Jim - 30/6/2006 11:03 AM
... Just remember CEV is not just for LEO, it is for lunar and Mars Return
True, I just want to note that there is no need to qualify this approach with "the Moon, Mars and beyond". Truth is capsules are rather great "even" for LEO, and sub-orbital.
In a little fit of irritation, and with
nothing personal meant I have to ask you AGAIN hokie: What IS it with you and spaceplanes?? You're flogging an (
unfortunately) very dead horse. I know it's human nature to sometimes not let something go, but
really....
I and others have
TOLD you that private spaceplanes are on the way and that Shuttle is going the way of Concorde -- fragile, expensive to operate and (
allegedly) far too expensive to replace with something "better". Better for trips to LEO, that is.
And have you noticed: the Klipper lifting body/spaceplane design has been dropped, dropped DROPPED. It's going to be (
drumroll)... a
CAPSULE-derivation!! Didn't I tell you months ago that might happen? (
sadly).
Throw your support behind Virgin Galactic and Rutan's Scaled composites. They look to be virtually the only show in town now. Otherwise, this is the
only kind of spaceplane you're going to see anywhere anytime soon:
Private space planes don't appear to be on the way. I tend to think better of the private 'sector'. Actually private capsules appear to be on the way. Yes, even from the Mojave direction
MATTBLAK - 2/7/2006 5:58 AM
In a little fit of irritation, and with nothing personal meant I have to ask you AGAIN hokie: What IS it with you and spaceplanes?? You're flogging an (unfortunately) very dead horse. I know it's human nature to sometimes not let something go, but really....
I dunno...just can't get excited about capsules, or let go of my desire for a next generation reusable space plane. You're right, I guess it's human nature. Did Jack Northrop ever let go of his desire to see a flying wing?
Seriously, though, the Apollo-derived capsule design seems like a significant step backward to me for numerous reasons, and an admission of defeat by NASA. It's as if they're saying, "We've tried ambitious programs, and they're too hard. Might as well do something relatively cheap and easy to assure success."
I and others have TOLD you that private spaceplanes are on the way and that Shuttle is going the way of Concorde -- fragile, expensive to operate and (allegedly) far too expensive to replace with something "better". Better for trips to LEO, that is.
And have you noticed: the Klipper lifting body/spaceplane design has been dropped, dropped DROPPED. It's going to be (drumroll)... a CAPSULE-derivation!! Didn't I tell you months ago that might happen? (sadly).
Throw your support behind Virgin Galactic and Rutan's Scaled composites. They look to be virtually the only show in town now. Otherwise, this is the only kind of spaceplane you're going to see anywhere anytime soon:
That's really a shame. I went into the aerospace industry initially with the hope of maybe getting to play a small role in the evolution of transportation (my current involvement with comm sats notwithstanding), be it by working on a new SST or a new generation of spacecraft along the lines of NASP, VentureStar, Delta Clipper, or maybe something else that would be innovative and groundbreaking. I certainly did not foresee us giving up on advancement and becoming afraid of "unproven technology", and my goal was never to play a role in developing a slightly updated Apollo capsule.
So the method is MORE important than the mission, VT?
I also think it's unfair to call NASA "afraid." As a space enthusiast, you more than the general public should respect the risk NASA takes to put and keep humans alive in space. They are trying, as hard as they can, to RECREATE the infrastructure to explore the galaxy-- a feat they walked away from in the Nixon era.
I know you're a spaceplane fan, but PLEASE stop whipping NASA for being "too afraid" to use the ONE SHAPE you happen to prefer. Sending humans to the moon is MUCH bolder than floating in LEO.
zinfab - 2/7/2006 2:45 PM
So the method is MORE important than the mission, VT?
The method is critical
to the mission. We won't achieve much in space until we can fly affordably and frequently.
I know you're a spaceplane fan, but PLEASE stop whipping NASA for being "too afraid" to use the ONE SHAPE you happen to prefer. Sending humans to the moon is MUCH bolder than floating in LEO.
Yes and no. The ESAS mission, to me, is not very bold at all. It is the logical choice for an agency trying to look bold on a shoestring budget, and maybe trying to recapture some past glory, but I have yet to see a real purpose for returning to the moon, aside from not wanting the Chinese to get there before we return (a reason which may have some validity). The funding simply isn't there for any sort of lunar base or long term settlement. NASA will be lucky to fly its weeklong excursion with a crew of four maybe three or four times per year. What's the point of that?
Sure, sending humans to the moon is risky, and yes, it would be cool to see people walking on the lunar surface again. But what's the real long term purpose? If it is establishing permanent infrastructure on the moon and eventually sending humans to Mars, how does NASA plan to accomplish that when it barely has enough money for its basic weeklong excursions? What will the cost per flight be? Given that it will take both a CLV launch and an ARES/HLV launch for each flight, it'll probably cost as much or more per mission than the space shuttle does!
agreed Zinfab, and since when going to the moon to stay is "relatively cheap and easy" ?
I don't see it less inspiring than going on circling endlessly in LEO for another 30 years, even if it's cheap by then, there is just no point.
the only viable way to generate the kind of cheap access to LEO with spaceplane and all, is to need it, excursions to the moon and mars can give us just that: a good reason
if we do it the other way around, and concentrate on cheap and efficient access to LEO first, and given that we succeed, then the budgets will shrink, the workforce too (since there is no need for big money and thousands of engineers if we have a truly cheap and efficient spacecraft) and in 10 years we will be no closer to the planets than we already are,we will have mastered access toLEO, but we will need another concerted national effort to go further, just like today.
LEO is only a step, not a destination, and it should be treated as such, going for the planets (the actual destination) will enable both cheap access to space AND exploration, The best of both worlds as one might say.
So don't worry VT, you will see cheap access to space and innovation, maybe not in the next few years but they will appear within our lifetime, you can count on it, look at spacedev dreamchaser, it's got to be a sign !
Your analogy about the Northrop/Flying wing is a good one!!
Given that it will take both a CLV launch and an ARES/HLV launch for each flight, it'll probably cost as much or more per mission than the space shuttle does!
In fairness, even if it costs that much (which I doubt), It will be doing something far more interesting then station reboost.
bad_astra - 2/7/2006 4:02 PM
In fairness, even if it costs that much (which I doubt), It will be doing something far more interesting then station reboost.
See, to me walking around on the moon isn't much more interesting than ISS missions. But to each his own...
Now, if humans were to really leave Earth orbit and travel to Mars, that would be interesting!
MATTBLAK - 2/7/2006 3:30 PM
Your analogy about the Northrop/Flying wing is a good one!!
Yes it is. In fact, it is directly applicable. the Wing came out in the late 40's ahead of its time. It took more that 40 years for it to be realized. Shuttle concept ahead of its time, no staying with capsules until technolgy develops.
So the west was going to wait until the transcontinental railroad was finished to be explored.
No, it was explored by other transportation methods and then "exploited" by trains.
ESAS is not to eploit but to explore. And it doesn't take a flight a week to do that.
the first step to going to mars is returning to the moon. it certainly makes sense to use the moon as a martian training ground. it IS only 4 days away (instead of 6months - 1.5 years).
vt_hokie - 2/7/2006 3:28 PM
bad_astra - 2/7/2006 4:02 PM
In fairness, even if it costs that much (which I doubt), It will be doing something far more interesting then station reboost.
See, to me walking around on the moon isn't much more interesting than ISS missions. But to each his own...
Now, if humans were to really leave Earth orbit and travel to Mars, that would be interesting!
I'd like to see my kids go to school out the door of our condo in an O'neil colony. But for now since I have little choice I'll hope the CEV is actually built.
vt_hokie - 2/7/2006 12:21 PM
I dunno...just can't get excited about capsules, or let go of my desire for a next generation reusable space plane. You're right, I guess it's human nature. Seriously, though, the Apollo-derived capsule design seems like a significant step backward to me for numerous reasons.
That's not true. A capsule is best at coming in hot. There is nothing backwards about something that works.
I loved Buran myself--but it is time to move on. With Buran--it was only one of many Energiya payloads. Very small winged spaceplanes are quite vulnerable to weight creep, pitch loads, etc. Large winged SSTO designs need wings even less, since a lot of the mass has to go into wings, heat shields for the whole body of the craft and not just the orbiter--and the result is that engineers try to make the tankage thinner--and it all winds up being an eggshell or worse.
Mid sized designs like Buran seem to accept wings best. It is compact enough to be buildable--but large enough to be usable. If you try to put a docking hatch, landing gear, etc. on small spaceplanes--you run out of room real fast and about all you can put in it are action figures.
With Buran/STS--the mass of the wings and the orbiter give you something of a stable work platform and allow you to apply force. With STS and ISS--the dog is still wagging the tail, as it were--with the orbiter still up there with ISS in terms of mass.
This is why I lament the Energiya/Buran combo so very much. It was what STS should have been--a spacelaunch system. Zarya capsules could have been launched atop Zenit--with that as an EELV to replace R-7 and Proton. Buran would have been the orbiter--with 100 ton station modules being launched in its place. Energiya could evolve into Vulkan over time for Mars missions.
But the USSR fell--less due to its space program than due to getting overextended in a useless invasion and getting thousands of soldiers killed for no reason. Sounds familiar.
The parallels are uncanny.
