Other Times, Other NASA

[spacefire]

check out this article from ten years ago.<br />Spaceplanes were the thing back then. Wish we could go back...<br />http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Design-Spaceship.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cdr6]

Have heart, Space Dev is working on building this, with NASA's help, even as we speak, er write.<br /><br />(In abstract terms)<br />It may well be that this is part of the reason why they went with the capsule configuration for CEV. They (Space Dev)definitely have a good design going for them with their boosters. Maybe even simple enough to provide commercial transportation to (and from) orbit. <br /><br />There is a demonstrated need for both types of machines, the space plane and the space capsule. The spaceplane to and from orbit...and the capsule/ modular space craft for deeper space operations. <br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

SpaceDev's design is intriguing, but I doubt their hybrids have the needed performance, even 3 of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

The HL-10 was mainly proposed as a Crew Rescue Vehicle for the ISS. It was rejected because the capsule-type design proposed at JSC was thought to be less expensive. Later the entire Crew Rescue Vehicle project was dropped. Similar ideas resurfaced during the Orbital Space Plane and Crew Exploration Vehicle eras. However, it must be conceded that the main advantage of the lifting body design is high crossrange and possible runway landing. Water landing would require a parachute, and if a chute must be included, the capsule has more internal volume for a given mass and is less expensive.