Re: NASA's grand plan to revive human exploration...

[spacester]

Very well said, Josh. The same discussions have been going on for years on just about any space topic you can think of. It's not a waste of time by any measure - it is how people learn. Yet isn't there some point in time when we move past discussing and into planning?<br /><br />That's not just a rhetorical question <br /><br />Didja ever wonder if anything came out of the Mars Settlement Threads?<br /><br />Today is the mini-grand opening of the website for ACCESS Space Foundation. That part of the site, where we explain what we're about, has been up for a while; it's going to be the mostly static part of our site. But the ACCESS Community Section is brand spanking new, and we're looking for people who want to move past the discussion and start making a difference. This post is the only announcement of this for the next day or so; I want to see if we get more than one or two folks here from sdc. (Frankly, I don't see sdc as a great recruiting ground for those who want the discussions to get out of their familiar ruts. But if you - yes you, gentle reader - like the concept, come on over and prove me wrong about that opinion.)<br /><br />Actually, come to think of it, what we're about is the creation of a First Generation of Pioneers. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Hmmmmm.... Interesting Debate!!!<br /><br />Hey did you know were going to the moon and mars with a CAPSULE?<br /><br />I just wanted to let people know that we are going to stop using WINGED Orbiters for awhile so we can refine our CAPSULE designs further....<br /><br />Oh my!!! Look at that NASA budget.... It only has room for a soon to RETIRE WINGED Vehicle Design and alot of $$$$ being applied to a CAPSULE....<br /><br />A CAPSULE is the NEAR-FUTURE.........<br /><br />There is no longer a needed debate over the CEV......<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...So whats wrong with having more space for the same mass?..."<br /><br />nothing wrong, it is simply useless<br /><br />imagine to use the same principle for our cars, houses, offices, airline, trains, etc.<br /><br />with a $104 up billion extra-budget and a 125ton-payload SDLV it s simply UNNECESSARY to "compress" astronauts, instruments, experoments, supply, etc. in a little "cone"!<br /><br />the principle of ALL future missions must be the ISS: more space, more energy, longer autonomy, specialized modules, reusability, etc.<br /><br />a sort of "Star Trek vision" instead of a "Mercury-Vostok vision", this may be a progress and will give us longer, safer and useful missions, not a "take-lunar-rock-n'go" mission!<br /><br />no matter if, with the available money, will be made 20 missions instead of 30 Apollo-like missions<br /><br />in order of importance:<br /><br />1st: astronauts and scientists<br /><br />2nd: longer and safer missions<br /><br />3rd: "geometrical efficiency"<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...A CAPSULE is the NEAR-FUTURE......... "<br /><br /><br />do you want to know what will happen in 2020-2025 at the end of CEV program?<br /><br />1st: the rest of the world will have efficient winged spaceplanes while NASA will have only a little "capsule" (image... )<br /><br />2nd: the 2020 new NASA Chief will say (like Griffin say about Shuttle): "oooh... with CEV-SDLV we have made a BIG mistake, but NOW we'll build the american spaceplane..."<br /><br /><br />I absolutely don't agree with those say that the NASA annual+extra budget is "insufficient"!<br /><br />if some "private" try to build a spaceplane with very little budgets, NASA can build TEN different spaceplanes<br /><br />if NASA has the money to operate and launch Shuttles, it has the money to build TEN different spaceplanes<br /><br />the cost of a SINGLE Shuttle launch may be sufficient to start developing a (little) spaceplane<br /><br />if NASA will do only 18 Shuttle flights (instead of 19), may have the money needed TO-DAY<br /><br />also, consider that NASA don't starts from zero (like "privates") because it has the technology and the experience of the Shuttle and of many experimental veichles!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...you have a fetish for wings..."<br /><br />no, I think it is the true progress<br /><br />progress is: assembler /> ms-dos > windows > next... NOT: assembler > ms-dos > windows > ms-dos (to save money)<br /><br />progress is: steam locomotive /> electrical train > high velocity train > levitation train > next... NOT: steam locomotive > electrical train > high speed train > levitation train > steam locomotive (to save money)<br /><br />progress is: line phone /> cellulars > videophones > next... NOT: line phone > cellulars > videophones > smoke signals (to save money)<br /><br />progress is: airplane with propeller /> jet airplane > supersonic airplane > stratospheric airplane (using part of spaceplane technology)<br /><br />progress is: Mercury /> Gemini > Apollo > Shuttle > ISS > orbital Spaceplane > Moon vehicle > Mars vehicle NOT: "come back to Apollo!" (and put ISS, Space Shuttle and advanced NASA researches in the trash can!)<br /><br />I don't suggest to launch the "Space-Sheraton", I suggest to give priority to people, time and experiments instead of "saving" and "geometrical efficiency" like in the early days of space exploration<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">the vintage FAT-Apollo + FAT-SaturnV + FAT-LEM program is a regress!</font><br /><br />I feel that the true, new "space-fetish" is "THE CONE"<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"the rest of the world will have efficient winged spaceplanes while NASA will have only a little capsule "</font><br /><br />I'm sorry, could you repeat what is the efficiency in going to moon with wings and less space for the same mass? I'm sure it must be more efficient than, say, CEV because you say so, but the logic still eludes me.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...could you repeat what is the efficiency in going to moon with wings..."<br /><br /><br />if you read my previous posts may see a more complete answer, but, briefly...<br /><br />spaceplane must be ONLY to send people in orbit for lunar missions, ISS, Hubble repair, experiments, commercial-industrial-military (full paid) purposes, etc. NOT to go moon<br /><br />of course, wings are useless to go moon, it need a "specialized" vehicle launched with a cargo-rocket<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

You need some kind of craft to eventually return from the moon. Would you prefer wings for that or settle with a 'simple cone' ?

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...need some kind of craft to eventually return from the moon..."<br /><br /><br />since there is no atmosphere in space, the earth-orbit/lunar-orbit/earth-orbit vehicle may have the shape we wish... may be rounded, square, cubic, a sphere, or a strange vehicle like LEM-LEM2<br /><br />NASA can build a better, larger, rational and comfortable "orbit to orbit" vehicle!<br /><br />(with "capsule" NASA must "compress" astronauts and hardware in the "cone")<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

I was not talking about purely spaceborne craft but the craft that returns people from moon to Earth surface. Are you saying than there's no need for a) direct return (craft leaving moon orbit does reentry and lands on Earth, nor b) aerobraking to capture craft returning from moon into LEO, without excessive burn.<br /><br />Better yet, tell us how do you plan return people from moon back to the surface of Earth.

 

[dobbins]

What you don't seem to get is a capsule is the best way to REENTER an atmosphere. You are obsessing about the least dangerous part of that process the final stage which is the only time wings are of any use at all, and in the process demanding that the most dangerous part be made more dangerous.<br /><br />The hardest problem that had to be solved for ICBMs in the 1950s wasn't the missile itself, it was keeping the warheads from melting on reentry. Adapting that solution to maned vehicles was one of the hardest parts of creating the first maned capsules. When John Glenn flew his mission the big worry was a false signal about his heatshield being loose, and he was ordered to keep his retro pack in place to insure it stayed attached. When Apollo 13 had it's accident the crew was told to keep the worthless shell of the Service Module in place even though leakage from it was causing problems to ensure that the heatshield was protected. When the Shuttle first flew there were some missing tiles and real concern that it would damage the vehicle on reentry. Columbia was lost when it's thermal protection system was damaged, and concern over the thermal protection system being damaged is the reason why the Shuttles are grounded now.<br /><br />Adding wings adds mass which means the thermal system has more energy to dissipate. It adds more area that has to be protected. Getting away from a capsule shape decreases the effectiveness of the shockwave that lowers the amount of heat the thermal protection system has to deal with. It makes the shape of the Thermal protection system more complex so that a simple 1 piece ablative shield can't be used and that increases the danger of a failure of the thermal shielding.<br /><br />Wings do NOT make the craft safer, they make it more dangerous by increasing the likelihood of a failure occurring during the critical reentry phase of the mission.<br /><br />You want to add a bunch of mass that makes it harder to get the vehicle into orbit, that inc

 

[barrykirk]

Dobbins, you said it better than I could have. And yes, I tend to side with the capsule side of the debate.<br /><br />Having said that....<br /><br />gaetanomarano, I don't think people are trying to gang up on you, and I'm enjoying the debate, but I would like to see you come up with more effective arguments for the use of wings. An example would be applications where wings would be a necessary requirement for example.<br /><br />At the current level of technology, in other words, the only method we have to get to orbit is a rocket, I believe that for most practical purposes, a capsule is probably the best solution.<br /><br />It is possible that within the next 20 years, things will change to make a winged vehicle a better solution.<br /><br />Example, if we develop tether technology to the point where a spaceshipone style vehicle could be boosted to orbit by riding a tether on up, then obviously a winged vehicle makes more sense than a capsule.<br /><br />But as long as re-entry speeds are really high, capsule's just make more sense.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...aerobraking to capture craft returning from moon..."<br /><br /><br />I think that future space missions must be "better and safer" NOT "the most efficient possible"<br /><br />Shuttle was not the most efficient possible but was better than Apollo<br /><br />ISS is not the most efficient possible (we can put the three ISS guests in a little cone if we want to be "efficient"...) but was better than Shuttle<br /><br /> <br />"...how do you plan return people from moon back to the surface of Earth..."<br /><br />with speceplane!<br /><br />all earth-orbit orbit-earth must be made with little spaceplanes<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"with speceplane!<br /><br />all earth-orbit orbit-earth must be made with little spaceplanes "</font><br /><br /><br />How does the craft returning from moon break into earth's orbit then? It's coming in <i>fast</i>.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I think that future space missions must be "better and safer" NOT "the most efficient possible" "</font><br /><br />Again, what is the better and safer way to return from moon than, say, how Apollos did?

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...You are obsessing about the least dangerous part..."<br /><br />NO, I'm not "obsessed", the last dangerous part of flight is only a PART of the problem<br /><br />the spaceplane MUST be made because:<br /><br />- it is the base research for future sub-orbital and orbital commercial planes<br />- to send people in orbit and come back to a runway<br />- to send and come back frequently the ISS crew, so the ISS will be finally USEFUL<br />- for commercial-industrial-military-emergency-scientific missions<br />- to repair space objects like ISS and Hubble<br />- to send in orbit the specialists to assemble ISS, lunar mission modules, etc.<br /><br />lunar mission is only the (last) part of the game<br /><br />spaceplane must be made also if lunar missions will not be made<br /><br />spaceplane is the NEXT LOGICAL STEP of earth and space flights evolution<br /><br />spaceplane is the BASE of all future projects<br /><br />if you need to go office, holiday, house, cinema, mountain, sea, etc. DON'T BUY a different vehicle for each purpose (square for office, conical for holiday, sphere for sea, etc.) but a SINGLE "general-purpose" vehicle (commonly called "car"...)<br /><br />car may be less efficient for some purpose but is the best "medium" choice for all<br /><br />if we want to increase space explorations and research we need a (less "geometrically efficient" but general-purpose) "space-car"<br /><br />spaceplane is the only possible "car" for space, a capsule with "compressed" people and hardware NEVER become so "normal" like a space-car<br /><br />all the reflection about best "geometry" and best "space per mass" are SENSLESS in this vision (see the list of priorities for a true progress in one of my previous posts)<br /><br />it is useless that you insist to send me questions about "efficiency of cone", etc. because I don't think that future missions must be based on efficiency!<br /><br />I think that go space must become better, safer, consuete, simpler, etc. (then we need first spaceplanes)

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br /><br />"...How does the craft returning from moon break into earth's orbit then..."<br /><br />spaceplane will NEVER go to moon orbit, so it don't need to come FROM moon orbit<br /><br />spaceplane remain in earth orbit, the earth-moon-earth travel must be made with a specialized vehicle that NEVER need to return to earth<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" the earth-moon-earth travel must be made with a specialized vehicle that NEVER need to return to earth "</font><br /><br />Sure, but the people in it want to return to earth. Again, how will this specialized vehicle <b>break</b> into LEO? It has to do that in order to allow the passengers transfer from it to your spaceplanes for returning to Earth.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"... the better and safer way to return from moon than, say, how Apollos did..."<br /><br /><br />with a 125tons payload SDLV we DON'T need to remake Apollo because we can make INFINITE different mission's architectures, some of which to-day we can't imagine<br /><br />we don't need to make only diesel cars because they works well, we can develop the technology to make hydrogen, battery, cold-fusion, antimatter cars... it is commonly called "progress"<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

Would you just lay out some architecture you can imagine that is vastly superior to Apollo-style direct return?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...to allow the passengers transfer from it to your spaceplanes for returning to Earth..."<br /><br /><br />yes, spaceplane will be the subtitute of Space Shuttle (but without cargo-bay)<br /><br />all "specialized" modules (like ISS, lunar orbital vehicle, mars orbital vehicle, comet orbital vehicle, solar orbital vehicle, venus orbital vehicle, etc.) will dock-undock a spaceplane (or ISS with spaceplanes) the crew will trasfer inside and come back to earth with lunar experiments, pictures, rocks, etc.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...vastly superior to Apollo-style direct return..."<br /><br />the future space missions don't need to be vastly-superior or equal the Apollo<br /><br />they must be only "better" in many other ways, no matter if Apollo is more efficient<br /><br />NASA doesn't need to build a 125tons payload rocket only to send in space "efficient" hardware<br /><br />with 125tons we can send in space WHAT WE WANT<br /><br />if we what to send better space-food, softdrinks, a pharmacy, a space-Jacuzzi, some LCD TV screens... WE SEND IT<br /><br />this is the "progress", no matter if it is "efficient" or not!<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"all "specialized" modules (like ISS, lunar orbital vehicle, mars orbital vehicle, comet orbital vehicle, solar orbital vehicle, venus orbital vehicle, etc.) will dock-undock a spaceplane (or ISS with spaceplanes) the crew will trasfer inside and come back to earth with lunar experiments, pictures, rocks, etc. "</font><br /><br />For like 455th time; How does the craft returning from moon, or mars, break into Earth orbit? It has to break, decelerate, loose speed, or it will just swing by and exit into deep space.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...more effective arguments for the use of wings..."<br /><br /><br />winged spaceplanes are not a "strange" theory, they exists (Shuttle) and works well (the only problem of Shuttle is that at lift-off it is a dangerous flying-bomb due to joined payload launch)<br /><br />have a little crew-only shuttle is a progress and is useful in many ways (as I've explained in many posts)<br /><br />no matter if it is more or less efficient than capsule, I don't need to demonstrate it because for me is NOT important if capsule is more "effiient", with a capsule we lose all other spaceplane advantages<br /><br />but, there is a thing that I don't understand (please explain me):<br /><br />WHY, so much people (and forums Posters) think (and say repeatedly!) that Burt Rutan, Virgin, Pegasus maker, "privates", etc. may build a low cost, orbital spaceplane for tourists (after an, already working in tests, suborbital plane) while NASA, with hundreds times engineers, experience, funds, research, prototipes (and the biggest aerospace companies that works for it) CAN'T BUILD the spaceplane! (so it will have a simple "cone" for the next 20 years!)<br /><br />it's incredible, absurd!<br /><br />why do you think that, your mechanic, can repair your car, while General Motors CAN'T!!!!!<br /><br />NASA can project and build DOZENS of different spaceplanes! (if it wants, of course)<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

What gets me is the debate is focusing on the capsule when the real problems with the proposed system is the rockets.<br /><br />A solid fuel booster only has one failure mode, catastrophic. They are very dirty environmentally, something that is sure to cause opposition to a space program if a high launch rate is ever achieved. Despite these problems they are slated for use as boosters for the HLV and as the first stage for the CLV. The SSME is being proposed as the upper stage engine for the CLV and as the main engines for the HLV despite the fact that these are far more expensive than the RS-68 engine.<br /><br />