Delta Glider - How could it be built for real?

[FarOutInFernley]

have you ever looked at those technical manuals for star trek? Pretty neat if you ask me, even i it was science fiction. And id say the DGIV could be a lot closer to being reality than the TNG USS Enterprise

 

[Urwumpe]

AFAIK SS1 and SS2 use manual control primarily, but they are suborbital.

Still, both use a closed-loop guidance for ascent to drive the flight-director indicator.

 

[Hielor]

I think it'll be a long while before an SSTO DG was possible. If you just wanted to make something that flies (and carries people), though, you probably could, if perhaps at a 1/2 scale. If you look at the design of the DG, it's a lot like a cross between two existing experimental aircraft plans/kits:
The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta"]Dyke Delta[/ame] for the overall shape...

and the Long-EZ / [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_VariEze"]VariEze[/ame] / [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_XL"]Velocity[/ame] style of aircraft (for the outboard vertical stabs):

 

[Keatah]

The main limiting problems we have to deal with are materials sciences and energy density. *IF* we can make improvements in those areas we can easily build many of fictional ships in orbiter, including the dg. we need to begin our work there *FIRST*.

OTH we have plenty of imagination and computer power, so that takes care of all the electronics. Hell, the electronics already exist! and are an order more sophisticated than what orbiter depicts!

 

[RisingFury]

If you wanna build something that flies, avoid the DeltaGlider. It may be beautiful and that's why I built it, but I would doubt it's flight characteristics are good.

It has a huge body, it's a very high nose angle delta, it has two stabs at the end of the wing, and I actually used the reflexed airfoil to make it feel more tail heavy at a slight expense of lift...


Avoid Long-EZ as well... it's as unstable as Marilyn Manson on crack.

 

[Kevon Daye]

I think it's mainly a matter of politics. Look at Apollo. The government gave NASA a blank check and said have at it, and look what they did. Now, NASA has to fight tooth and nail for every dollar they get. If the government would pull their collective head out of their collective fourth point of contact, and give NASA the money they need (and deserve), I think in 20 to 25 years, they could get the something like the DG built.

 

[Izack]

I think in 20 to 25 years, they could get the something like the DG built.

A further question is: Is the Deltaglider really worth building? Even if the magical superengines on it were real, it can only carry four passengers and no cargo. The DG-IV is even more magical, because it has a cargo bay where there should be a giant block of helium for fusion, and even then it can only carry a few tonnes. The Space Shuttle has more cargo space than that, and probably costs less.

Also, there are other issues with the Deltaglider other than its magical engines and poor aerodynamics that I won't even mention.

 

[T.Neo]

A further question is: Is the Deltaglider really worth building? Even if the magical superengines on it were real, it can only carry four passengers and no cargo. The DG-IV is even more magical, because it has a cargo bay where there should be a giant block of helium for fusion, and even then it can only carry a few tonnes. The Space Shuttle has more cargo space than that, and probably costs less.

Agreed; the 5-people-to-orbit with no cargo stratagy might make sense, but if you have the ability to build it, why not a 50 ton/30 passenger capable spacecraft in used in tandem with a high-velocity interplanetary spacecraft?

Also, there are other issues with the Deltaglider other than its magical engines and poor aerodynamics that I won't even mention.

Like the lack of a toilet? :lol:

 

[Hielor]

Avoid Long-EZ as well... it's as unstable as Marilyn Manson on crack.

I'd be curious as to where you got that from...

 

[Izack]

Like the lack of a toilet? :lol:

No, like the vertical stabilizers being in the path of the rear rotational RCS thrusters.

But now that you mention it...:uhh:

 

[T.Neo]

No, like the vertical stabilizers being in the path of the rear rotational RCS thrusters.

I brought a few of these things up already- the vertical stabilisers in the path of the RCS, the opening nosecone, the mere existence of retro rockets...

But now that you mention it...:uhh:

I think it actually does have a toilet- the door on the aft bulkhead of the cabin has to lead somewhere...

 

[Kevon Daye]

Like the lack of a toilet? :lol:

Nope. That far into the future, humans will have also have eliminated the need to produce excrement.:rofl:

 

[Columbia42]

A further question is: Is the Deltaglider really worth building? Even if the magical superengines on it were real, it can only carry four passengers and no cargo. The DG-IV is even more magical, because it has a cargo bay where there should be a giant block of helium for fusion, and even then it can only carry a few tonnes. The Space Shuttle has more cargo space than that, and probably costs less.

Also, there are other issues with the Deltaglider other than its magical engines and poor aerodynamics that I won't even mention.

I think a DG type ship may not be very useful for NASA. Instead, I think that it would be more useful for commercial spaceflight companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. If they had a "blank check" I'm sure that they'd want to build it.

 

[squeaky024]

I think that the only reason to have a vehicle like this would be to ferry people from the surface to the ISS or back in case of emergency, otherwise it is really too expensive to have something like the DG and carry little to no cargo.