Manned Spacecraft Programs

[mike robel]

Like many of you, I am frustrated by the apparent lack of progress on SLS/Orion, after all, if we landed on the moon in less than 10 years, why is it taking us so long to regenerate a manned orbital capability.

So I went back and did some research, mostly using Astroautix.com and NASA info, some from here, and even a little Wikipedia and came up with the below chart.

I went back to try to find the earliest thing that pertained to the program.  Apollo entries date back to 1953 (the year I was born) as they were trying to define engines and such.  In that case, it took quite a long time, 16 years or so.  For Apollo, I started launches with Saturn I,  but did not include Little Joe II launches, etc.

I include the Ares I "model rocket" flight (in deference to Jim) as a Constellation Launch.  After all, no one had launched a single SRB on any kind of flight before. 

I don't include SS-1 and Virgin because I didn't feel like it,, perhaps I should have left the X-15 out as well.

I put 2014 as the end for all the current programs, just because I wanted to have a current duration.

As you can see, the average length of a program was 11.2 years.

I've included a screen shot as well as my workbook for people to fiddle.



I didn't put in any footnotes and I don't claim that this is 100% accurate, but I believe it to be in the ball park, and it can serve as a point of discussion.  I probably have the number of Dragon launches incorrect and I probably should include every Falcon 9 launch to its credit.

I invite correction and discussion.  Lets keep it to facts as much as possible.

Edit:  Added a graph to better illustrate the flight rate of each program.

[Proponent]

Dyna-Soar began in 1952?  I thought Bell Aircraft first presented it to the Air Force in December 1957.  Exactly what the program's formal start date was, I don't know, but I would think it would have been sometime after that.

[mike robel]

Again, I went back to a date that appeared to have a relationship with the program.  Not that it was called a particular thing at that time.  I think you are correct that Dyna-Soar was 1957, I think I equated the Bell BOMI with DynaSoar.

the 1953 instance for Apollo for instance is  reference that pertained to and appears to ended up as the  F-1.

[TomH]

I include the Ares I "model rocket" flight (in deference to Jim) as a Constellation Launch.  After all, no one had launched a single SRB on any kind of flight before.  :)I invite correction and discussion.

Though they are not technically boosters, all of our ICBMs and SLBMs are solids, so there is a sizeable knowledge base re. flying solid rockets. As far as something capable of carring a slew of MIRVs halfway around the planet and wiping out another civilization, I would beg to differ with Jim re. that being a "model rocket."

[russianhalo117]

I include the Ares I "model rocket" flight (in deference to Jim) as a Constellation Launch.  After all, no one had launched a single SRB on any kind of flight before.  :)I invite correction and discussion.

Though they are not technically boosters, all of our ICBMs and SLBMs are solids, so there is a sizeable knowledge base re. flying solid rockets. As far as something capable of carring a slew of MIRVs halfway around the planet and wiping out another civilization, I would beg to differ with Jim re. that being a "model rocket."

To emphasize further for him: all of our current ICBMs and SLBMs are solids, as well as several, but not all of our previous ICBMs and SLBMs are also solids.

[Jim]

I would beg to differ with Jim re. that being a "model rocket."

That term was specific to Ares I-X vs SRM vehicles.  Ares I-X was the world's largest and most expensive model rocket.   Look at its trajectory and mission phases, it did no more than an Estes Alpha flight. 

Ares I-X was a complete waste of money, it cost as much as a Discovery class mission and provide several magnitudes less data. 

I got to calm down.

[TomH]

I would beg to differ with Jim re. that being a "model rocket."

That term was specific to Ares I-X vs SRM vehicles.  Ares I-X was the world's largest and most expensive model rocket.   Look at its trajectory and mission phases, it did no more than an Estes Alpha flight. 

Ares I-X was a complete waste of money, it cost as much as a Discovery class mission and provide several magnitudes less data. 

I got to calm down.

  Not trying to rattle your cage, Jim. I actually agree on the trajectory, cost, and knowledge gained, but there really wasn't anything model sized about it. Sometimes it helps to use similes instead of metaphors. And yea, calmness is better for one's health than non-calmness.

[JasonAW3]

I would beg to differ with Jim re. that being a "model rocket."

That term was specific to Ares I-X vs SRM vehicles.  Ares I-X was the world's largest and most expensive model rocket.   Look at its trajectory and mission phases, it did no more than an Estes Alpha flight. 

Ares I-X was a complete waste of money, it cost as much as a Discovery class mission and provide several magnitudes less data. 

I got to calm down.

And it was WAY too expensive at half the cost...

[TomH]

Mike: not a correction, just a notation. IIRC, although the chronological sequence was Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the programatic sequence (in relation to the capsules-not the LVs) is somewhat more that Mercury evolved into Apollo, while Gemini took a somewhat separate developmental path (think LAS, etc.). There was also debate whether to evolve Mercury into Apollo or evolve Gemini into Big Gemini for the lunar program. I'm sure others will remember the details more clearly.

[darkenfast]

Could you label the columns, please?  I'm not quite clear on what some of them are there for.  Thanks!

[mike robel]

Ack.  My bad.  Replaced with a better Picture.

[Arb]

Had to Google MOL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory

[Mark S]

Those 135 Shuttle flights really stand out in the chart. Only X-15 had more flights, and I don't think the two really compare.

Shuttle will be a point of national pride for many years to come, much like the Apollo moon landings. The capabilities that we have lost with its retirement will only become more apparent as time goes by.

Hopefully, some combination of commercial LEO access, ISS missions, and SLS BLEO missions will eventually fill the void. Maybe someday even private BLEO missions will have their place.

Cheers!

[Ronpur50]

Apollo's first manned flights should be 1968, right?

I think the big number to look at is the time from the start of the program to first flight.  Years for these projects.  If only NSF had been around then so we could debate the progress or lack of progress on all of these old programs.....

[mike robel]

First manned flight, yes.  But I couinted the Saturn I flights as part of Apollo.  SA-7, 8, 9, and 10 lofted boilerplate capsules and the early Saturn IB flights lifted various suborbital head shield tests, etc.

[Ronpur50]

First manned flight, yes.  But I couinted the Saturn I flights as part of Apollo.  SA-7, 8, 9, and 10 lofted boilerplate capsules and the early Saturn IB flights lifted various suborbital head shield tests, etc.

Sorry, I meant your chart say 1969 for first manned flight and first orbital flight.

[Vahe231991]

Like many of you, I am frustrated by the apparent lack of progress on SLS/Orion, after all, if we landed on the moon in less than 10 years, why is it taking us so long to regenerate a manned orbital capability.

So I went back and did some research, mostly using Astroautix.com and NASA info, some from here, and even a little Wikipedia and came up with the below chart.

I went back to try to find the earliest thing that pertained to the program.  Apollo entries date back to 1953 (the year I was born) as they were trying to define engines and such.  In that case, it took quite a long time, 16 years or so.  For Apollo, I started launches with Saturn I,  but did not include Little Joe II launches, etc.

I include the Ares I "model rocket" flight (in deference to Jim) as a Constellation Launch.  After all, no one had launched a single SRB on any kind of flight before. 

I don't include SS-1 and Virgin because I didn't feel like it,, perhaps I should have left the X-15 out as well.

I put 2014 as the end for all the current programs, just because I wanted to have a current duration.

As you can see, the average length of a program was 11.2 years.

I've included a screen shot as well as my workbook for people to fiddle.



I didn't put in any footnotes and I don't claim that this is 100% accurate, but I believe it to be in the ball park, and it can serve as a point of discussion.  I probably have the number of Dragon launches incorrect and I probably should include every Falcon 9 launch to its credit.

I invite correction and discussion.  Lets keep it to facts as much as possible.

Edit:  Added a graph to better illustrate the flight rate of each program.

There are a number of tweaks and updates to be made to the chart and table:
1. The X-15 actually carried out a total of 199 free suborbital flights, not 174.
2. The Boeing CST-100 Starliner has carried out two unmanned test flights, and is preparing for its first manned mission next month.
3. More than 30 launches of the Dragon spacecraft have been conducted so far.
4. The first SLS launch took place on November 16, 2022.