230 likes | 547 Views
Delta Clipper. To Boldly Go…. A presentation by:. Jason Moore & Ashraf Shaikh. How do we get there now?. Space Shuttle Partially reusable Multi-stage Manned ~$500 Million / Launch. Picture courtesy of NASA. How do we get there now?. Titan IV, et. al. Single use Multi-stage
E N D
Delta Clipper To Boldly Go…
A presentation by: Jason Moore & Ashraf Shaikh
How do we get there now? • Space Shuttle • Partially reusable • Multi-stage • Manned • ~$500 Million / Launch Picture courtesy of NASA
How do we get there now? • Titan IV, et. al. • Single use • Multi-stage • Expensive • Long build time Picture courtesy of NASA
A need for something better… • Current vehicles suffer from a few drawbacks. • They are expensive to build and maintain. • Multi-stage rockets require large uninhabited areas for stage recovery/disposal. • It takes many months to prep the Shuttle or build a new expendable vehicle. • Large specialized space ports are needed to launch these vehicles.
A solution from the past… • SSTO – Single Stage to Orbit • RLV – Reusable Launch Vehicle • Aerospace engineers have been working on this problem for years; it has been a dream for many in the industry. Picture courtesy of Space Merchants Inc. and G. Stine
A few noble attempts… • Early vision for what the Space Shuttle was to have been… • NASA investigated the possibility of building a fully reusable shuttle • Due to compromises with Congress, as well as then-current technology limitations, the Shuttle designers had to pick a staged design.
A few noble attempts… • X-33 • Subscale Technology Demonstrator • NASA budgeted $941 Million for the project • No powered prototype ever flew • Vertical takeoff, Horizontal landing configuration • Full scale version dubbed ‘VentureStar’
A few noble attempts… • X-37 • Technology demonstrator • Designed to validate concepts and designs for a future Orbital Space Plane • OSP not intended to be fully reusable • Stop-gap measure while more time and money is spent studying a true RLV • So far NASA has only done drop tests and structural tests
Faster, Better, Cheaper • Delta Clipper • Originally completed in 1993 as the DC-X • Joint venture between the Air Force and McDonnell Douglas • Intended as a one third scale prototype of a RLV proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Picture courtesy of NASA
Faster, Better, Cheaper • A primary goal of the Delta Clipper project was to show that an RLV could be operated in a manner similar to a commercial airliner. Pictures courtesy of NASA
Faster, Better, Cheaper • Compare the mission profiles of the Space Shuttle and a Delta Clipper. Picture courtesy of NASA Picture courtesy of McDonnell Douglas
Faster, Better, Cheaper • DC-X Program • Built in 21 months for $60 Million by a team of 100 • USAF completed 8 test flights • During flight 5 the vehicle demonstrated its autoland capability, an important safety feature • Built almost entirely of off the shelf parts Picture courtesy of NASA
Faster, Better, Cheaper • DC-XA • Delta Clipper program acquired by NASA • NASA installed experimental fuel tanks and a better reaction control system, saving 620 kilograms of weight • 4 Test flights were completed, as well as 2 static engine tests Picture courtesy of NASA
A path to the future… • A private organization should build an RLV based on the Delta Clipper experimental rocket. • A full scale Delta Clipper would be a SSTO launch vehicle. • Goal for the project will be to build a vehicle which can be operated much like a commercial airliner, and drastically reduce the cost of putting a payload into orbit.
Whose mission should this be? • NASA should be a consumer of launch services, not a supplier. • Bureaucracy gets in the way. DC-X an example of unhindered engineering. • NASA’s Mission Statement… • To understand and protect our home planet • To explore the Universe and search for life • To inspire the next generation of explorers • … as only NASA can.
What will it be used for? • Smaller and cheaper satellites. More advanced technology in orbit due to faster and cheaper access to space. • Space Station construction & payload ferry. • Space tourism • Global Express • Moon exploration
Why hasn’t this been done? It has. The DC-X.
Why hasn’t the project been completed? • Lack of support from Congress • Misinformation • Wrong culture at NASA (not a corporate culture) • NASA too busy with Shuttle and its many explorative missions • NASA prefers to study new technologies, where as the Delta Clipper would require little new technology
Why not just build the VentureStar? • The Delta Clipper has flown. It doesn’t rely on cutting edge technology. • The first stage of most development programs, the proof-of-concept prototype, has already been built and tested. • Versatility. A modified Clipper could make a trip to the moon, land on the surface, and return to Earth. • Safety features. Powered engine-out landing capability and engine redundancy to name two.
X-Prize • $10 Million prize to the first team to complete the following goals: • Fly 3 people to an altitude of 100Km • Repeat flight within 2 weeks • Encourages development outside of the regular Aerospace industry • Not ambitious enough to solve the problem of current launch technologies Picture courtesy of Scaled Composites Picture courtesy of Armadillo Aerospace
A real success… DeltaClipperClip.mov