There was very little money (relatively) spent on the various SSTO and USSP projects. All of them that actually made it past the paper stage approached the problem(s) with the contemporary technology/materials. Not much was spend on new tech. At the time, no it wasn't really practical. But then we didn't really try that hard.
Those that achieved any kind of success (Delta Clipper) were quickly squashed by the politically powerful STS and "big rockets" lobby in NASA, the USAF, and Congress. Lots of books and web info about it.
That is the party line...
Why was there lots of research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO ) in the 90's? But we are not doing it today? Why is that?
There was lots and lots and lots of research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO ) in the 90's by NASA and the European space program than they all abandoned it? All the different X-programs and such just to name some. In the 90's it was rage many different yes different concepts and ideas of different space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit. Than they all abandoned it.But we are not doing any research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit like in the 90's.Some say money or political will support to get people back interested into NASA.Going to the moon or mars sound better in public eye than doing research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO )
Or that space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit was more costly than using rocket with two to three stages with space capsule.
I know the space shuttle was bad idea and cost them more money in long term than using a rocket with two to three stages with space capsule.
There was very little money (relatively) spent on the various SSTO and USSP projects. At the time, no it wasn't really practical. But then we didn't really try that hard. Those that achieved any kind of success (Delta Clipper) were quickly squashed by the politically powerful STS and "big rockets" lobby in NASA, the USAF, and Congress. Lots of books and web info about it. Won't be done today because it would be "expensive". There isn't the money available to develop a parallel advanced lift architecture when the traditional model, with its entrenched interests, is sucking all of the money away. The Government wants big expendable rockets, and that is what Government gets.
nec207, have you considered the idea that abandoning space planes and single-stage-to-orbit was the right decision? Perhaps not forever, but for the near future it seems there are better places to make investments.Right now, with our current technology, single-stage-to-orbit is a bad idea. The margins are slim enough with two-stage-to-orbit. Staging has some disadvantages, but single-stage-to-orbit has much worse disadvantages.That's not likely to change without some fundamental technological breakthrough, such as a high-Isp engine.With space planes, the trade-offs are less clear-cut. Boeing and SpaceX, the two winners of commercial crew contracts, both chose capsules over space planes. And NASA chose a capsule for Orion. So, there's some evidence capsules are the better choice.
Quote from: JamesG123 on 11/17/2015 03:43 amThere was very little money (relatively) spent on the various SSTO and USSP projects. All of them that actually made it past the paper stage approached the problem(s) with the contemporary technology/materials. Not much was spend on new tech. At the time, no it wasn't really practical. But then we didn't really try that hard.When limited resources are available, they should be spent on the most promising paths forward. Single-stage-to-orbit is very clearly not the most promising path if you want to actually accomplish the most in space over the next several decades.Quote from: JamesG123 on 11/17/2015 03:43 amThose that achieved any kind of success (Delta Clipper) were quickly squashed by the politically powerful STS and "big rockets" lobby in NASA, the USAF, and Congress. Lots of books and web info about it.Delta Clipper didn't really show any way forward to a practical single-stage-to-orbit system. There were plenty of reasons not to move forward with it that have nothing to do with political pressure.
Why was there lots of research into space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO ) in the 90's?
But we are not doing it today? Why is that?
What technological breakthrough is needed to make space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO possible? What major problem holding back space planes and or single-stage-to-orbit?
Those that achieved any kind of success (Delta Clipper) were quickly squashed by the politically powerful STS and "big rockets" lobby in NASA, the USAF, and Congress.
Quote from: JamesG123 on 11/17/2015 03:43 am Those that achieved any kind of success (Delta Clipper) were quickly squashed by the politically powerful STS and "big rockets" lobby in NASA, the USAF, and Congress. BS. Not true at all. Let's stick with facts and not this nonsense
I always get a bit melancholic when I look at the famous painting of Gary Hudson's Phoenix SSTO. It was such an inspiring vision of the future of space transportation. Gary certainly believed in the feasibility of the concept (even with the state of technology back then)...