-
#40
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 04:02
-
vt_hokie - 31/1/2006 9:06 PM..
but rather first focus on developing a decent LEO transportation infrastructure.
The Russians have had a better than decent LEO transport system for almost 40 years, yet it has never gotten them beyond LEO.
-
#41
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 04:51
-
Dogsbd - 1/2/2006 12:02 AM
The Russians have had a better than decent LEO transport system for almost 40 years, yet it has never gotten them beyond LEO.
I guess my question, then, would be what good is going beyond LEO if you can't afford to send more than a handful of people a couple of times per year for short excursions? We won't see any significant exploration or exploitation of resources until we can transport people and payloads much more cheaply and routinely.
-
#42
by
Dobbins
on 01 Feb, 2006 05:09
-
Building a RLV that costs more to operate than using a ELV certainly isn't going to lower any costs to LEO. We aren't going to see the flight rates that are needed to make a RLV viable for the next couple of decades at least, so that approach to lower costs needs to be avoided.
I wish we could lower the costs of space exploration and exploitation by something as simple as building a RLV. While I'm wishing I also would like a warp drive engine so I could go visit Mr. Spock and Luke Skywalker. However I accepted one fact a long time ago, the cosmos isn't under any obligation to grant me my wishes.
The quest for some revolutionary means of providing CATS has failed over and over. It's time to move to a different approach, evolutionary development and start nickel and dimeing the cost to death.
-
#43
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 06:09
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 1:09 AM
The quest for some revolutionary means of providing CATS has failed over and over. It's time to move to a different approach, evolutionary development and start nickel and dimeing the cost to death.
Well, then forgetting about CATS for now, what type of evolutionary step do you think we could take if we started with a clean sheet of paper and developed STS version 2.0? Basically, I'm wondering what a modern space shuttle would look like if NASA were given the freedom to do what it wanted to do in the 1970's. That means no budget restraints resulting in design compromises like the external tank and solid propellant boosters, and no Air Force requirements interfering with NASA's design. Surely with proper resources and with today's available technology, we could develop a reusable space plane that is far more reliable and at least somewhat cheaper to fly than the current space shuttle, no?
-
#44
by
MATTBLAK
on 01 Feb, 2006 09:02
-
>>As much as I strongly admire Mark Wade, I regret his sulking about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down. Partly for good reason, but negative nonetheless. I pray, really pray that his comments aren't prescient.<< He seems to have the blinkers on in regards to not realising that Nasa isn't allowed the money or time to develop anything riskier, more expensive or better. The same reason Russia hasn't been allowed to go past the Soyuz for several decades.
I liked the CEV design proposals in order of preference:
1): The Boeing capsule with attached Mission Module.
2): The T-Space CXV derivatives.
3): The Schafer "blunt-biconic" (though it should have been bigger).
It's interesting to note that the ESAS Apollo-like CEV is closest to the Boeing proposal, and is now being sensibly down-sized to save weight.
-
#45
by
Dobbins
on 01 Feb, 2006 13:31
-
vt_hokie - 1/2/2006 2:09 AM
Well, then forgetting about CATS for now, what type of evolutionary step do you think we could take if we started with a clean sheet of paper and developed STS version 2.0?
We would get another spaceplane that costs more to fly than simply using a ELV. That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake instead of the justification of lowering costs that has always been the core reason for having one. The problem isn't just that the design of the current shuttle is faulty, it that the entire concept of a RLV is faulty with any flight rates that are possible in the next 25 years.
-
#46
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 18:08
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 9:31 AM
That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake.......
And that covers about 90% of the justification I ever see for an RLV.
-
#47
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 18:59
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 9:31 AM
We would get another spaceplane that costs more to fly than simply using a ELV. That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake instead of the justification of lowering costs that has always been the core reason for having one. The problem isn't just that the design of the current shuttle is faulty, it that the entire concept of a RLV is faulty with any flight rates that are possible in the next 25 years.
Well, if you're correct about that, then I guess you win the argument. If that is all we would get, I suppose it isn't worth the development cost. But how will we ever get to the point of RLV viability if we don't start taking evolutionary steps with new generations of launch vehicles? It seems like a chicken and the egg dilemma - how will there ever be a demand for higher flight rates until there is an economical means of transport?
-
#48
by
gladiator1332
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:30
-
When it comes to RLV's and LEO, why does NASA have to provide the answer? I think NASA should focus on going to the Moon, and let SpaceX, T/Space, Virgin Galactic, all solve the LEO problem.
Whether you like it or not, it costs a lot more for the government to do something. T/Space is offering to do ISS flights for much less than what NASA does now. And with paying customers for Virgin Galactic, I'm sure the price to launch SpaceShipTwo's till come down as well.
-
#49
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:37
-
Well, T/Space is proposing a capsule, and I just don't like capsules very much I guess! I want to see a real space shuttle replacement - a reusable vehicle with significant down mass capability that returns via controlled landing, rather than falling back by parachute. SpaceShipTwo would be exciting if it had the potential to lead to an orbital vehicle, but it really doesn't. A Mach 3 amusement park ride really has no practical value as a space transportation system. I guess I'm just enamored with "space planes"!
It's weird that the space shuttle might be the last one I see during my lifetime.
-
#50
by
gladiator1332
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:52
-
I wouldn't say that. Rutan does have plans for an Orbital version. How he works that coud be a decade away or so. I think SpaceDev is wokring on something as well. Originally their design was an X-34 clone, however, they switched to a lifting body design recently. I also think someone was also working on turning a Learjet into a winged space vehicle. Rather interesting.
Wings add comfort for passengers during re-entry and weight. When your payload is just cargo, it doens't make sense to use a winged design. That is why the winged spaceplanes we will see will be from Virgin Galactic and other similar companies. And even those these companies will start as "theme park rides" they will advance to something bigger.
The future looks pretty amazing. We'll get our capsule to the Moon. T/Space will build NASA's ISS transport, and then the private space ventures will build the sleek spaceplanes. The best part is, instead of just looking at these spacecraft, we may have a shot at flying in one. Hell, some of us guys who are looking to be commercial pilots once were out of college ma have a shot of flying one of these things some day. I sure hope I could....going to college next year to be a pilot, have my eyes on a nice 737, but I wouldn't turn up an oppurtunity to fly a spaceplane. That's my crazy "warp drive" type dream. :p
-
#51
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 20:24
-
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2006 3:30 PM
When it comes to RLV's and LEO, why does NASA have to provide the answer? I think NASA should focus on going to the Moon, and let SpaceX, T/Space, Virgin Galactic, all solve the LEO problem.
Agreed, 100%.
-
#52
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:18
-
While I agree that NASA does not have all the answers, I don't really expect that private industry will be able to fill the gap without substancial government subsidese. Just look at the trouble that airlines have in making a profit. And that is with proven technology, huge demand, and money to be made on both ends.
Airlines only have to bring a small amount of life support with them - and indeed, are bringing less and less every month - and they still can't make money.
No commercial entity has fielded a commercially viable booster, to say nothing of the space craft. The T/space concept is intreging, but how does it get to orbit? They are only proposing one part of the solution. Virgin's suborbital airline service may help to beat the door open, but I am reminded of the old adage, "What is the best way to make a small forturn in the airline business? Start with a large fortune."
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
-
#53
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:21
-
mike robel - 1/2/2006 8:18 PM
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
I tend to agree, although I'd love to be proven wrong. As I've said before, it would probably take 100 Paul Allens to fund even a basic orbital transportation system. And given the recent failures of Kistler and others, it seems that even modest efforts don't stand much chance of success without government funding.
-
#54
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:24
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I'm sorry, on the pad the shuttle looks like a kludge, Coming in for a landing, it looks like an airplane. It doesn't look like a space ship to me.
Apollo-Saturn IB looked like a space ship. The LM and the LSAM look like space ships. Heck, even the experimental DC-3 (prototype SSTO vehicle) looked like a space ship, and when it flew sideways, landed vertically, now THAT looked like a spaceship.
-
#55
by
gladiator1332
on 02 Feb, 2006 01:05
-
I have to agree with you. While I do find the Shuttle to be a really nice looking spacecraft, the CEV has some looks as well. The NG concept image looks really cool. Yes some of it is a bit spiced up to catch your eye, like the gold on the bottom of the CM and around the windows. (Actually the silver and gold pain scheme isn't so bad) and the solar arrays acutally look quite beautiful. Though it probably doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint, I beleive the X-Shaped arrays on the ATV and the old Lockheed capsule are a little bit nicer looking than the two arrays that NG and NASA picked. But were not trying to win beauty contests here, were going to the friggin moon! (With some style!
)
The Flight International cover and some of the discussion here has really solidified my views on the CEV, and I have grown to really like the design.
-
#56
by
Daniel Handlin
on 02 Feb, 2006 02:04
-
mike robel - 1/2/2006 8:18 PM
While I agree that NASA does not have all the answers, I don't really expect that private industry will be able to fill the gap without substancial government subsidese. Just look at the trouble that airlines have in making a profit. And that is with proven technology, huge demand, and money to be made on both ends.
Airlines only have to bring a small amount of life support with them - and indeed, are bringing less and less every month - and they still can't make money.
No commercial entity has fielded a commercially viable booster, to say nothing of the space craft. The T/space concept is intreging, but how does it get to orbit? They are only proposing one part of the solution. Virgin's suborbital airline service may help to beat the door open, but I am reminded of the old adage, "What is the best way to make a small forturn in the airline business? Start with a large fortune."
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
I think that the commercial spaceflight business is different than the airline model, in that they're operating a much smaller number of vehicles. While government subsidies might help, the private industry will, I think, get to LEO anyway eventually. Low-cost LEO access is desirable for these companies, so it will be developed. NASA should be a risk-taking high-tech agency, blazing the way to the Moon and Mars while the private industry follows and actually opens it up later on. NASA's efforts to develop an RLV are not relevant to its core mission, which is to promote exploration. People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years. A capsule is up to the task of going to the Moon, and NASA reaped far more scientific benefits through Apollo than it ever has in LEO.
-
#57
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:02
-
Daniel Handlin - 1/2/2006 10:04 PM
People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years.
That's where I have to disagree. Maybe if we actually followed through on a single program instead of engaging half heartedly in half a dozen programs and then cancelling all of them prior to completion, we might actually get somewhere!
-
#58
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:25
-
Not to get too far off topic, but why was X-34 killed? Orbital had the darn vehicle built already, fer chrissakes! And canceling X-38/CRV was also a travesty, imo. Meanwhile, X-37 lives on for now as a DARPA project, it seems...
-
#59
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:46
-
Daniel Handlin - 1/2/2006 10:04 PM
I think that the commercial spaceflight business is different than the airline model, in that they're operating a much smaller number of vehicles. While government subsidies might help, the private industry will, I think, get to LEO anyway eventually. Low-cost LEO access is desirable for these companies, so it will be developed. NASA should be a risk-taking high-tech agency, blazing the way to the Moon and Mars while the private industry follows and actually opens it up later on. NASA's efforts to develop an RLV are not relevant to its core mission, which is to promote exploration. People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years. A capsule is up to the task of going to the Moon, and NASA reaped far more scientific benefits through Apollo than it ever has in LEO.
Then what is the business model? how would this resupply effort be profitable, without considerable government subisdy, for 4 - 6 flights per year to the ISS? Tourism is right out except for the super rich. It is possible that the somewhat less rich could use Virgin Airlines for superfast shuttle service between London, Paris, and New York as a replacement for the Concorde, but that lost money two and needed subsidies.
For the last two years we have paid the Russians to man and resupply the ISS. Clearly, they are not making any money doing so.
There are no goods to buy up there and return to earth to sell. Everything they need has to come from the Earth. Color me unimaginitive, but again, if we can't make airlines profitable, I don't see any hope for spacelines in the near future (10 - 25 years). Beyong that, who knows?
We certainly did not need LEO operations to get to the mooon. About the only use I can really see for the ISS is as a surrogate for a manned mars missions. Add a mission module for 4 - 6 astronauts hooked up to the things. As they bore holes in the sky, they rehearse some of the aspects of the Mars flight. At the end of six months, they land and are zipped off to Antarctica for a 12 month stay of exploration. A quick return to a launch site and it is back to the ISS for the trip home.
It's weird that the space shuttle might be the last one I see during my lifetime.
)