Editing Titov V(2001)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Development of the [[spaceplane]] proceeded in two stages. The first stage was to develop the orbiter, which would get to orbit by staging a drop tank. The Lockheed Starclipper was taken as a design starting point, though the final configuration of the [[Orion(2001)|Orion II/III]] was different in many details. | Development of the [[spaceplane]] proceeded in two stages. The first stage was to develop the orbiter, which would get to orbit by staging a drop tank. The Lockheed Starclipper was taken as a design starting point, though the final configuration of the [[Orion(2001)|Orion II/III]] was different in many details. | ||
− | The '''Titov V''' was not; it unabashedly shows its origins as the borrowed [ | + | The '''Titov V''' was not; it unabashedly shows its origins as the borrowed [[Starclipper]]. |
+ | |||
Both designs wound up being horizontal takeoff, assisted by a steam catapult. This was driven partly by customer demand – airlines wanted an airplane that could reject a takeoff or return to base at any point, not a flame-belching vertical-takeoff behemoth that needed to get supersonic before it was possible to abort and return to land. This also allowed easier adaptation | Both designs wound up being horizontal takeoff, assisted by a steam catapult. This was driven partly by customer demand – airlines wanted an airplane that could reject a takeoff or return to base at any point, not a flame-belching vertical-takeoff behemoth that needed to get supersonic before it was possible to abort and return to land. This also allowed easier adaptation | ||
to the later two-stage concept, as no engines would have to be removed to make that work. The Titov used a different nomenclature as the Orion II/III; the drop tank was Blok A (Titov A), the booster Titov B, and the orbiter Titov V (third letter in the Cyrillic alphabet). | to the later two-stage concept, as no engines would have to be removed to make that work. The Titov used a different nomenclature as the Orion II/III; the drop tank was Blok A (Titov A), the booster Titov B, and the orbiter Titov V (third letter in the Cyrillic alphabet). | ||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
Both spaceplanes use air-breathing propulsion to stretch the glide or perform a go-around. The Titov V places a subsonic commercial jetliner engine in the tail, protected by a cover which opens below Mach 1. This will change you over to the jet engine's fuel tank. | Both spaceplanes use air-breathing propulsion to stretch the glide or perform a go-around. The Titov V places a subsonic commercial jetliner engine in the tail, protected by a cover which opens below Mach 1. This will change you over to the jet engine's fuel tank. | ||
− | There are some differences between the spaceplanes; as already noted, the Orion can cruise supersonically. The Orion has a dedicated passenger version; the Titov has a single model that drops in a passenger module for passenger service. A dedicated version with windows would make little sense in a lifting-body, where windows would give views of the hydrogen tanks. | + | There are some differences between the spaceplanes; as already noted, the Orion can cruise supersonically. The Orion has a dedicated passenger version; the Titov has a single model that drops in a passenger module for passenger service. A dedicated version with windows would make little sense in a lifting-body, where windows would give views of the hydrogen tanks. Due to the configuration, the Titov V can launch with a booster AND a drop tank at the same time. Nicknamed the “kludge” by American analysts, the configuration is rarely used, mainly for military quick-reaction flights to high orbits. Both spaceplanes dock with station V using a “virtual” docking port that allows the craft to move into position nose-first but has no physical reality. At Station V, docking arms and cradles (not animated!) would hold the spaceplane in position (or move it to a location off the centerline) and a boarding access arm would snake up to the hatch on the side of the craft. The side hatch is also a legal docking port. The other craft would have to have a flexible collar to mate to the spaceplane's less-than-perfectly-flat exterior face. But this does not seem to be a major problem with 2001 technology. Both spaceplanes are commercial successes, including export sales. China makes Titovs under license; other countries have airlines and sometimes militaries that operate Orions |
− | |||
− | Due to the configuration, the Titov V can launch with a booster AND a drop tank at the same time. Nicknamed the | ||
− | |||
− | Both spaceplanes are commercial successes, including export sales. China makes Titovs under license; other countries have airlines and sometimes militaries that operate Orions | ||
(Western Europe, Australia) or Titovs (Eastern Europe, India). | (Western Europe, Australia) or Titovs (Eastern Europe, India). | ||
Line 71: | Line 68: | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | |||
{{Wo2001}} | {{Wo2001}} |