Space Plane Concept Forgotten?

[scottb50]

A winged vehicle just does not make sense for that application. Infact the technology for a heatshiel for such a large surface area is probaly sitll beyound our current technology for a viable vehicle (one with a sufficient enough payload)>>><br /><br />I still think direct entry is a bad idea and think it is just as much a waste to take a winged vehicle to Mars or the moon as it is to take a re-entry vehicle period. If we go to the moon we have to establish lunar orbit then send down a lander, when you talk about the complexity of a vehicle to direct enter the Martian atmosphere and return from the surface to Earth you have the same problems of size.<br /><br />To enter Mars orbit and send down a vehicle or enter Earth orbit and rendevous with a surface return vehicle costs propellant, but that is offset by structure needed for direct entry.<br /><br />Another consideration, especially for a Mars mission is do we really want samples to come directly to Earth? While the likelyhood of biology is pretty low it makes a lot more sense to do research in LEO, at least initially. I still think the best solution is task specific vehicles; Earth to LEO and back, LEO to moon or Mars orbits and moon or Mars Landers and Ascenders, that could pretty much be the same. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats also true but it would have to be designed almost from the outset to do it as your proposing. At this point, whiles its not too late to go a different route. Its not likely to occur. Otherwise, having both an Orion and other access to and from earths surface would probably been seen as an unecessary expense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

mrmorris:<br />For what it's worth -- your posts are resonating with an old, and oft-repeated debate on SDC -- capsules vs. lifting bodies. <br /><br />Me:<br />That may be an old debate, but we still havn't built an economical operational lifting body. I'm certainly not the only one debating it. Keep in mind, I said both concepts would work. Just depends on what you want to do and how much you are willing to spend. They have advantages and disadvantages as most designs do.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br />I did read in your posts where you dismissed the concept as fiction. However, often you followed that with statement that used it with implications that it was functional.<br /><br />Me:<br />Here I'll simply have to spell it out. Not that my design is funtional but that someone else may...key word may design a craft that can be air launched from a 747. And that such a design...not mine, had some real advantages to it.<br /><br />I see people here deiscuss Orion and BDBs as though they would work. Just build em and they will work. They might, they might not but I never saw anyone get slammed for proposing they would work. I suppose its because the folks who designed them are real engineers and we all know real engineers design stuff that works first time every time.<br /><br />mrmorris:<br />Anyway -- this has been done to death. I will note though that it *is* possible to do your own research to guestimate the realism of concepts like this. Using Google, you could research a lot of the basics of your wedge in a few days.<br /><br />Me:<br />You'd have to know the full extent of what I'm trying to do, what the books about, and the fact it comes with disclaimers, to know why I didn't fully research on Google. In short, ever try to write, illustrate, publish, do it all withing the remaining years of your life all while being trapped in the work world coming home too tired half the time to even want to write...much less illustrate or come up with a working wedge.<br /><br />If going to Google <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it's as if you were talking about Coyote & Roadrunner cartoons -- noted that they were simply shows for children -- <br /><br />but then went on to talk about how the 'hang time' from the point at which you walked off the edge of a cliff until the time that you realized you'd done so could be used in designing a more efficient hovercraft.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />lol<br /><br /><br />.. well if you put it that way ..<br /><br />.

 

[vt_hokie]

I just hope that Blackstar is real. Orion is a huge step backwards for our space program.

 

[yevaud]

Cartoon Physics <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

If its any other concept except mine...its gotta be real. Only I do concepts, put out disclaimers, make comparisons in general terms for the purpose mostly of discussion and assuming people are reading my posts...and still get criticized or painted as someone whos proposing magical concepts...go figure.<br /><br />I would hope something like Blackstar might be operational by now. Been hearing about it for years. The next best or probably the best hope is that the current private industry/enterprise efforts will yield low cost access to orbit in the form of capsule, lifting body, or winged.<br /><br />Just gotta get that economical access to LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Not this time around. The timing is all wrong. Perhaps next time when NASA is looking to replace Orion capsules. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Your probably right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I for one hope that these are the last vehicles that NASA builds themselves. Commercial rockets were at least in the running this time, and in 20 years commercial launch systems will hopefully be cost effective enough that a $3-4B/year jobs-welfare NASA launch system will be too embarassing in contrast to off the shelf systems for them to get away with it.<br /><br />Anything NASA builds will have political goals ahead of technical/financial merit, which always means higher cost, higher technical risk, and often lower safety.

 

[wdobner]

I hate to dredge this up from page 3, but it seems to be the crux of the most recent discussion:<br /><br /><i>IMO we need two capsules: one low cost capsule that carries 6-8 passengers to/from LEO and one capable of direct high speed re-entry from lunar/planetary missions.</i><br /><br />Why two capsules? If you're going to be doing a two vehicle solution with one a ground-LEO-ground ferry optimized for payload and presumably rapid turnarounds between flights and the other a 'exploration' design optimized for flights between the Earth, Moon, Mars and other points of interest in our immediate area why make the former design a capsule? It seems that your LEO ferry capsule is pretty much setting up the exact parameters that would dictate a spaceplane concept be explored. A two stage to orbit vehicle, either with a the slow, low approach of a 747/AN225/B-52 air dropped launch, or the fast, high approach using some as-yet undeveloped scramjet powered mothership, would offer full reusability, extremely short turnarounds, and I would imagine would be perfectly capable of placing 8 people in earth orbit with a respectable safety margin on reentry. You may save in the short term on development costs with a large capsule, but if you're proposing a high capacity system then over time the booster costs (even with SpaceX's launchers) and longer time between flights would handicap your proposal. With a spaceplane handling the earth to LEO humdrum stuff and keep the capsule to where it is best suited, high earth orbit and beyond, then you get the best of both worlds. Nobody's strapping themselves atop a bomb just to go to the ISS so the vast majority of trips into space are safer, or at least have more palatable (and less catestrophic) failure modes. And because a capsule is going to the moon we're not hauling wings out to there. <br /><br />To expand upon this, once you have the ferry, be it spaceplane, capsule, or perhaps even space elevator between the ground and orbit your e

 

[qso1]

IMO. The whole problem here is not capsule vs winged, as both would work. Some tasks are better suited for capsules and vice versa and some tasks can be done equally well by both. A lot of good ideas have shown up here at SDC. But none adress the cost issue near as well as they address various engineering and technical issues.<br /><br />I also realize that this thread is a discussion of forgotten spaceplanes and in keeping with that title verbage. Cost is as important a reason why spaceplane concepts have been forgotten, or more accurately...abandoned, as any engineering or technical issue.<br /><br />And make no mistake, the problem is cost...the cost barrier. This barrier is the reason the shuttle ended up being to complex to fly 60 missions annually as was originally proposed. This barrier is the reason for cancellation of the Orient Express/NASP/X-30, Shuttle II, X-33 (Delta Clipper and Venture Star), HL-20, and other concepts since the mid 1980s that I've long since forgotten. Even early private industry efforts such as Roton were affected by the cost barrier.<br /><br />Our scientist and engineers have dealt well with other barriers. The sound barrier, the man in space barrier. Even the man on the moon barrier so to speak. But this cost barrier as I call it, has become especially prominent within the last three decades.<br /><br />The traditional way of doing things and the cost barrier conspire to keep us from ever getting an optimal solution for reducing the cost of going to LEO. In an ideal world, both capsule and winged would probably have a role.<br /><br />Our only recourse short of that is to see what private industry/enterprise or perhaps another country can do, as the ball is...or soon will be in their court. Or if one here is so inclined, the next design should include a well thought out cost rationale because technically. Some here obviously know there stuff when proposing and commenting on engineering and technical issues. But cost is usually just mentioned <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

There's so many strawmen in that post it's hard to decide which to pick apart first. I'll restrict myself to the first paragragh just to keep this reasonably short.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"It seems that your LEO ferry capsule is pretty much setting up the exact parameters that would dictate a spaceplane concept be explored."</font><br /><br />A conclusion before attempting to make a single point. Nifty.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"A two stage to orbit vehicle, either with a the slow, low approach of a 747/AN225/B-52 air dropped launch, or the fast, high approach using some as-yet undeveloped scramjet powered mothership, would offer full reusability, extremely short turnarounds, and I would imagine would be perfectly capable of placing 8 people in earth orbit with a respectable safety margin on reentry."</font><br /><br />You've stated -- without providing any proof -- that your proposal will provide full reusability and quick turnarounds. What exactly are you basing this on? Not only that, you're proposing the use of a scramjet that doesn't exist. How much do you know about them? Have you been closely following the technology of Scramjets? I have... and I'm not proposing using them since they're probably 30 years of R&D away from viability for this purpose. Also -- like spaceplanes -- there's nothing magical about scramjets. The only thing a working scramjet will buy is a mass reduction because less oxidizer has to be onboard. This is a big plus, but not the silver bullet it's often touted as.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"You may save in the short term on development costs with a large capsule, but if you're proposing a high capacity system then over time the booster costs (even with SpaceX's launchers) and longer time between flights would handicap your proposal."</font><br /><br />You've stated -- without providing any proof -- that capsules are a lower capacity system than spaceplanes, that they will have

 

[scottb50]

That's why I advocate using mutiple common cores with each being totally independent. Two common cores for a medium lift launcher and four for a heavy lift vehicle. cover them with upper and lower fairings and outer wing panels.<br /><br />Take another common core with two smaller engines and use it as an upper stage. Carried piggy back to altitude and separated like the Shuttle from the ET the entire stage would stay in orbit for multiple uses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> And make no mistake, the problem is cost...the cost barrier. <br /><br />Cost is the killer. I think the solution is volume. The more flights achieved, at least in a commercial system, the cheaper each flight will become. Cheaper Access To Space is only going to happen by flying a lot, whether it's reusable or throw-away, capsule or spaceplane, volume is the way to drive costs down. <br /><br />At the same time, modern electronics offer incredible funtionality that raises the point at which some projects can be profitable. For purely robotic craft, we can do much more with less. Human craft are also more capable, but still not affordable, per se. Again with the volume issue: space stations would be a lot cheaper per unit by the dozen. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Volume would be the solution as the more you mass produce, the more you can take advantage of economies of scale. This is one reason I would hope private industry/enterprise would develop mass production capability for whatever they decide is profitable to do in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Yes, and reduction in cost, even minor reductions, can leverage into all sorts of new applications.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Kind of like opening a floodgate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> Kind of like opening a floodgate.<br /><br />Yes, and the lower prices go, the more of a flood of new applications become possible. The old "sweet spot" was assumed to be around $600/lb to LEO. I'm arguing that with modern electronics and manufacturing, the sweet spot is somewhat higher, because we can do so much more with less mass.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[publiusr]

An OSP/X-20 type spaceplane may be possible with this<br /><br />http://www.directlauncher.com/ <br /><br />This is the only LV that would give a top-mount spaceplane the needed authority it would require. Delta IV and R-7 were both a bit underpowered.<br /><br />This American Energiya M+ concept is just right. Bigger than EELV--not as large as Ares V. <br /><br />It has a much better concept than Hermes--what with weight creep placing it beyond Ariane V.<br /><br />