Future concept of shuttles?

[danielink]

How do you think future concepts of shuttles of Japan(hope), Europe(hermes), USA(CEV/post shuttle?), China or India developes?

 

[vogon13]

Expensively. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Both Hope and Hermes projects have already reached the point all winged spacecraft concepts deserve; cancellation.

 

[holmec]

I always thought Hope and Heremes were a good step forward because they would carry mostly crew and not cargo for a manned mission. Maybe now Japan and Europe could maybe rethink them and apply some lessons learned form SpaceShipOne. But both Japan and Europe seem to be bent on sending up astronauts via their own ships. So far they are in the unmanned satelite missions and have made great headway in it. But Hope and Hermes were great ideas. Perhaps if you care to consider, SpaceShipOne is about the same size as Hope and Hermes would have been.<br /><br />Also their conceptual legacy of just sending up crew may yet still be realized by NASA in the next generation shuttles. I understand that Boeing is working on a small space plane that may launch crews.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

In order to transition from the ground, through the atmosphere and into space you need a wing, even one of some sort. And Parachutes are a type of wing. <br />You cannot get away from it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[danielink]

I'm curious about those concepts of boeing and lockheed, the pictures on this site looked promising. <br /><br />But you rase a very important question if i understand it right. You think there won't be any shuttle concept coming in the future but capsules like during the apollo period. Also russia(in cooperation with esa?)is developing some kind of mega soyuz to make a sort of CEV in the future. China will probably develop there shenzou capsules better and better but what about japan? And india? I believe india is also not far behind from launching a man into robit within a decade or so. <br /><br />And in general, what is more cost effective, capsules you say? Maybe i just like the sight of shuttle better than a freakin can;-)

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But you rase a very important question if i understand it right. You think there won't be any shuttle concept coming in the future but capsules like during the apollo period.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>With any luck, yes. Wings on a spacecraft are like wheels on a boat. Sure they are useful 1% of the time, but the other 99% they are useless weight. Remember, the only reason the Shuttle Orbiter has such large wings is because the Air Force saddled it with a huge cross-range requirement with a large returning payload. The Shuttle NASA wanted to build would either have been a lifting body or had very small wings.

 

[drwayne]

I love lifting bodies, really I do, but why does that line from "Toy Story" come to mind:<br /><br />"Thats not flying, it falling with...style"<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>

 

[najab]

Well, they <i>can</i> fly...just not very well.

 

[scottb50]

I think Shuttle has well proven the basic concept and a much smaller and simpler version, that could carry as many, or more people than Shuttle, could be launched quite easily using Shuttle assets.<br /><br />Wings have been proven to work just fine for re-entry and allow a larger vehicle, shielding a large area during re-entry. Sure, they are not the best things for launch, but add jet engines and they sure look a lot safer to me then a capsule with parachutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alpha_taur1]

The capsule with parachutes has been a lot safer historically than the shuttle.

 

[scottb50]

Soyus has had it's share of failures too. If I wanted to live or visit LEO, or go beyond, I would expect more than a capsule and a parachute to get back home.<br /><br />I would rather land and taxi to a jetway, just like an airliner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[davp99]

Gee, we can put a man on the Moon, you would think we should be able to Build a pretty good CEV, SSTO, Fly Back Boosters, ISS's etc... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Wings have been proven to work just fine for re-entry and allow a larger vehicle...</i><p>A winged vehicle <b>has</b> to land on a runway, a capsule <b>can</b> land on one. If a capsule misses its landing site the result is a bumpy landing. If a winged vehicle misses its site.... Anyway, I thought the fascination with big vehicles was over.<p>><i>Sure, they are not the best things for launch, but add jet engines and they sure look a lot safer to me then a capsule with parachutes.</i><p>Unless you are taking off horizontally, wings are absolutely useless during ascent (they're totally useless in space). Adding jet engines is a good idea - in theory. In practice designing engines that work reliably after being exposed to vacuum for a few days is a engineering challenge. Also, locating them so that they aren't exposed to the super-heated hypersonic flow during entry, but are exposed to the subsonic flow after entry is a conundrum.<p>NASA tried to add jet engines to the Shuttle Orbiter, but gave up when they realised just how hard and expensive it would have been.</p></p></p></p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

This all has me thinking....what was the reason for NASA going with the winged orbiter in the first place? (I know, for the obvious re-entry/landing like a plane/glider)<br /><br />Just curious to whether there was an alternative at the time. <br /><br />I'm a big fan of the Shuttle, but obviously understand where you're coming from. Was there similar "No, not wings!?!" at the time of design of the Shuttles - I know Mr Braun (Saturn 5) wasn't a big fan of the STS - but I think that was more an objection to the SRBs?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Also, would the same people object to the VentureStar? Does she work for you capsule fans? (Noting of course she was ahead of her time with the new material (that failed testing) on the fuel tanks that made up most of her body).<br /><br />Still a good looking ship:<br />

 

[najab]

><i>This all has me thinking....what was the reason for NASA going with the winged orbiter in the first place?</i><p>Short answer: the Air Force made them do it.<p>Longer answer: The Air Force made them do it, or else. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> NASA made a number of proposal for the post-Apollo period:<li>Option 1: Lunar Base, Mars Mission by 1980. This would require funding at about $10B/year and the development of a HLLV, as well as a vehicle like what we now call the CEV, launched on Saturn a 1B.<li>Option 2: Delete the Lunar base and substitute it with a large Space Station (30-40 crew). This would require a HLLV (though not as large) and a vehicle like the CEV, again launched on Saturn 1B's. Mars mission by 1990. Would cost around $6-7B/year.<li>Option 3: Substitute the large space station with a small station (10 crew) and push the Mars mission to 2000. CEV vehicle launched on Saturn 1B, heavy lift provided by partially reusable Saturn 5. Cost about $5B/year<p>Congress told NASA: "Nope, no way."<p>As a last ditch, NASA proposed a small lifting body craft, launched on a manned fly-back stage, to transfer crew to and from a small space station that would be built some time in the future. Congress still baulked at the ~$3B/year proposed cost. The Air Force came to the 'rescue' of NASA and promised to help fund the program as long as the vehicle was 'modified' to suit the Air Force's quite reasonable requirements. These included the ability to launch a 60 foot long, 15 foot diameter, 22,000 pound payload into a 200 mile polar orbit and return to the launch site in a single orbit.<p>The rest, as they say, is history.</p></p></p></li></li></li></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Does she work for you capsule fans?"</font><br /><br />Not for <b>this</b> fan. Pretty or not -- the VS was ***way*** ahead of her time, and specifically of the technology to make that concept work with any degree of efficiency (i.e. the SSTO bit). The pretty lines of the craft help hide the fact that it's 98% tanks and 2% payload.<br /><br />For the record, I object much less to a Kliper-style lifting body. I still prefer a bare-bones capsule, though, as the single most efficient way of getting crew to and from orbit. By minimizing the costs to get people to and from orbit, we can maximize the returns on the money spent on manned spaceflight.

 

[cdr6]

The high percentage of propellant to payload is inherent in any rocket, winged or no. <br /><br />While I think the winged spacecraft makes more sense from a landing point of view than does a capsule, the problem is this. <br /><br />If we (NASA) goes with a winged vehicle we are automaticly doomend to LEO again. So defacto, if are to get out of earth orbit we need a capsule, and it's attendant landing support (the U.S. Navy) that goes with it. <br /><br />For no other good reason than simply because congress is not going to support anything other than a single one machine fits all spacecraft pruchase. Regardless of what is right or wrong for the type of mission being done. <br /><br />So we are looking at reborn Apollo or some derivitive there of, for CEV. (sigh!) Old technology repackaged for a new mission...

 

[holmec]

Hold on!<br /><br />Are we talking spaceplanes vs capules??<br /><br />First of all we need to consider if a reusable capsule can be made, since none have.<br /><br />Second of all we have more options today than back in the 60s.<br /><br />Capsules are good for one main purpose. Reentry. Space planes have difficulty with reentry (design wise). So it could be said that a capsule configuration is good for reentry (I call this a dart configuration) and a plane for flying and landing on cheap airports/spaceports. <br /><br />What if we combine the two. Have a reusable capsule, it reenters, deploys a parachute, but a wing style parachute. It also depolys an electric / solar powered, engine with a propeller so it can land where it wants.<br /><br />Or go the other way, a space plane that reconfigures for reentry and glides its way down. Maybe even using a balute for reentry.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The high percentage of propellant to payload is inherent in any rocket, winged or no. "</font><br /><br />Yes -- but with the VS/X-33 -- every single bit of tankage had to be taken to orbit, and returned from orbit to a safe landing. Both of those factors make the propellant/payload ratio considerably worse. Going from 95% propellant/tankage to 98% propellant tankage might not seem like much of a difference... until you realize your payload just got reduced by over 50%.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...and it's attendant landing support (the U.S. Navy) that goes with it."</font><br /><br />Since this is a 'shuttle' thread I don't want to take it on a capsule tangent. My previous post was in response to a specific capsule-question. However -- there's no reason that a capsule designed with modern technology has to make an ocean landing. The Gemini thread in M&L has more details on why.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Old technology repackaged for a new mission... "</font><br /><br />Speaking of old technology -- I think it's high time we threw out the wheel and replaced it with something more modern. That sucker has been around for thousands of years and it's sad that vehicles rolling off the production line today are still using it.<br /><br />Just because the capsule was developed 40+ years ago doesn't mean that it's no longer relevant to a modern vehicle. Taking the specs for the original Gemini and <b>just</b> swapping modern electronics for the 1960's era tech that it flew with, I was able to demonstrate a mass savings of 600 pounds and the new equipment used 1200 watts less than the originals.<br /><br />Using capsules instead of lifting bodies or winged craft is <b>not</b> a step backwards. The three basic shapes are simply different schools of thought in achieving the same goal. What will determine whether the CEV is a step forwards, backwards, or sideways is how well the designers make use of modern te

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"First of all we need to consider if a reusable capsule can be made, since none have. "</font><br /><br />Actually one of the Gemini capsules was reused for the Blue Gemini project. However, as I said above -- I'm trying to avoid a full-fledged capsule tangent in this thread. Take a look at the Gemini thread in M&L (it'll take a while -- the thread has gotten pretty long). I'll be happy to debate capsule re-entry concepts there.

 

[scottb50]

A winged vehicle has to land on a runway,....<br /><br />If it has trbo-jets it can land on any number of runways. You could say the same for any airplane, they don't usually do too good in off airport landings.<br /><br />Unless you are taking off horizontally, wings are absolutely useless during ascent (they're totally useless in space).....<br /><br />Actually I believe the lift produced during assent causes negative effects at lower altitudes. If you could launch a capsule and return a plane it would be ideal, but totally impractical so you have to compromise somewhere.<br /><br />ed to the subsonic flow after entry is a conundrum....<br /><br />Again it might weigh more and cost more but I would think retractable scoops or something would work. The aft surface of Shuttle only gets real hot where it is outside of the wings shadow or has sharp corners or changes in contour. Fuel heaters and such are also available, so the problems don't seem insurmountable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

If we (NASA) goes with a winged vehicle we are automaticly doomend to LEO again.....<br /><br />True, if you try to make that vehicle another Shuttle, instead of just a surface to LEO transportation system. Why is it written in stone we have to build something that can go from Earth to the Moon and Mars in one fell swoop?<br /><br />By the time you add everything to Apollo for meaningful work, rather than flag waving and hitting golf balls, you would need the equivelant of 4-5 Saturns to launch it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cdr6]

The answer lies in the congressional mind set, or lack there of… I don’t believe our political leadership is going to fund anything other than a single spacecraft. <br /><br />You are correct in your estimation that it will take a number heavy launches to do the moon, in fact, it’s going to almost become an on going thing once we start. <br /><br />The mission is going require several types of spacecraft…shuttles, transports(aka cyclers), landers and so forth, if we are serious about this thing. <br /><br />I have to wonder if congress is up to the task, or are they just going to buy the old man-in-a-can approach? <br />