Capsule is 60s design,Spaceplane is modern? WHAT??

[carp]

Yes,Capsule design is from 60s,Spaceplane is modern.OR NOT? http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3751/25zy.jpg P.S. Others "modern" Spaceplanes. http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm

 

[carp]

Ah ! the goods old 60s !!!! http://capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1960-80/1966%20Class%201.jpg http://capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1960-80/1960.htm

 

[carp]

Holy socks,Batman,but is the 1966 Lockheed Starclipper !! http://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/nw010p2.jpg http://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/nw010a.jpg http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/spacefighters0.files/Starclipper2.jpg

 

[carp]

1961,Project LUNEX.First let's twist again at NY pepermint club,after we fly on the moon in an USAF spaceplane. http://www.astronautix.com/articles/lunex.htm

 

[tohaki]

1902: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Voyage_dans_la_lune_%281902%29_still_01.jpg<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[carp]

Bullet? I said CAPSULE,not bullet.

 

[tohaki]

lol... I'm only teasing you. I like capsules.

 

[carp]

ACH ! an spaceplane from 40s: sanger antipodal bomber. http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/Sanger/sanger.htm

 

[vt_hokie]

I don't really care which design is newer. I just don't like capsules for their limited controllability during the return phase of the mission, coupled with their very limited interior volume. I really dislike the reliance on parachutes for "landing", which isn't much more than a semi-controlled crash. And as the shuttle demonstrates, as "space plane" offers the ability to design for significantly higher down mass capability than a capsule.

 

[carp]

Oh,yes. http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7757/1a9af.jpg http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4254/16rp.jpg

 

[spacefire]

lifting bodies evolved from blunt re-entry nose cones-i.e. the same shape your capsules have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[carp]

WOW,what huge 60s "lifting body"! http://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/nw010p2.jpg

 

[dobbins]

First of all for any given mass a capsule will have more space than a space plane. That is a basic function of geometry one that can't ever be changed. Second, instead of designing a space ship that has to land on a skinny little concrete runway, and then adding excess mass through wings why not use one that doesn't need the runway?<br /><br />

 

[carp]

Good times the 60s , all was so big, "lifting bodies" too! http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld018.htm

 

[dobbins]

The lifting body was invented in 1921 and first applied to a proposed spaceplane design in the late 1930s. Capsules are an outgrowth of the research the NACA did on reentry for nuclear warheads in the 1950s. They are by far the more modern design.<br />

 

[ace5]

It´s merely a matter of how good each design fits into fullfilling a given function.<br />I can have a very modern capsule, or a very modern spaceplane; or very ancient designs for both...<br /><br />But I only accept a spaceplane with jet engines for a second try in landing, unless you wants to be seated inside a winged capsule that lacks a parachute. This is what a space shuttle is... if lost the unique attempt to land on its runway.<br /><br />A capsule always have its back-up parachute. Two chances to making it land.

 

[spacefire]

thanks for the cool pictures carp. At least I got something for the seconds I wasted reading this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[carp]

I know it,you love 60s. http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/1631/bbb40hj.jpg

 

[spacefire]

actually I love the 80s. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Even the 80s neon socks and spandex? *shudder*

 

[drwayne]

Well, it I say I am fond of the 70's, then y'all will tease me with the disco connections!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

As a side note, I did remember speaking with someone who worked in the Air Force on some national assets. He made a really intresting comment: the focus on RLVs in the 60s and 70s was driven mostly by inflation.

 

[nacnud]

I'll admit that I'm rather fond of glow sticks... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

The 80s are coming back. I was at the Mall last weekend and was shocked to discover.....LEG WARMERS AS FASHION ACCESSORIES!<br /><br />*screams, flees* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

If I figure out how to move within my personal timeline back to a point earlier in my life, the odds are it will be either the 60's or the 80's.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>