Space Planes

[dobbins]

Since the Apollo Soyuz test program the US manned space program has had several periods of space plane induced grounding.<br /><br />24 Jul 1975 to 12 Apr 1981 5 years 8 months 19 days<br />28 Jan 1986 to 28 Sep 1988 2 years 8 months<br />1 Feb 2003 to 26 Jul 2005 2 years 5 months 25 days<br />9 Aug 2005 to 3 May 2006 (hopefully) 8 months 24 days<br /><br />That adds up to 11 years 7 months 8 days, over a third of the time between the last Apollo hardware flight and the tentative next Shuttle flight. A longer period of time than elapsed between NASA coming into existence in October 1958 and landing a man on the Moon in July 1969.<br /><br />In addition there have been several attempts to develop another space plane, all of which ran into budget and/or technical problems. Despite this we still have the space plane fans demanding, not asking DEMANDING, that we do another one.<br /><br />I'm not willing to watch the American space program stuck on the ground waiting for a Gee Whiz space plane for almost 6 years after the last Shuttle flight like I did after the last Apollo hardware flew. I'm fed up with space plane induced groundings. I want something that gets astronauts into space, and I don't care if it looks like Apollo, like Soyuz, like a big Mercury capsule or like the rocket in Flesh Gordon (Yes Flesh, not Flash).<br /><br />

 

[BReif]

Well said Dobbins. What is the point of having a "space plane"? Just to take off like an airplane, and land like an airplane? In LEO, and beyond, and at the Moon, there is no atmospere, and wings on a spacecraft will just be additional weight and mass requiring more fuel for propulsion, with no necessary function. We need a workhorse spacecraft capable of flying in space, to the Moon, and to LEO. Does it matter how it takes off and how it lands, as long as it does? And wouldn't it be far cheaper in the long run if the mass/weight of the wings was eliminated, so that more payload and people can be flown to the Moon with less fuel? IMO, all a space plane will do is keep us in LEO, or worse, keep us earthbound.

 

[dobbins]

Wings are as useful in space as tail fins were on cars.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What is the point of having a "space plane"? Just to take off like an airplane, and land like an airplane? ... And wouldn't it be far cheaper in the long run if the mass/weight of the wings was eliminated, so that more payload and people can be flown to the Moon with less fuel?</font>/i><br /><br />First off, I agree with Dobbin's post. But I just wanted to add a little here for the pro-plane group.<br /><br />The cost of "fuel" to put a pound in LEO is about the same as the cost of "fuel" to fly that pound from the US to Australia on a convential jet. The cost of fuel should not be an issue, and generally, the mass/weight should not be an issue.<br /><br />There are two major costs that must be addressed. For non-reusuable systems, there is the cost to build each spacecraft (the primary problem with traditional rockets). For reusable systems, there is the cost to refurbish the spacecraft between launches (the primary problem with STS).<br /><br />IF (big "if") a substantial amount of the vehicle could be reused (e.g., the valuable engines) AND the cost of refurbishment was low, then a space "plane" (it could be a VTVL vehicle with no wings) makes sense.<br /><br />(caveat: The mission requirements must be taken into account. For example, is it (1) suborbital, (2) just to LEO and back, or (3) returning at Lunar velocities? Different solutions may be more applicable for different missions).</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

A lifting body design is the best solution for a reliable, reusable transport system to/from LEO. It's a shame that here in the United States we're about to take a step backwards just as the Russians are taking a step forward, moving from Soyuz to Kliper.

 

[dobbins]

Lifting bodies only have an advantage in 1% of a mission profile, capsules are better for the other 99%, not that I expect that bit of reality to have the least effect on a true believer in the gospel of space planes.<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

If you had a 59 Caddy they served a purpose, hey I had one, for a while. If you want to land back on the Earth with reliability you need a wing. Of course they are useless in Space, except for storage, but they make a much simpler and safer return means for people.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The most dangerous part of a mission is reentry, and wings make it more dangerous. The second most dangerous part is accent to space, and wings make it more dangerous. Overall winged vehicles are more dangerous than capsules.<br /><br />That makes wings worse than useless, it makes them a safety hazzard.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

1. ask Darwin... from apes (shuttle) evolution come our species, from seashells (capsule) evolution only other seashells<br /><br />2. if you want to know "how much" future (and when) we will have, thanks to CEV, see the (possible) CEV plan:<br /><br />2005: nothing<br /><br />2006: nothing<br /><br />2007: nothing<br /><br />2008: nothing<br /><br />2009: nothing<br /><br />2010: nothing<br /><br />2011: nothing<br /><br />2012: nothing<br /><br />2013: first uncrewed test flight, due to 2005's first (of many) CEV delay<br /><br />2014: first manned flight of the simplified orbital-only CEV<br /><br />2015: two ISS flights (if it is open...) and ONLY for crew turnover NOT for resupply since CEV has ZERO payload<br /><br />2016: three ISS flights (again, if it is open...)<br /><br />2017: first manned orbital test of full "lunar" CEV<br /><br />2018: first lunar orbital flight (like Apollo 8... many of us will return children...)<br /><br />2019: earth and lunar test of all the "lunar" hardware (LEM2, docking, etc. a' la Apollo 9...)<br /><br />2020: first LEM2 lunar landing! Armstr... Eminem says "this is a little step for man, etc. (where I've heared this?...), 200 lbs. of rocks<br /><br />2021: champagne! this year we will have TWO lunar missions and 500 lbs. of moon-rocks!<br /><br />2022: again, TWO missions, 500 lbs. of moon-rocks and a new BMW-LunarSUV!<br /><br />2023: NASA plans four missions to take 1000 lbs. of moon-rocks but Congress cuts the budget... TWO missions<br /><br />2024: after LEM2-17, public opinion and Congress ask NASA why spend so much billions only for rocks, rocks, rocks, rocks<br /><br />2025: Congress and NASA decide to end the (useless and risky) moon missions before a Shuttle-like accident will happen<br /><br />2026: the last CEVs available will be on show at NASA and Smithsonian Museum, for tourists...<br /><br />TOTAL use of CEV "capsule" ends after ONLY 18 flights<br /><br />A VERY EXCITING FUTURE WAIT FOR US IN SPACE IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS!!!<br />

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but they make a much simpler and safer return means for people. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />All actual flight experience to the contrary, of course. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[wdobner]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since the Apollo Soyuz test program the US manned space program has had several periods of space plane induced grounding. <br /><br />24 Jul 1975 to 12 Apr 1981 5 years 8 months 19 days <br />28 Jan 1986 to 28 Sep 1988 2 years 8 months <br />1 Feb 2003 to 26 Jul 2005 2 years 5 months 25 days <br />9 Aug 2005 to 3 May 2006 (hopefully) 8 months 24 days <br /><br />That adds up to 11 years 7 months 8 days, over a third of the time between the last Apollo hardware flight and the tentative next Shuttle flight. A longer period of time than elapsed between NASA coming into existence in October 1958 and landing a man on the Moon in July 1969. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hehe, nothing like skewing statistics. I could just as easily claim that the five and a half year gap between the ASTP and the first launch of the Columbia was the fault of the Apollo program. After all, if ASTP and the previous Skylab missions had been flown with some form of semi-RLV then it's possible that they could have flown again right up into 1981 when the Shuttle would have taken over. At the very least it's a bureaucratic failure, if NASA really cared about flying in that timeframe then they should have purchased a few more Apollo/Saturns and kept Skylab in orbit.<br /><br />The segmented boosters were a poor choice, but were required by NASA's contract with Morton Thiokol and the booster failure does not constitute a failure of the spaceplane. The HLV would have faired just as badly in that instance and if the problem had gone uncorrected it's possible a catestrophic blowout could have eventually occured, dooming even the CEV riding the SDLV stick into space. <br /><br />Secondly, other than the potential 3 years and 2 months attributable to the failure of the thermal protection system on Columbia none of that really is relevent to the idea of a spaceplane. Even then the run up to space for a spaceplane is likely to be far more gentle for a HO

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">The most dangerous part of a mission is reentry, and wings make it more dangerous. The second most dangerous part is accent to space, and wings make it more dangerous. Overall winged vehicles are more dangerous than capsules. <br /><br />That makes wings worse than useless, it makes them a safety hazzard. </font><br /><br />Yeah wings are bad, bad, bad.... with wings you'll need landing gears, which needs open hatch, and all these under surfaces needs TPS (heavy heavy heavy) and the WLE C-C TPS OMG !!! ... back to the Shuttle Orbiter problems again. <br /><br />25 years of Shuttle operation and you still ONLY land at two sites. What's the big deal? Capsule can do that !! <br /><br />The CEV will look really bad taking all those wings to the moon. Then how would you land the CEV? Vertically or horizontally? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Darwin told me space planes are like another flightless bird, the dodo.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

HOTOL? SSTO? <br /><br />If you want to make it as hard as possible to reach orbit why not just use black powder rockets?<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...dodo..."<br /><br />I've posted a realistic plan of the (very poor) CEV-LEM program in the next 20 (twenty!!!) years<br /><br />but probably you prefer to ignore the cruel realty (and facts) to live in a dream...<br /><br />then... goodnight Dobbins!<br />

 

[dobbins]

The reality is there was nothing logical in your post, it was a waste of bandwidth that didn't address the dismal record of space planes.<br /><br />

 

[wdobner]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> What is the point of having a "space plane"?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The chief advantage I can think of would be the true reusability and fast cycling time which the Space Shuttle originally purported to offer. Of course the shuttle fell short because the logistics involved in its launch killed any chance of it being regularly flown. Given the extensive repairs to the SSMEs required for however many flight hours it may as well have been an expendible rocket. Perhaps the saving grace is that the expensive life support and instrumentation didn't have to be built over and over again as they would have in an expendible vehicle.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just to take off like an airplane, and land like an airplane? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />An air breathing, high ISP, mid air refuelable HOTOL SSTO vehicle certainly has it's advantages. Access to any orbit from one launch site consisting only of a runway and some small ground facilities sounds good. There's also the potential to use aerial refuelling to fly from higher latitudes down to near the equator and fire commercial payloads almost right into their geosynchronous orbits.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> In LEO, and beyond, and at the Moon, there is no atmospere, and wings on a spacecraft will just be additional weight and mass requiring more fuel for propulsion, with no necessary function. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So why does the CEV have a heat shield and parachutes? After all, there's no air on the moon, so a heat shield is pretty much just additional mass requiring more fuel for propulsion, with no neccesary function. Why not an actual Spacecraft? One with no provisions for atmospheric flight. So far the only manned vehicle we've had with no provisions for atmospheric flight is the LEM. Optimize the CEV for spaceflight as opposed to atmospheric flight and

 

[nacnud]

Well you've mentioned the moon flights; a lot depends on whether the ISS gets complete and if NASA pulls out entirely from 2010 onwards. I can see congress might have something to say if NASA gives up its permanently manned space station while ESA and RSA don't. If NASA continues with the ISS then there would probably be a around six extra CEV/CLV launches a year, two manned and four cargo. <br /><br />That adds 50-70 flights over a ten year period.<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">So why does the CEV have a heat shield and parachutes? <br /><br /><font color="white">To allow anytime abort to Earth, one of NASAs requirements for the CEV. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">As I've said, an airbreathing spaceplane has many advantages if the technologies and funding problems are sorted out.<br /><br /><font color="white">Thats a big if, in 35 years of trying they haven't been sorted. What has changed?</font></font></font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it only try to explain you the true origin of your CEV-happiness... a "twenty years" space program FULL of "NOTHING"!<br /><br />leave the CEV to ISS flights and the "plan" will be poorer...<br /><br />I've forget something in my times and CEV flights list?<br /><br />you send ironic post, my post is (unfortunately for you) the cruel realty!

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...whether the ISS gets complete..."<br /><br />the planned last shuttle flights was 19 (18 ISS, 1 Hubble) but, in afew days, NASA said that can't do more than 8 shuttle flights in 2006-2010 (7 for ISS resupply only, NOT finish it, 1 for Hubble) or, probably, only ONE (for Hubble)<br /><br />but I think that, if next 2006 launch will have a little, little, little problem, the Shuttle program will end the same day!<br /><br />another cruel realty: the Shuttle is dead!<br /><br />without the Shuttle also the ISS is dead, half-ISS and Soyuz is safe only for three, that, without Shuttle payloads can't do or "experiments" NOTHING!<br /><br />probably ISS will survive a few years with Soyuz and Progress but Russia, ESA and NASA will soon realize that it is only a waste of money and a giant risk for ISS crews!<br /><br />I don't think that in 2015 we will see so much CEV flights to a little, obsolete and risky space station!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">in 2015 the only choice for ISS will be "Atlantic or Pacific?"</font><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">with wings you'll need landing gears, which needs open hatch, and all these under surfaces needs TPS (heavy heavy heavy)</font>/i><br /><br />I have seen a similar design for both stealth aircraft and a proposed Mars lander: the craft basically flies upside down and then flips over to extend its landing gear.<br /><br />In the case of the Mars lander, it avoids the thermal tile hatch problem -- the side with the most thermal exposure has an unbroken TPS system. In the case of the stealth aircraft, it avoids seams that can reflect radar. The stealth aircraft would also turn over to open a bay door for any ordinances.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The CEV is designed for a return from the Moon. The capsule is ideal for that mission with today's technology.</font>/i><br /><br />The Moon or Mars?<br /><br />Griffin has mentioned a few times that they started with Mars requirements and worked backwards to arrive at the ESAS. Could the CEV survive a direct re-entry when returning from Mars, or would there be other means used to slow it down first?</i>

 

[wdobner]

<i>To allow anytime abort to Earth, one of NASAs requirements for the CEV. </i><br /><br />That's too bad. Someday we'll have to get both feet of the planet.<br /><br /><i>Thats a big if, in 35 years of trying they haven't been sorted. What has changed? </i><br /><br />A better understanding of fluid dynamics. The X-43 managed Mach 10 flight, so we just need to keep that program going for a while. Unfortunately NASA killed the X-43 right after it's amazing flight in the name of sending 3 guys to the moon.

 

[drwayne]

That is fascinating!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>