DG/DGIV in real life

[DanM]

Would it be possible to build a Delta Glider or DGIV in real life? And how much would it cost :rofl:

 

[supersonic]

Would it be possible to build a Delta Glider or DGIV in real life?

Probably not any time soon.

And how much would it cost :rofl:

To much to be any good.

 

[jinglesassy]

More likely to build the saturn 5 again then to build a delta glider

 

[EtherDragon]

Given the high Isp and high thrust of the Delta Glider, it is not possible using today's technology.

 

[Urwumpe]

Would it be possible to build a Delta Glider or DGIV in real life? And how much would it cost :rofl:

No. A DG would look nowhere like what you see in orbiter in reality. There are many small and large engineering bugs in it, that just work because Orbiter doesn't care about such internal details of the ship, it just trusts the add-on to be plausible.

Especially the power density of the main engines is dramatic - at 100% thrust operation and with perfect rocket engine efficiency, the engine surfaces would emit hard X-Ray radiation, and no known material could absorb this energy flux without getting ablated. Compared to this, the small bugs like the aft RCS impinging on the winglets is tolerable.

A realistic rocket engine with the specific impulse of the DG but a fraction of the thrust would already be as large as the DG itself.

 

[T.Neo]

Indeed.

A high thrust, high specific impulse engine (as seen in Science-Fiction :thumbup would require many technological advancements. Several concepts would probably require a magnetic nozzle, since no physical material would be able to stand up to the heat involved. But it is generally hard to get a high thrust and specific impulse. You could always use Orion though...

And many of the concepts proposed would leave bad contamination- Nuclear Salt Water rockets would be a particularly nasty example.

So it might be better to generally limit such engines to operation in space, or even interplanetary space.

 

[bwog]

To make the technology to be able to build it in the first place would cost at least 100 trillion dollars. The actual thing would cost at least 5 times that much.

 

[Sky Captain]

Yea problem is engine technologies that would allow such high performance don't scale down well. A nuclear Orion would be capable of achieving and exceeding the performance of DG but it would be very large and there is no way how it could be miniaturized to something the size of a typical jetfighter.

Also radiation is a problem especially for small craft since there is much less structure between the radioactive parts and crew module. In DG crew sits just ~12 m from radiation source while on a nuclear Orion spaceship there would be more then 100 meters of distance and massive blast shield, thousands of tons of structure and whatnot between the bomb initiation point and crew.

 

[squeaky024]

Don't forget that the DG needs to VTOL too, it would be impossible with current technology to create anything with sufficient power to reach LEO and have VTOL capabilities the size of the DG.

 

[Ghostrider]

To make the technology to be able to build it in the first place would cost at least 100 trillion dollars. The actual thing would cost at least 5 times that much.

Not even 100 trillion dollars can change the laws of physics.

 

[James.Denholm]

Not even 100 trillion dollars can change the laws of physics.

However, it can convince decision-makers otherwise.

 

[T.Neo]

Not even 100 trillion dollars can change the laws of physics.

At least it isn't an X-Wing...

 

[Urwumpe]

At least it isn't an X-Wing...

The X-Wing is kept flying by George Lucas Ego, the most powerful side of the force.

 

[River Crab]

Since the thread also has DGIV in it, what of the lower-setting DGIV variants?
Personally I think if they were building it to be launched by, say, an Ariane 5 or H-IIB type-rocket with a Delta Tug upper stage, it might be remotely plausible. Boeing did have some proposals for Delta-Glider-like spaceplanes atop Delta 4H. But still very remote. We can only dream...

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

Oh yeah, I'm currently doing a girl personification of the XR2, but when I do the DG and DG-S, the engines will be HUGE.

 

[HAL9001]

m3

you mean something like the russian cosmos 65-mp (special version of cosmos 3m) but - better and stronger.:lol:

 

[Izack]

On top of the aforementioned engineering faults, there is another thing.
Even if we had the kind of technology required to build a Deltaglider, I really doubt anyone would want to. With supercompact high-ISP/Thrust/Dv nuclear engines readily available, would you waste them on 5-passenger fighter jet SSTOs with little or no cargo capacity?

Face it, it's more practical to keep STS in use for another 50 years and use the technology to build interplanetary bulk carriers.

 

[RisingFury]

Would it be possible to build a Delta Glider or DGIV in real life?

I already have!

 

[T.Neo]

Even if we had the kind of technology required to build a Deltaglider, I really doubt anyone would want to. With supercompact high-ISP/Thrust/Dv nuclear engines readily available, would you waste them on 5-passenger fighter jet SSTOs with little or no cargo capacity?

Face it, it's more practical to keep STS in use for another 50 years and use the technology to build interplanetary bulk carriers.

I disagree, with something like LANTR or GCNR it would be more practical to build an SSTO with similar capability to the shuttle, perhaps with slightly higher payload and/or capability to fly 20 passengers.

With nuclear technology, reusable SSTO becomes far, far easier. But the political and PR problems are potentially insurmountable (unfortunately).

STS is far too impractical and expensive to be any sort of serious solution. Unfortunately- she's so pretty.

I already have!

Pure win. :tiphat:

 

[PaulG]

I just simply don't see why it couldn't work. All you'd need to do is change the gravitational constant of the universe (ala Deja Q). So simple...

 

[Izack]

STS is far too impractical and expensive to be any sort of serious solution. Unfortunately- she's so pretty.

Hmm, perhaps that wasn't the best way to word it. STS would be impractical to maintain/continue for 50 years, but nuclear/magic powered 5-person transports would be even worse.
If the technology is available, then something shuttle-like, but larger (and probably a lifting body, for protection from stress and aerodynamic heating) would be a better idea, IMO.

I already have!

How is that project coming along, anyway?