NASA's Future

[dobbins]

Maybe NASA could do something like this<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/051019_ipd.html<br /><br />Oh wait! They already are doing it. Just because programs like this don't get the press coverage of a manned flight or a unmanned probe on Mars doesn't mean they aren't happening.<br /><br />

 

[wdobner]

That's a very cool program, a rare bright spot in an otherwise backwards organization. The big problem is that the VSE has eliminated what could be the most viable alternative to it. The Shuttle did the same thing, killing off Apollo. NASA has been doing this since the 1960s, and it needs to stop. Their single minded approach to spaceflight is assinine. They need to make enough room in their budget for Cheap LEO research projects, space exploration, as well as the ISS and Shuttle for the time being. I don't see where the problem is, once you have cheaper access to LEO then it becomes cheaper to go to and stay on the moon. Where is the sustainability purported by VSE proponents when we're tossing capsules and rockets away after every flight? If we're going to keep people on the moon in a base for a long period they're going to require quite continuous replenishment. It's probable that the ESAS plans will simply prove too expensive to fly a regular pattern of flights to the moon just hauling cargo. At that point it might be more efficient just to go for a purely spaceborne vehicle. If we're going to end up with that eventually, why not just build it now so we can have something capable of moving a large amount of cargo to the moon with a minimum of ancillary weight or waste? Start building the lunar base when the first astronauts land sometime between 2015 and 2020, that way we have a leg up on Apollo right off the bad and public relations with the folks who will inevitably deride the program as a rehash of Apollo will be easier.

 

[formulaterp]

gaetanomarano: <font color="yellow">while NASA "thinks and tests" in the next 13-17 years the new capsule&Lem, will be a GROWING need of LEO vehicle for commercial, scientific and military purposes </font><br /><br />What growing need? Tourists? Please. <br />The commercial industry has had NO need to send people into LEO. They launch satellites on ELV's. The military has had NO need to send people ino LEO. They launch satellites on ELV's. Now the scientific sector actually has such a need. Fortunately we've got the ISS for that. Where is this GROWING demand coming from?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASP was beyond the technology of the time and still is.</font>/i><br /><br />IMHO, large programs should generally be built on relatively mature technology, and smaller research and X-class projects should be used to create a mature the technologies.<br /><br />I believe Boeing's proposal for the CEV will be based on TRL-6 and above technologies.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"... appreciates a good argument..."<br /><br />I appreciate good arguments and I agree with you about spaceplanes but, after two weeks of discussions about spaceplanes in many uplink's threads (also writing some long posts like yours), I realize that NOTHING can break the "hard-like-(moon)rocks" opinion of capsule-fans!!!<br /><br />If you want to convince them, must have the patience to WAIT the end of next decade, when the orbital and sub-orbital spaceplanes' flights will be DAILY (from private and spaceagencies) while the CEV flights will be only TWO per year!!! ...like in VSE-moon plan...<br /><br />When they will look at the sky an see hundreds spaceplanes that fly and only a pair of falling-rocks-capsule (to be seen by night, with telescopes, like summer's "falling stars"), they MUST admit that capsule "was" a mistake!!!<br /><br />I think that NASA will change its plans and never build the "capsule"... we will see...<br /><br />I've written LOTS of arguments in my posts having only ironic answers (or NO answers) to my arguments!<br /><br />But, despite it is useless, I wish to ADD another argument to demonstrate that "spaceplane is better":<br /><br />you know the efforts to unify physics' forces in a single theory<br /><br />well, to-day, the "space-forces" are "divided" in three ranges<br /><br />a) 0-50,000 feet range, for airline and military jets<br /><br />b) 50,000-330,000 feet range, for some experimental vehicles, from X-15 to SpaceShipOne<br /><br />c) 330,000-up feet range for Space Shuttle, Soyuz, etc.<br /><br />spaceplane research may UNIFY the three "space-forces" developing technologies good to build any kind of vehicle from airline to sub-orbital to orbital scientific and commercial flights<br /><br />WE KNOW IT - THEY NEED WAIT TO SEE IT...... (big punctuation)<br />

 

[formulaterp]

Hundred's of spaceplanes?<br /><br />Daily flights?<br /><br />Are you serious?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">b) 50,000-330,000 feet range, for some experimental vehicles, from X-15 to SpaceShipOne </font><br /><br />You ever wonder why both the X-15 and SS1 can be found at the Smithsonian, and not flying hundreds of daily flights? There's no need. There's no demand. There's no purpose. At least the future space tourists can go see them and dream.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...What growing need..."<br /><br />your opinion is based on the past "NASA-monopoly" story<br /><br />probably, YOU think that, in next 200 years, NASA will remain the only to decide WHO, WHEN and WHY people can go to space!<br /><br />wrong!<br /><br />the NASA-monopoly will soon ends!<br /><br />wait some years and you will see with your eyes!<br /><br />when space will be affordable for all, there will be hundreds usefull (or "strange") applications!<br /><br />computers, jets, submarines, jeeps, etc. etc. etc. was VERY EXPENSIVE and build only for military purposes, but, to-day, they are available FOR ALL... like internet, born for cold war, now is in any pocket!<br />

 

[formulaterp]

200 years? I thought you said 13 years.<br /><br />Oh heck in 200 years, we'll probably even have flying cars and jetpacks. And I can walk my dog Astro on the treadmill.

 

[wdobner]

Well that's a pretty pessimistic way of looking at it. I sure hope we're eventually leading up to the days when everyone has the opertunity to fly in space, otherwise what's the point? Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars to send folks to the moon if we're not going to develop lower cost alternatives which allow all of us to follow in their footsteps. Here I thought the whole argument for going back to the moon was predicated on the argument to the effect of 'what if nobody followed in Christopher Columbus' footsteps?'. If you don't want anyone to follow in Neil Armstrong's footsteps other than a select few astronauts then why are we bothering? It's just an expensive PR occasion in that case.<br /><br />Give people a place to go in space. The Bigelow space hotel is probably the most popular option here, if it can get off the ground. However, it is a chicken and egg situation, we need lower cost spaceflight to get space tourism off the ground, but we need space tourism to drive the cost down for spaceflight. We need NASA to break this vicious cycle and work toward the development of a spaceplane capable of reaching LEO in one stage from a regular runway takeoff. This development work can go on at the same time as the CEV development and initial stages of the VSE. Hopefully by the time it reaches fruition for the Mars flights it will banish manned expendible launches and also work the cost down.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...X-15 and SS1 can be found at the Smithsonian..."<br /><br /><br />you lack the word "experimental"!<br /><br />X-15 is NOT only at Smithsonian, IT FLY ANY DAY, the technologies developed with X-15 are in Shuttles, mach2 jets, etc. probably some also in airline planes<br /><br />SpaceShipOne don't need to fly with me or with you, it is the Wright brothers' plane of sub-orbital commercial flights... wait!<br /><br />I don't remember well the story I tell here (but probably some readers know it exactly): about 70 years ago, one of the first IBM presidents said... "why build computers? I don't think we will sell more than three of them!"...<br />

 

[dobbins]

Maybe the Wright Brothers shouldn't have wasted time on that dinky little flyer and tried to develop 747s with a technology that didn't exist at the time.<br /><br />You are asking for NASA to develop a quantum leap in technology. Life doesn't work like that you have to build it slowly.<br /><br />

 

[formulaterp]

Do you have any idea how much a 7day/6night stay aboard the Space Gigolo Hotel is going to cost? Is that what this is about? Catering to the lifestyles of the spacefaring rich and famous?<br /><br />You want cheap access to space? Build cheaper rockets.<br /><br />1) Get Russian scientists to design it. They work for minimum wage.<br /><br />2) Get Chinese factory workers to build it. They work for less than minimum wage.<br /><br />3) Launch it from southern India. They don't give a dang about pollution or safety.<br /><br />What you plan on doing with these rockets, I have no idea.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"><i>"I just happen to feel that giving up on grounbreaking programs like NASP and retreating to 1960's technology is a disappointment. " </i><br /><br />NASP was beyond the technology of the time and still is. </font><br /><br />I worked NASP on the most challenging part of the program, the engine, and I can tell you that we're still a long way off from an operational, reusable, NASP. <br /><br />Most of them were classified and probably still is. If not, it's definitely ITAR restricited. Sufficient to say that the program out live it's last breath. It should've been canceled 5 years prior to its official death.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

I've edited my post, probably now it's clear.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...with a technology that didn't exist..."<br /><br />wrong!<br /><br />to-day space technology is not like wrights' times airplane technology<br /><br />don't forget the Shuttle (and Buran) when you write your posts<br /><br />it fails two times only because, at lift-off it, it is NOT a true spaceplane, but only a very dangerous "ROCKET with wings" that may explode at every launch; also Columbia was damaged at lift-off!<br /><br />it's incredible!<br /><br />NASA, Russia, BIG companies, the best space and airplane scientists and engineers have worked for 50 years, have made studies and hundreds designs and prototipes + one GIANT demonstration (the Shuttle) that spaceplanes WORK... and NOW... a little-sect of "capsule-adorators" affirms that thousands of the best scientists and engineers was completely stupid, because... ONLY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH... then, wants to exhumate the cadav... the capsule!<br />

 

[dobbins]

There is a point where stubborn becomes effective stupidity and this space plane business has long passed that point. The Shuttle is a failed design that hasn't and can't come close to it's intended flight rate or cost. The rest of the space planes have run into massive cost over runs and/or slammed into a wall of technical problems.<br /><br />Enough is enough! If you want to invest your own money in failed space plane number 99 then be my guest. I want something that works and is cost effective, and could care less if it makes sci-fi fans that want a Star Wars X-wing fighter happy or not.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"... space plane and a capsule is the reusability issue..."<br /><br />the Shuttle reusability was already demontrated true the capsule reusability NOT!<br /><br />not mercury, not gemini, not apollo, not soyuz, not shenzhou and (you will see) NOT CEV!!!<br /><br />I don't think that astronauts will be confident to fly with an "used" CEV (after the FIRST flight!) when it will come back to earth "well cooked" like apollo and soyuz capsules!!!<br /><br />capsule (high) reusability is only a DREAM! (or a "myth" for "capsule-adorators"...)<br /><br />also the "reusability" of CEV is lower than Shuttle "by design"<br /><br />Shuttles was designed for 100 flights (and some have worked well for 25+ flights) while CEV is planned to fly only 10 times because NASA already know that can't reuse it so much!<br /><br /><br />"...capsules as safer and cheaper..."<br /><br />if you take from Shuttle the SRBs, the giant cargo-bay, the three big SSME and the main tank-bomb, and reduce by 70-80% its dimensions, wings, weight and thermal shield, you will have a VERY safe, comfortable, cheaper and reusable spaceplane!<br /><br />try!<br /><br /><br />"...the cost of market entry is lower for the capsule design..."<br /><br />when NASA will admit the mistake the CEV-cost will be TWICE: for the unused capsule and the new shuttle<br /><br /><br />"...hard to see how a space plane is going to be competitive..."<br /><br />wrong! simply because the CEV capsules will be used (probably, but not sure...) for ONLY 15 (fifteen!!!) moon missions (never forget this figure!) while the spaceplanes may be (and will be) used for hundreds orbital flights!<br /><br /><br />"...we could have a space elevator..."<br /><br />Clarke predicted giant rotating space stations and extraterrestrial monoliths for 2001...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

we must only wait to see the truth<br />spaceplane is not "sci-fi", it only need some research to solve some problems<br />that research will be made (probably not in america, losing its technological leadership)<br />and... (some day) the spaceplane will fly (again... don't forget that, so far, 85% of NASA's manned flights was "winged" and only a few "capsulized"...)<br />CEV will (probably...) fly only 15 times and the near future will be with spaceplane... if you like it or not!<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">he Shuttle reusability was already demonstrated true the capsule reusability NOT! <br /><br /><font color="white">A few of the Gemini capsules were re-flown for research into the MOL. The STS is the only fourth generation reusable spacecraft, none of the other spacecraft were designed for reusability, are you surprised they are not reused?<br /><br />The reusability of the CEV is entirely dependent on cost. If it is cheaper to reuse it will be reused. If it is cheaper for it to be disposable it will be disposable. The technology exists for both it is up to NASA and the supplier to decide based on cost not ideals.<br /></font></font>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>It is somewhat ridiculous to expect NASA to follow the shuttle with another RLV, especially given the disappointments they've experienced with the X-33 project and such.</i><br /><br />Why is that ridiculous? That's like saying it was ridiculous for Boeing to develop the 707 after the failure of Britain's de Havilland Comet. Luckily for humanity, we didn't say, "Let's just go back to props...they're easier!"<br /><br /><i>Lets just go with a vehicle which never has to enter the Earth's atmosphere. Service it with a HOTOL SSTO, maybe construct a small, possibly unmanned space station in either a 28 degree inclination or an equatorial orbit to assist in that servicing, and fly to the moon that way. That way we're not pushing a thermal protection system, parachutes, and other atmospheric flight neccesities to the moon. Make the vehicle modular in nature so that it can accomodate changes to payload, crews, and even propulsion sources. This way we also get a solution which can be readily scaled up for a lunar flight. For the same money and by the time CEV and such are ready to go to the moon we probably could have a HOTOL SSTO nearly ready to go, have the space station ready to go, and have the vehicle assembled in orbit.</i><br /><br />Exactly! This would be the right approach, but unfortunately, NASA is being forced to take the cheap approach, even if it costs us more in the long run!

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>X-15 is NOT only at Smithsonian, IT FLY ANY DAY, the technologies developed with X-15 are in Shuttles, mach2 jets, etc. probably some also in airline planes <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry, X-15 is indeed a dead program. It was a magnificent one, and the studies done with it have been astoundingly influential, but there's no way you can just haul one out and fly it. It's been mothballed too long. It would have to go through an extensive refurbishment to make it flightworthy again.<br /><br />SpaceShipOne will probably not fly again either, but SpaceShipTwo....now that's a different story. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[dobbins]

Boeing had actually developed a Jet called a B-52 that was successful before the 707, something I can't say for the space plane zealots.<br /><br />

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">That way we're not pushing a thermal protection system, parachutes, and other atmospheric flight neccesities to the moon.</font><br /><br />Which is easier to implement? Heat shield + parachutes or carrying enough fuel to slow yourself to enter LEO from a lunar return?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Service it with a HOTOL SSTO, maybe construct a small, possibly unmanned space station in either a 28 degree inclination or an equatorial orbit </font><br /><br />$Billions for SSTO + $Billions for new space station + $Billions for CEV/LM. Who exactly is footing the bill for this? You expect Branson, Musk and Bigelow to make a donation?<br /><br />And how exactly do you plan to get fuel, food and material to the space-only craft? Your HOTOL SSTO gonna do all that?

 

[dobbins]

Just because I don't emulate you constantly kick my feet and cry over a choice that I disagreed with doesn't make me into an ISS supporter. It does however make me an adult.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Gemini capsules were re-flown..."<br /><br />when I will see an astronaut that fly with an "used-capsule" and come back alive, I can try to believe that "capsules" are "reusable" (but I need 100+ caspule flights, like shuttle. to admit it!)<br /><br />I suspect that CEV (like 95% of VSE-CEV-SDLV-LEM2 system) will be disposable ONLY... (fine for companies' cash flow...)<br />