>>1113318So that's why astronauts described it as a "flying brick" while they piloted it on final?
>>1113488funny
>>1113284>>1113305>>1113495So basically the outrageous requirements prevented them from actually making a usable spaceplane? Like if they could have just focused on bringing 3 people to orbit then it's design could have been more specific? I still think though that they could have Incorporated flaps somehow.
What is the optimum size and weight for a space plane? Could you design a hypersonic aircraft to reach orbital velocity in the atmosphere so it could use atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer for it's fuel?
Also this website is bretty cool (might answer my questions but im not done reading these articles yet):
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.phphttp://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/landing.php#id--AerobrakingSo just to make it clear... the delta wing on the shuttle was so inefficient in the subsonic regime because it was optimized for hypersonic flight? Does that have to do with the airfoil shape? What is the best airfoil for hypersonic flight then?
I also read that the orbiter was designed to detach the shockwaves from it? Does that just mean the "bow wave" in terms of supersonic flight? Or is hypersonic flight more complicated?
