Quote from: OV-106 on 09/26/2009 01:41 pmQuote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.{sarcasm mode}We're too stupid, cheap, and incompetent an aerospace industry to do anything but a capsule. After we wipe off the drool for several decades, maybe there may be residual engineering engineering gene fragments that may breed back into the culture to in a hundred years try something thats both safe and a little more developed than falling (with style!) into an ocean. At least Soyuz does land, unlike POR Orion.{/sarcasm mode}
Quote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.
Is there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpg
Quote from: tamarack on 09/26/2009 08:36 amQuote from: jongoff on 09/26/2009 05:15 amBut getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.People keep repeatedly missing the point on what this about. What was just described above is the standard contracting business. In many cases the government agency awards development contracts to multiple companies until a final down select decision is made and the real DDT&E and production contracts are awarded.What this whole concept has at its core, is very little government money is available (even less if it goes to multpile companies) and it is up to them to bring the rest of the money roll. NASA would be a customer just as any one else could be a customer for this vehicle. Customer, very important word, because in this context it does not mean the same as having ultimate contract authority where every move made is at the blessing of the agency who pays for everything you do. Do you think it is coincidence that Boeing has partnered with Bigelow? If this really continues to gain traction, I expect the FAA to enter into the mix here soon, more so than they are already, and there will be a standardized set of requirements crewed vehicles must achieve in order to get certification. NASA will have input into that but I doubt they will be the ultimate authority.
Quote from: jongoff on 09/26/2009 05:15 amBut getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.
But getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.
NASA doesn't want to be the authority, unless it is also the customer.
If this really continues to gain traction, I expect the FAA to enter into the mix here soon, more so than they are already, and there will be a standardized set of requirements crewed vehicles must achieve in order to get certification. NASA will have input into that but I doubt they will be the ultimate authority.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 09/27/2009 06:10 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 09/26/2009 01:41 pmQuote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.{sarcasm mode}We're too stupid, cheap, and incompetent an aerospace industry to do anything but a capsule. After we wipe off the drool for several decades, maybe there may be residual engineering engineering gene fragments that may breed back into the culture to in a hundred years try something thats both safe and a little more developed than falling (with style!) into an ocean. At least Soyuz does land, unlike POR Orion.{/sarcasm mode}Sarcasm aside, why isn't a capsule good enough? Over-complexity is not something one would want in a very, very young commercial market where your competition could out price you and crush your business just because they did not over do the plumbing and it doesn't look as "cool" as one would think because of a sci-fi movie or something.
1. Boeing could offer to study modifications that would make X-37 suitable for a Commercial Crew Transport System. Would that be of interest to anyone at NASA?2. As for why this is better than a capsule: the goal of 72 hour turnaround seems feasible for a winged vehicle that has smoothly landed on a runway, but seems implausible for a splashed or hard-landed capsule.
Quote from: sdsds on 09/28/2009 01:00 am1. Boeing could offer to study modifications that would make X-37 suitable for a Commercial Crew Transport System. Would that be of interest to anyone at NASA?2. As for why this is better than a capsule: the goal of 72 hour turnaround seems feasible for a winged vehicle that has smoothly landed on a runway, but seems implausible for a splashed or hard-landed capsule.1. No it couldn't, because the X-37 is too small for manned applications.2. There is no legitimate requirement for such a turnaround nor is it possible on an EELV. This the task of prop loading would take longer.
Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. ..
The capsule is the way of the future. ...Wings are practically obsolete in space.
1 As regards 1:The SMV is "about 29 ft. long with a roughly 15-ft. wingspan", has "a small payload bay" capable of carrying "small satellites." The payload bay can also "be reconfigured for diverse operations." A human in an EMU might be about the size of a small satellite. SMV could be, 'For those times you really need to get to or from ISS in six and a half hours.'As regards 2:Again quoting Covault: "It is designed for quick turnaround - 72 hr. or less between missions." USAF apparently wants that, whether or not the requirement for such a turnaround is 'legitimate.' In a national security "Operationally Responsive Space" scenario, consider one functional SMV and four EELV pads. Each pad need only launch every 12 days to keep the SMV busy. (The need for more launch personnel would be met by their "shadow force" of uniformed missile-men. ULA wouldn't mind them manning their launch systems, would they?)
Wings are practically obsolete in space.
The capsule is the way of the future.
Capsules, lifting bodies, or winged rlvs it doesn't matter, what matters is that it be cheap, robust, and safe. That's why I keep coming back to NASA returning to a research and development agency, not an operational space agency, nor an exploration agency, at least in the human space flight arena.The thing that hamstrings every exploration or operational space program is the cost of access to LEO. Until that becomes not merely cheap but routine there isn't a single exploration program that will be sustainable. Anything else is wishful thinking.
The capsule is the way of the future. Was it Henry Spencer or someone, who had a nice historical analogy:Zeppelins, airships operated with the sea ship mentality: lots of crew and manual operations everywhere. To increase power, you call the engine room etc... Passengers had lots of luxuries and there were only very few of them.Airplanes (at least the successful ones) started with a completely different mindset. The ship paradigm just didn't work there, because space was at premium.They probably seemed small, ugly and inelegant compared to the massive airships with large crews, but they just came and wiped out the airships with their superior capabilities.Air was a different environment than the sea, and you needed very different solutions there. Sometimes you just have to let go of obsolete assumptions.Wings are practically obsolete in space.
I cannot disagree with you more and you have it completely backwards.Dragon is the only one of the present crop of capsule vehicles that at least tries to do something better.It did move most of the service module systems into the reentry vehicle and claims to have a reusable LV.But F9/Dragon is no DC3 at best it's a ford trimotor.Vehicles like the shuttle but also Orion,Apollo,Gemini,Soyuz,and the ATV are akin to the Zeppelins because they are expensive to fly and require large ground crews.Vehicles similar Skylon or Delta Clipper when built will likely be the first DC3 of space.But the vehicle also has to be safe for most people to use.If you have to be a fit test pilot to ride it the vehicle will never be hugely successful.As for an earlier post about needing to fit in a fairing the shuttle does not have a fairing a fairing and it should be unnecessary for any other vehicle that has an aerodynamic shape.In someways the post Columbia mindset is a cancer when you consider innovation.
safety requires a direct reentry (medical reasons - shortest path).