Looks a lot like an update from the old X24A & X24B lifting bodies of the 60's & early 70's.
28th October, 2013 @ 5:11 p.m. (California Time)
wasn't this supposed to happen summer 2012 from the scaled composites whiteknighttwo? what happened, why the delay, and why from a helicopter?
28th October, 2013 @ 5:52 p.m. (California Time)
is this what happen with the six million dollar man? wow no back up craft :(
28th October, 2013 @ 7:51 p.m. (California Time)
I read elsewhere that this "lifting body" concept was roughly 20 years old... but that's false. Because I toured a model of a very similar lifting body craft when I was a child, making the basic design more than 40 years old.
28th October, 2013 @ 8:08 p.m. (California Time)
Go to the Russians, they have both a nice Buran sitting around. Tho even better if you want to go small scale, is the test bed for the Buran. That one is green and sitting next to a HIND in a museum, on the outskirts of Moscow. (No don´t pronounce Moscow as Mos cow..if any thing its Mosckba). Excellent museum tho :D
Sad about this accident tho, I am for any and all space stuff.
29th October, 2013 @ 3 a.m. (California Time)
Well, this is so stupid. It is like going to climb Mount Everest and then getting involved into a car accident on the way to the first base camp.
It would be a shame of they gave up because of the the stupid landing gear. It has nothing to do with the rest of the vehicle. Finally, 40 years after the concept of a lifting body was invented, some should make an actual lifting body vehicle.
29th October, 2013 @ 3:12 a.m. (California Time)
It reminds me of the lifting body design by NASA. I think they were cool. I think this newer design is even cooler. They definitely improved the design, IMO.
29th October, 2013 @ 5:57 a.m. (California Time)
Here ya go Chizzy, Spaceship 2's second flight, the flight test mentioned in the article above is a different company.
29th October, 2013 @ 8:01 a.m. (California Time)
Who pays the freight for this failure?
29th October, 2013 @ 9:43 a.m. (California Time)
If you're going to use MY runway, and MY cleanup crew, I get to see the video of you throwing parts of your airplane all over it.
29th October, 2013 @ 10:07 a.m. (California Time)
In the interest of contributing, rather than to nitpick, in all likeliehood, the author meant to say landing gear door, rather than flap, as flaps are generally designed as an integral, wing mounted, trailing edge aerodynamic aid to low speed handling and control by increasing the effective camber of a wing section or expanding its surface area, or both, while a gear door is pretty much serves as an aerodynamic feature to smooth airflow and reduce drag once the gear is in the well. The asymmetric deployment of the gear and door may introduce a degree of anomalous low speed handling, like a pitch burble or other bogeyman, but not so much as to disrupt the roundout and touchdown. In this case, gear geometry, strut pressure, tire pressure and the scale of the craft likely impacted handling dynamics, having an a disproportionate effect on the relatively close coupled and short-spanned vehicle. (Lifting bodies are often more like a jet ski than a seagull in appearance, but can glide very well, with high internal volume and capacity, ruggedness and structural simplicity being hallmarks of the type)
The gear system trouble from the test article does not invalidate the flight data; holefully SNC will be back up soon. Other lifting bodies have proven remarkably tough and repairable.
The already planned gear design would take all that into account, regrettably, engineering flight test has to balance available off the shelf hardware against cost and development timelines for validating untried systems, so off the shelf gear designs are not at all uncommon. Sticky gear doors and unwilling struts, quirky hydraulics or even dirt on a switch are notorious jokers in aviation; some boost-glide vehicles have used either skids or (in initial flight test) fixed gear to get around low speed, low altitude surprises like a failed gear deploy or jammed door in the absence of an engine with which to effect an abort and go-around, before moving on to a further testing. In this case, validating glide performance and flight controls, etc, would require the gear to remain up until the appropriate time.
29th October, 2013 @ 10:18 a.m. (California Time)
Looks like Farscape1, flies like the Six Million Dollar Man's orbiter. That design has the WORST luck!
29th October, 2013 @ 11:27 a.m. (California Time)
first: NASA had in the 60s and 70s (failures and prone to accidents ... just ask Steve Austin) :D
second: the Russians were the first maneuverable and flying capable.
(the end of the wings could be folded up)
But they preferred the buran (looked more like the sapce shuttle)
Ultimately neither outperformed the x15 (if developed could have done orbital)
29th October, 2013 @ 11:57 a.m. (California Time)
Hmm.... So we decommissioned a space shuttle to build another space shuttle? ;) But in all seriousness, This looks like an improvement but it is definitely NOT a new design. (if you would like to see some of my sketches from elementary school let me know)
29th October, 2013 @ 3:06 p.m. (California Time)
Was there a helicopter in the flight path too? This is like a flashback to the crash that was used as the inspiration for "The Six Million Dollar Man", film of which was used in the TV show's into.
Even the vehicle looks like a copy of the one that crashed in the 1960's!
Starting over from concepts last actively worked on around 50 years ago.
Shows how delayed R&D on space technology has been due to politicians and others against humans in space.
I still laugh at the claims that the Space Shuttle was based on lifting body technology developed from the X vehicles shaped like this new version. Pffft! The Shuttle is a brick with wings on. What did carry over was the steep "falling with style" landing approach the design proved was possible.
29th October, 2013 @ 3:10 p.m. (California Time)
Lifting body flight is thousands of years old. Aborigine atlatl's with lightweight bone points and tapered fletchless shafts were capable of fairly level 60 meter flights at which time they stalled and landed flat on the ground. They actually glided and did not arch like a ballistic heavy tipped, fletched shaft requires. It's no wonder they never developed the bow and arrow. Even the hunting boomerang was as much lifting body as rotating wing. We just keep rediscovering what ancient man already knew.
30th October, 2013 @ 10:01 a.m. (California Time)
Shades of the X-20 DynaSoar! Which means we could have been here or were over 40 years ago if NASA hadn't pushed the Air Force out of the Space Program.
The landing gear failure reminds me of the Douglas DC-X program which was killed even though it was working and showed great promise with a SSTO vehicle. Now that there is competition in our own space programs we are seeing innovation and lots of different ideas getting a chance to explore many options. This was stiffled in the 60s when the government insisted on running a 'single source' program through NASA as the only way to space. It pains me in my golden years to know that we could have been much further by these days if only the government hadn't monopolized the exploration of space in the infant days of the program.
30th October, 2013 @ 1:07 p.m. (California Time)
The "Six Million Dollar Man" accident was fiction that used actual footage from the crash during testing of the First full-on
NASA Lifting Body,the M2-F2,
which was caused by a helicopter being in the wrong place at the wrong time-
this is made clear in the full footage
of the incident.
The pilot,Bruce Petersen,
was badly injured but survived,
although he later lost one eye in the hospital from staph infection,
which ended his career as a
The aircraft was not capable of
making a "go-around"-
there was only one shot at landing
in the desert there at Edwards AFB
and it was a dangerous approach,indeed-
at speeds approaching 300mph
after being dropped from the wing of a B-52,
high in the Sky.
The "flare" at landing had to be precise-
there was no margin for error.
The helicopter position on the deck right where the landing was intended created turbulence and obstruction that was nearly fatal.
Although at first seemingly destroyed,the aerospace-craft was,
rebuilt in-house by Dryden Facility technicians with factory support and was made "better,stronger and faster" than she was before...
IN REAL LIFE!
It is important to note that this was the ONLY crash during the
Lifting Body program.
The whole story began with NASA technician Dale Reed and his homemade scale model which his wife filmed with an 8mm home movie camera.
The first prototype was made from plywood,mahogany and Cessna landing gear and was initially pulled by a "hot rod Pontiac convertible" with NASA nomenclature on the doors.
she graduated to being towed by an
R4D(the U.S. Navy version of the DC-3)and safely accomplishing
The Lifting Body was one of the most successful programs ever undertaken by NASA and generated all manner of data about the upper atmosphere,the beginning of Space and what it takes to safely transition that region.
For these men and women,
"The Sky was NOT the Limit"....
it was only the beginning of
They were going farther,faster,sooner with
much less money
(and almost no computers) than what is being done now with our supposedly
Dale Reed's book,
which is a fascinating first-person account of the history of the
Lifting Body program
is available for free online reading on NASA's website:
I HIGHLY recommend it to all who want to know more about the time when Men&Women could look
beyond the Sky...
with nothing much more than
slide-rulers,their bare hands,primitive tools
Dale Reed's first prototype program
consisted entirely of just paper models,a long office hallway....
and a tape measure.
The wooden M1-F1 was built largely by volunteers and cost about $35,000-
less than what Erickson charges for one day's use of their "Sky-Crane"
for test like this.
These were people of passion...
30th October, 2013 @ 1:30 p.m. (California Time)