F
frodo1008
Guest
OK, I am now going to try to start the first poll that I have ever tried here, hope it works out correctly, and becomes at least somewhat popular. I apologize ahead of time, as this may become the longest post I have ever tried, and most people know that I am known for long posts anyway!
The poll is going to be about the various choices for getting human beings into LEO, at least to the height of the ISS.
I am excluding getting materials to LEO at this time, as I think the best methodology for this is simply what some refer to as “A Big Dumb Rocket”, or a Very Heavy Lift Rocket. This could be either developed from the Delta IV, Atlas V, or the Falcon 9 (if spacex is anywhere near as successful as we all hope they will be).
Personally, I do not think that NASA should be using the relatively vast amount of funding required to develop their own rocket in the Ares V class. They should just be using these other options, and then concentrating on the methods of going further out into the solar system, and leave getting the materials up to Leo to the more private interests. While I will always be supportive of NASA, I have come to the conclusion that they should leave the details up to the contractors and pure private interests, and that would be far less expensive than doing it themselves.
So the poll is going to be about what is the best method of getting Human Beings into orbit.
The time frame is the near future, and the limits are some ten non astronaut types and pilots into an orbit similar to the orbit of the ISS (at perhaps a better inclination however). These people would be relatively wealthy and healthy, and would not necessarily be astronauts in themselves. However, they would (at least in the beginning) be people that would work on such space infrastructure as space stations, and either be now or in the neat future even just wealthy and healthy spaced tourists.
This is the kind of scenario that NASA originally wanted for the Space Transportation System, and the space shuttle.
I am excluding such very future options as laser pushing efforts or space elevators as they do not now have relevancy to getting human beings into orbit in the near future. I am certain that developmental efforts for such things are very worthwhile, but as I am now 67 years old, I do not ever expect to see it happen anyway, and so do not wish to see major efforts expended on this type of thing at this time. Let us stick to what we know at least has possibilities of working.
OK, so we now open the envelopes please!
(a) A Horizontal Take-Off Two Stage to Orbit system such as NASA wanted to begin with.
The original systems developed by the various contractors of NASA (and there were a whole lot more of them in those days) for the Space Transportation System, were for the most part Horizontal Take-Off, Two Stages to Orbit (TSTO) systems. These consisted of the orbiter as it generally now is used, but instead of the very large Solid Rocket Motors, would have a very large fly-back booster that the orbiter would generally be placed on top of and launched from at a speed of high subsonic or even possibly low sonic velocity. The booster would ordinarily be powered by large fan jets for take off (and landing), and also might have a rocket engine mounted in the back for addition thrust at altitude (above 50,000 feet at a minimum). I do not include those designs that only had rocket engines for the booster, and would then take off only vertically, as this would be just another version of the current space shuttle. Oh heck, why not, I do have some ten choices! (PS: At least I thought that I had ten choices anyway!)
Both types of systems would require quite a bit of funding for the fly back boosters at the very least. But, (in particular the Horizontal Take-Off method) would permit a far reduced launch crew, a greatly increased launch rate, and therefore in the long run should be far less expensive than the current system. That was the original idea of the Space Transportation System at least! Too bad, Congress forced NASA into the magnificent kluge the shuttle system was to eventually become, instead of doing it right in the first place!
(b) Or a Vertical Take-Off Two Stage to Orbit system.
Similar to the current shuttle system.
(c) A Horizontal Take-Off Single Stage to Orbit system.
I consider this to be the “Holy Grail” Of systems to get Human Beings into Orbit. You take off from a relatively normal airport (with at least some special facilities), using high speed jet engines to get you up to at least Mach 3. Then hypersonic jets take over to get you up to at least Mach 15, where linear aero spike rockets across the back push you into orbit. The craft itself is a type of lifting body so the wings are relatively small.
This was the original National Aerospace Plane (NASP) type of idea. I personally think it is not only be most interesting type of design, but also by far the best for having a relatively small launch crew, far more frequent launches, and in the long run far less costs.
However, there IS still a whole lot of technology (and this is what killed the NASP) to be developed, especially in the hypersonic area. But, I do have hopes that the US Military with its far greater Black Budgets will eventually develop this very important technology, in as little as another decade at least. We will just have to wait and see.
(d) Horizontal launch systems with a launch ramp.
A corollary (thanks to a great extent to the excellent Mr. Halman) to the Horizontal Take-Off concepts would be some kind of a launch ramp type of system similar in some ways to the systems used on aircraft carriers. The major difference between the aircraft carrier systems and this type of system would be that the capabilities would have to be far larger to launch the far greater masses involved. The only power that I can now see such a system using would be some type of maglev type of power.
Again, much development remaining, and therefore much expense, but a very interesting idea to reduce the eventual launch costs! For the more distant future perhaps such a system could be a tunnel system where the air pressure is greatly reduced, and therefore far higher velocities could be achieved.
(e) Vertical Take-Off and Landing Single Stage to Orbit System. (DCX type)
While I do realize the success of the DCX type of projects, I personally do not see how we could not only get such a system up to the height needed for orbit, but even more the 17,500 miles per hour horizontal velocity needed. But I did think it was a legitimate choice anyway.
(f) Vertical Take-Off and Landing Multiple Stage to Orbit Systems.
These are the systems most likely to be used in the near future, as they are at least the best understood systems, and as a result may even be the least costly systems in the near future. I am talking here about such systems as the Soyuz, Dragon with either Delta IV, or Atlas V, or Falcon 9 (all Heavy), or the Orion Ares I system as envisioned by NASA. This one choice has been beat to death on these boards, so I will say no more, except that this is indeed the most likely near future system to be used for placing human beings into orbit.
(g) Carrier aircraft to altitude and then launch orbiter.
This is the methodology used by the excellent Burt Rutan in his efforts to get space tourism off the ground. It will be used with the White Knight Two to get SpaceShipTwo up to about 50,000 feet and subsonic speed, then dropped and propelled by rocket(s) into sub orbital space. However, the main question on my own mind is whether or not Burt Rutan is now in development of a White Knight Three large enough to get a booster rocket and orbiter up to eventually get into LEO. I would think that such a craft would have to eventually be in the 747 class of size at least. So at this time I would think that Rutan and Company are just beginning the paper development of such a large craft.
However, if his efforts in sub orbital space do prove out to be profitable, then I would think that LEO would become a true reality for him and his company (and Virgin Galactic also).
Finally, choice:
(h) Carrier balloon(s) or Dirigible(s) to lift up to 50,000 feet, and then launch booster and orbiter.
This is somewhat the same as using carrier aircraft, but has the possible advantage of being much cheaper to develop. The disadvantage would be the possible safety issue of using such relatively uncontrolled craft.
OK, those are the current choices that I think are at least somewhat relevant to the near to somewhat near placing of human beings in larger numbers into LEO.
What I will do is to give the people being polled some 4 of those choices, as I know that I would want that as I like at least that many of the choices myself.
So just what would be my own personal choices?
Well, from (g) to (a) to (d) to eventually (c).
What do I think is going to actually happen?
From (f) to (g) to (a) or possibly (d) to eventually (C).
Let the discussions/debates, or whatever now begin.
And thanks for your attention!!
PS: Oh no, guess what!! While the poll thingy at the bottom told me that I could have as many as ten choices, when I tried just eight, the official message then told me I had too many choices. Another triumph for space.com!
Tell you what, I consider this to be too important a subject to just go away in a tiff. So let us do this the hard way.
I will post this as the first post on just an ordinary thread, you people select your first 4 choices. Oh heck, have as many choices as you want, just put them in what you consider to be their proper order of importance, most important first! Of course, you can always take less choices if you wish, or even let me know in your post if you consider some other way viable to get human beings into LEO (in the near to intermediate futures at least).
I will then come here fairly frequently and tally up the numbers to give results. If you find errors in my numbers please feel free to tell me, I am not infallible!!
I could even go over (although I have not done this type of thing for some ten years or so) to excel and make up a chart. Hopefully I can then import it. Hopefully........
What do all of you think, doable?? :?:
The poll is going to be about the various choices for getting human beings into LEO, at least to the height of the ISS.
I am excluding getting materials to LEO at this time, as I think the best methodology for this is simply what some refer to as “A Big Dumb Rocket”, or a Very Heavy Lift Rocket. This could be either developed from the Delta IV, Atlas V, or the Falcon 9 (if spacex is anywhere near as successful as we all hope they will be).
Personally, I do not think that NASA should be using the relatively vast amount of funding required to develop their own rocket in the Ares V class. They should just be using these other options, and then concentrating on the methods of going further out into the solar system, and leave getting the materials up to Leo to the more private interests. While I will always be supportive of NASA, I have come to the conclusion that they should leave the details up to the contractors and pure private interests, and that would be far less expensive than doing it themselves.
So the poll is going to be about what is the best method of getting Human Beings into orbit.
The time frame is the near future, and the limits are some ten non astronaut types and pilots into an orbit similar to the orbit of the ISS (at perhaps a better inclination however). These people would be relatively wealthy and healthy, and would not necessarily be astronauts in themselves. However, they would (at least in the beginning) be people that would work on such space infrastructure as space stations, and either be now or in the neat future even just wealthy and healthy spaced tourists.
This is the kind of scenario that NASA originally wanted for the Space Transportation System, and the space shuttle.
I am excluding such very future options as laser pushing efforts or space elevators as they do not now have relevancy to getting human beings into orbit in the near future. I am certain that developmental efforts for such things are very worthwhile, but as I am now 67 years old, I do not ever expect to see it happen anyway, and so do not wish to see major efforts expended on this type of thing at this time. Let us stick to what we know at least has possibilities of working.
OK, so we now open the envelopes please!
(a) A Horizontal Take-Off Two Stage to Orbit system such as NASA wanted to begin with.
The original systems developed by the various contractors of NASA (and there were a whole lot more of them in those days) for the Space Transportation System, were for the most part Horizontal Take-Off, Two Stages to Orbit (TSTO) systems. These consisted of the orbiter as it generally now is used, but instead of the very large Solid Rocket Motors, would have a very large fly-back booster that the orbiter would generally be placed on top of and launched from at a speed of high subsonic or even possibly low sonic velocity. The booster would ordinarily be powered by large fan jets for take off (and landing), and also might have a rocket engine mounted in the back for addition thrust at altitude (above 50,000 feet at a minimum). I do not include those designs that only had rocket engines for the booster, and would then take off only vertically, as this would be just another version of the current space shuttle. Oh heck, why not, I do have some ten choices! (PS: At least I thought that I had ten choices anyway!)
Both types of systems would require quite a bit of funding for the fly back boosters at the very least. But, (in particular the Horizontal Take-Off method) would permit a far reduced launch crew, a greatly increased launch rate, and therefore in the long run should be far less expensive than the current system. That was the original idea of the Space Transportation System at least! Too bad, Congress forced NASA into the magnificent kluge the shuttle system was to eventually become, instead of doing it right in the first place!
(b) Or a Vertical Take-Off Two Stage to Orbit system.
Similar to the current shuttle system.
(c) A Horizontal Take-Off Single Stage to Orbit system.
I consider this to be the “Holy Grail” Of systems to get Human Beings into Orbit. You take off from a relatively normal airport (with at least some special facilities), using high speed jet engines to get you up to at least Mach 3. Then hypersonic jets take over to get you up to at least Mach 15, where linear aero spike rockets across the back push you into orbit. The craft itself is a type of lifting body so the wings are relatively small.
This was the original National Aerospace Plane (NASP) type of idea. I personally think it is not only be most interesting type of design, but also by far the best for having a relatively small launch crew, far more frequent launches, and in the long run far less costs.
However, there IS still a whole lot of technology (and this is what killed the NASP) to be developed, especially in the hypersonic area. But, I do have hopes that the US Military with its far greater Black Budgets will eventually develop this very important technology, in as little as another decade at least. We will just have to wait and see.
(d) Horizontal launch systems with a launch ramp.
A corollary (thanks to a great extent to the excellent Mr. Halman) to the Horizontal Take-Off concepts would be some kind of a launch ramp type of system similar in some ways to the systems used on aircraft carriers. The major difference between the aircraft carrier systems and this type of system would be that the capabilities would have to be far larger to launch the far greater masses involved. The only power that I can now see such a system using would be some type of maglev type of power.
Again, much development remaining, and therefore much expense, but a very interesting idea to reduce the eventual launch costs! For the more distant future perhaps such a system could be a tunnel system where the air pressure is greatly reduced, and therefore far higher velocities could be achieved.
(e) Vertical Take-Off and Landing Single Stage to Orbit System. (DCX type)
While I do realize the success of the DCX type of projects, I personally do not see how we could not only get such a system up to the height needed for orbit, but even more the 17,500 miles per hour horizontal velocity needed. But I did think it was a legitimate choice anyway.
(f) Vertical Take-Off and Landing Multiple Stage to Orbit Systems.
These are the systems most likely to be used in the near future, as they are at least the best understood systems, and as a result may even be the least costly systems in the near future. I am talking here about such systems as the Soyuz, Dragon with either Delta IV, or Atlas V, or Falcon 9 (all Heavy), or the Orion Ares I system as envisioned by NASA. This one choice has been beat to death on these boards, so I will say no more, except that this is indeed the most likely near future system to be used for placing human beings into orbit.
(g) Carrier aircraft to altitude and then launch orbiter.
This is the methodology used by the excellent Burt Rutan in his efforts to get space tourism off the ground. It will be used with the White Knight Two to get SpaceShipTwo up to about 50,000 feet and subsonic speed, then dropped and propelled by rocket(s) into sub orbital space. However, the main question on my own mind is whether or not Burt Rutan is now in development of a White Knight Three large enough to get a booster rocket and orbiter up to eventually get into LEO. I would think that such a craft would have to eventually be in the 747 class of size at least. So at this time I would think that Rutan and Company are just beginning the paper development of such a large craft.
However, if his efforts in sub orbital space do prove out to be profitable, then I would think that LEO would become a true reality for him and his company (and Virgin Galactic also).
Finally, choice:
(h) Carrier balloon(s) or Dirigible(s) to lift up to 50,000 feet, and then launch booster and orbiter.
This is somewhat the same as using carrier aircraft, but has the possible advantage of being much cheaper to develop. The disadvantage would be the possible safety issue of using such relatively uncontrolled craft.
OK, those are the current choices that I think are at least somewhat relevant to the near to somewhat near placing of human beings in larger numbers into LEO.
What I will do is to give the people being polled some 4 of those choices, as I know that I would want that as I like at least that many of the choices myself.
So just what would be my own personal choices?
Well, from (g) to (a) to (d) to eventually (c).
What do I think is going to actually happen?
From (f) to (g) to (a) or possibly (d) to eventually (C).
Let the discussions/debates, or whatever now begin.
And thanks for your attention!!
PS: Oh no, guess what!! While the poll thingy at the bottom told me that I could have as many as ten choices, when I tried just eight, the official message then told me I had too many choices. Another triumph for space.com!
Tell you what, I consider this to be too important a subject to just go away in a tiff. So let us do this the hard way.
I will post this as the first post on just an ordinary thread, you people select your first 4 choices. Oh heck, have as many choices as you want, just put them in what you consider to be their proper order of importance, most important first! Of course, you can always take less choices if you wish, or even let me know in your post if you consider some other way viable to get human beings into LEO (in the near to intermediate futures at least).
I will then come here fairly frequently and tally up the numbers to give results. If you find errors in my numbers please feel free to tell me, I am not infallible!!
I could even go over (although I have not done this type of thing for some ten years or so) to excel and make up a chart. Hopefully I can then import it. Hopefully........
What do all of you think, doable?? :?: