no lifting body concept spaceplane has failed. Yes, the X33 was cancelled, but had it been allowed to continue with the focus on developing tanks from new materials, it would have eventually yielded something worthwhile.<br />You seem to forget that MANY programs not related to spaceplanes have been cancelled over the years, some at pretty advanced stages.<br />Would you maybe prefer that we NOT develop any new technology? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
"Would you maybe prefer that we NOT develop any new technology?"<br /><br />No, I would prefer that Spaceplane fan boys join us here in the real world.<br /><br />The CEV is going to be an operational space ship. It isn't a prototype. It isn't an X-plane. It isn't a technology demonstrator. It has to work, a concept that seems to be beyond the fan boys grasp. Putting unproven technology on an operational vehicle is a stupid idea, and an even stupider idea when that vehicle is the only one you are going to have.<br /><br />Look at how capsules were developed. The Mercury was never considered an operational spaceship. It was more of an X-plane than anything else. No two of them were even identical. The Gemini capsule wasn't even remotely an operational space craft. It was more like another X-plane, and like Mercury no two of them were the same, each one was built to do a certain mission. It wasn't until Apollo that we had a spacecraft that could even be considered as a semi-operational vehicle, one that was designed to do missions who's focus was more than working out the bugs in designing space ships.<br /><br />Then there's the Shuttle program. It started out simple enough with Faget's DC-3 concept. It wasn't supposed to replace Apollo as the only space ship. It was intended to do one thing, to service a space station that would be lofted by Saturn V launchers while Apollo carried out the work of exploration. Budget cuts killed everything but the Shuttle and it grew into a bloated monster that skipped all prototype testing and went straight to developing a complex system all at once. The result was a Spaceplane that had many flaws.<br /><br />That was the WRONG way to develop an operational vehicle, but that is precisely the mistake the space plane fan boys want to repeat, skip all preliminaries and go straight to building an operational vehicle full of bells and whistles and a pair of kitchen sinks.<br /><br />You need to do it right, you need to build a "Mercury" Spaceplane a
"Putting unproven technology on an operational vehicle is a stupid idea"<br /><br />If anyone has doubt about this, look at the Pentagon. They routinely base future procurements on technologies that haven't even been developed yet (ie: Future Combat Systems, DD(X), F-22). What often results is massive delays and budget overruns (far in excess of NASA).<br /><br />Technology needs to be developed, but you cannot base your future plans on what you don't have yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Please remember that the designs the commercial companies are using were developed by NASA in the first place. The lifting body concepts are not new. They are using designs and data based on what was tested years ago.<br />You use a framing hammer to build a house, you use a BFH when the car... Well thats another story.<br />The proposed CEV is usable for the app, low cost and fast to produce.<br />Let the commercial ventures use the data gathered by NASA to go into space. After all NASA is research and not a taxi company.
<font color="yellow">Technology needs to be developed, but you cannot base your future plans on what you don't have yet.</font><br /><br />In other words, companies should just build stuff on their own and hope the government buys it?<br />This is what is happening in the alt.space companies, but the established aerospace giants will never do that simply because they are worried about the mouths they have to feed and thus require contracts for every project 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><i>After all NASA is research and not a taxi company.</i><br /><br />Which is exactly why NASA should be using its resources for things like scramjet research or RLV development, with the goal of advancing technology, instead of spending all of its money on a capsule that will, in fact, be nothing more than an expensive taxi.
Why do you have so much trouble comprehending that NASA isn't a one dimensional agency? You are as bad as the Science geeks that want to drop any and every thing to pursue nothing but robotic probes.<br /><br />NASA has more than one mission, it has other things on it's plate besides making techno-geeks happy looking at the latest plans for a super duper space plane. It has missions that actually require a working operational spaceship.<br /><br />
VT: NASA IS doing scramjet and RLV research. That's exactly the point!!!!! Scramjets and RLVs are !!!!REASERCH!!!! projects. Exploration requires more mature technology. <br /><br />NASA has not stopped doing basic aerospace research, they can't its as much a part of their charter as exploration is. A lot of the more controversial research--like nuclear propulsion--is quietly going on at private companies funded by grants from NASA. All you Orion fans out there check out the Andrews Aerospace website. NASA is funding their Nuclear Pulse research. We may actually get an Orion better than anything Dyson imagined someday.<br /><br />The surest way to screw up a journey of exploration is to depend on untested technology. Once we get a solid foot hold on the moon and mars there will be plenty of time for field testing those whiz bang toys we all want to see.
NASA's gutting a lot of its research programs to pay for this moon excursion debacle. It's not like there's an even balance between programs. If we're lucky, maybe we'll see 90% of NASA's budget going toward paying for lunar flights and 1% being applied to scramjet propulsion or other worthwhile research areas.
NASA's plate isn't just full, it's over loaded. It has to wind down the Shuttle, Build and operate the ISS, and come up with a replacement for the Shuttle. In addition it has other legacy projects like Cassini and the Mars Rovers, and the up coming New Horizons, doling out the pork that Congress insists on sticking in the budget, doing Aeronautics research like the Aircraft silencing program, and meeting quotas for small businesses and minority businesses and colleges. It has a limited budget to do all of that with.<br /><br />Some of these problems are due to spaceplanes. Just keeping the workforce in place to operate one spaceplane is gobbling a big hunk of NASA's budget, and the problem of a Shuttle replacement wouldn't be as bad if NASA had started building the Capsule some time ago instead of farting around with overly ambitious spaceplane programs.<br /><br />
<i>In other words, companies should just build stuff on their own and hope the government buys it?</i><br /><br />The line you responded to was not really aimed at any one group. In NASA's case, it cannot simply decide what technology it wished it had and then base all future designs off that technology. Such a mentality will lead to massive time and cost overruns without much to show for it. <br /><br />As I pointed out, many DoD programs are perfect examples of this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I guess the main point is that we KNOW we can get to the moon with the technology we have (because we already did it with lower technology!) Why should we wait around even longer while we develop something new? And when will it end? If we have a spaceplane will people say we should wait till we have SSTO? If we have SSTO will people say we should wait for nuclear propulsion? If we have nuclear propulsion will people say we should wait till we have anti-gravity?<br /><br />If the moon isn't worth going to at all then why even bother? Would it be more worth gong to in a spaceplane then it is in a capsule? Was controlled flight not worth having because it was first done with wood and cloth biplanes? Should the Wright's have waited for turbojets and titanium alloy? <br /><br />If the moon and mars are not worth flying to in a capsule then there not worth flying to in an Imperial Star Destroyer. If they ARE worth flying to then we should start ASAP--and that means capsules. No its not the best solution, but the pioneers made do with conestoga wagons, they didn't wait around for interstate highways.
The problem is, as long as NASA spends the bulk of its money operating existing systems, it won't be able to advance our level of technology.
Nobody should have dreamed of crossing oceans until there was GPS and turbo-electric propulsion! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
The problem is if NASA doesn't have a WORKING manned space ship it won't be long before it doesn't have any money for anything. No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. The manned space program is what brings in the bucks that pays for the research.<br /><br />
"Think, if you can get past your emotional state of drooling over spaceplanes,..." -- Dobbins<br /><br />Ah yes, that's the Dobbins I know so well, doing his usual to elevate debate here at the forums. What ever would we do without him?<br /><br />Dobbins enlightens us on lifting body spacecraft, "...how did Sanger include the lifting body in his 1930s silverbird bomber design in the 1930s if it wasn't dreamed up until 1957? Was he psychic or something? The NASA site is incorrect, there was nothing original about Eggers idea."<br /><br /><br />Hmmm...looks like /* username distortion deleted */ has at least backed off comparing pre-WWII Burnelli aircraft to hypersonic spacecraft. That's something at least. Even without the silly equating of spacecraft to aircraft, the Burnelli airplanes have much more in common with flying wings than with lifting bodies. Here is one link...<br /><br />http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm<br /><br />Now onto /* username distortion deleted */ claims about the Sanger spaceplane, which are almost as silly. From astronatix.com comes this information...<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saenger.htm<br /><br />"Eugen Saenger conceived of a winged spaceplane while a doctoral candidate at the Vienna Polytechnic Institute. His 1933 Silverbird concept was for a Mach 10 glider that would cruise at 160 km altitude. The aircraft was to have a spindle-shaped fuselage and low aspect ratio wedge wings. Saenger published Techniques of Rocket Flight' privately in late 1933. By 1934 he had refined the design to a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle. It would have a hypersonic L/D ratio of 5.1, reach a top speed of Mach 13 at burnout of its rocket motor, and then enter a 5,000 km long glide, reaching a stable Mach 3.3 cruise at 50 km altitude. By the end of the 1930's Saenger had refined the Silverbird aerodyn
"I guess the main point is that we KNOW we can get to the moon with the technology we have (because we already did it with lower technology!) Why should we wait around even longer while we develop something new? And when will it end?"<br /><br />The problem is NASA will spend 15 plus billion dollars on developing new launch vehicles. And all that money will not make it easier or cheaper to send mass to LEO or anyplace beyond.<br /><br />How many missions and how much mass could be sent up spending 15 billion dollars using existing launch vehicles? The problem with the ESAS architecture is it's wastefull. And NASA doesn't have spare resources to waste.
First of all my name is Dobbins, I'm not a coward that hides behind cutesy handles, I sign it to every post.<br /><br />Second of all only telling part of the development of Sanger's bomber is typical of the cheap tricks of a huckster.<br /><br />Third of all anyone who would use an unproven concept in a production vehicle is a fool.<br /><br />
"The problem is NASA will spend 15 plus billion dollars on developing new launch vehicles. And all that money will not make it easier or cheaper to send mass to LEO or anyplace beyond."<br /><br />The point is to do more than stay in the LEO rut, to return to real exploration. That can't be done with any existing vehicles.<br /><br />
"Second of all only telling part of the development of Sanger's bomber is typical of the cheap tricks of a huckster."<br /><br />Oh really? I provide links for anyone to check the accuracy of the information I present. It's called evidence.<br /><br />You on the other hand just assert things. That is when you're not busy using your primary mode of persuasion, the personal insult.<br /><br />
"That is when you're not busy using your primary mode of persuasion, the personal insult."<br /><br />Now why do I have images of a pot talking about a kettle in my mind?<br /><br />
Silbervogel, German for Silverbird, was a design for a rocket-powered sub-orbital bomber aircraft produced by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt in the late 1930s. It is sometimes referred to as the Amerika Bomber, although it was only one of a number of designs considered for this mission. When Walter Dornberger attempted to create interest in military spaceplanes in the United States after World War II, he chose the more diplomatic term antipodal bomber. The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology, and the principle of the lifting body. In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive to produce. The design never went beyond wind tunnel testing (pictured).<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel<br /><br />The lifting body design is apparant in the picture of the wind tunnel model.<br /><br />You can find more on it by googling Amerika Bomber.<br />
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Could that be Santa's sleigh? Early risers can spot the ISS from the UK this Christmas
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram