+) would still take more fuel that the orbiter carries, and that same speed is why the shuttle has those lovely heat panels installed, dropping like a feather from a quick jump to the bare edge of space is fine, slowing down from over 7k mph takes a hell of a lot more.

Still would love to go up in it:awe:
 
Virgin is coming out with some interesting technologies. Between this and the boat design he has I'm pretty excited about the new tech he has coming out.
 
I'm actually kinda curious how this would hold up at high speeds. Looks like they tested this around aricraft speeds (~500-600 mph). Atmospheric re-entry is SIGNIFICANTLY faster is it not?
 
destrekor said:
Virgin is entirely set on the let's use conventional aircraft to the highest altitude we can and then drop/launch the rocket-plane. A lot cheaper, though maybe not as good for the environment/air quality.

But in short:

amazing! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I dunno what the total fuel costs are for brute forcing the shuttle out of the atmosphere, but just the main tank's gross weight is 1.6 million lbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank

I can't imagine burning 1.4 million pounds of o2 is all that good for air quality.
 
corwin said:
Definitely awesome but you have no understanding of the major differences between a tiny little suborbital rocket glider and the shuttle...flying the shuttle with a multi-ton payload to 80,000 feet isn't going to help, to reach orbital speeds (7000mph+) would still take more fuel that the orbiter carries, and that same speed is why the shuttle has those lovely heat panels installed, dropping like a feather from a quick jump to the bare edge of space is fine, slowing down from over 7k mph takes a hell of a lot more.

Still would love to go up in it:awe:
Click to expand...

From what I've read they will be building a craft for this reason. Obviously needs more power, but will still be capable of delivering larger payloads.

But agreed.. I'd need to see it first because yes there is an obvious difference in the craft. I also remember reading that because of the small cost of flight, it's still significantly cheaper to make 10 trips with this craft than the shuttle, so payloads could be smaller. Making another reason why this craft could replace the shuttle.
 
Last edited:
Connoisseur said:
I'm actually kinda curious how this would hold up at high speeds. Looks like they tested this around aricraft speeds (~500-600 mph). Atmospheric re-entry is SIGNIFICANTLY faster is it not?
Click to expand...

Just looked up the shuttles actual average orbital velocity...17,500 mph😱
 
corwin said:
Just looked up the shuttles actual average orbital velocity...17,500 mph😱
Click to expand...

Yeah... during re-entry I'd imagine you'd be going thousands of miles per hour. How would the airframe handle that kind of speed? It's essentially exposing it's entire underbelly to the winds. Granted it more of a controlled exposure but the wings and hinges are going to experience some ridiculous turbulence too.
 
TechBoyJK said:
From what I've read they will be building a craft for this reason. Obviously needs more power, but will still be capable of delivering larger payloads.

But agreed.. I'd need to see it first because yes there is an obvious difference in the craft. I also remember reading that because of the small cost of flight, it's still significantly cheaper to make 10 trips with this craft than the shuttle, so payloads could be smaller.
Click to expand...

Some things can't be broken into 10 pieces though...well, at least if you want them to work when they get where they're going😀
 
corwin said:
Just looked up the shuttles actual average orbital velocity...17,500 mph😱
Click to expand...

I do believe that Virgin has already tested the craft at normal reentry speeds, it's just that they were testing this new method to see how it would work.

I'd hate to be the pilot that gets to try it at full speed though.
 
destrekor said:
I'm not entirely sure about the "feather" thing, but I do know they did a very similar "launch" method with SS1. The feather re-entry method, just kind of slowly catching a lot of air but without heat, I think this is a new approach to re-entry.
SS2's mother-ship (no idea what it's called) is roughly the same idea as SS1's mother-ship, just sort of configured a little different.

Virgin is entirely set on the let's use conventional aircraft to the highest altitude we can and then drop/launch the rocket-plane. A lot cheaper, though maybe not as good for the environment/air quality.

But in short:

amazing! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Really? Really? That's your concern? Geebus, the envirowackos have brainwashed a lot of people.
 
Looks like they're the new NASA.

When you dump billions of dollars into something, you do stuff like goto the Moon.
 
As happy as I am to see this kind of work being done by private companies there's a huge difference between a sub-orbital hop and actually launching a meaningful payload into orbit. Not trying to be a hater here, but this thing is more like the X-15 than the Space Shuttle.
 
corwin said:
Just looked up the shuttles actual average orbital velocity...17,500 mph😱
Click to expand...

In LEO, where there is practically no atmosphere, it's not as impressive as it seems.

At that point, you're in space, and you'll have to start asking "relative to what"?
 
ichy said:
Yeah, but they have to burn off all that speed as the re-enter the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the orbital speed required for their LEO orbit. In order to deorbit, they have to bleed that speed with a deorbit burn first in order to put them selves into a re-entry trajectory.

Not all of that speed is lost via friction in reentry.
 
TechBoyJK said:
FUCKING AWESOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9-sTDhJ58&feature=player_embedded

Seems like such a simple design.

Rather than burning up fuel launching the space shuttle from the ground, have a plane taxi it up to about 80,000 feet where the air is thinner and there is much less resistance. Significantly less fuel and energy has to be used to launch the craft from so high up. And rather than having to create all these heat panels (still needs it to some degree) because the space shuttle is flying in a full speed, they simply fold the wings back so the craft is feathered, greatly slowly the craft down, and in a way that pilots can just let the craft float down.
Click to expand...

Wow! Reminded me of exactly what a bird does to land. People are awesome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top