Space Planes

[dobbins]

Here is the news you are ignoring in order to maintain your fantasys.<br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=371057&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

I give you another reason to don't go again on the moon: YOU ALREADY LIVE ON THE MOON!!!<br /><br />the "cruel realty" is:<br /><br />- Discovery launch THREE years after Columbia crash<br /><br />- Discovery delayed several monhts, then fly only in summer 2005, again problems with tank's foam and thermal shield<br /><br />- only ONE launch in 2005<br /><br />- next launch delayed to june 2006 (if there are not little or big problems...)<br /><br />- if Shuttle will fly in june-august 2006, it will be probably the ONLY flight in 2006!<br /><br /><br />FOUR launches in 2006, SIX in 2007 ?!?!?!?!?!?!<br /><br />In which "sci-fi movie" you have seen it?<br /><br />But... if Shuttles are in so good condition (and so safe for crew to fly SIX times per year!), WHY spend money to build the CEV or change the Iran-Act to use the Soyuzs!?!?!?<br /><br /><br />The "cruel realty" is that Shuttles are TOO dangerous to fly with crew, so, both NASA and USA CAN'T RISK another Shuttle crash with SEVEN more astronauts dead!!!<br /><br />NASA can solve the foam problem (may be...) but NOT the next UNKNOWN dangerous problem!!!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">and, don't forget the NASA budget problems...</font><br /><br />The Shuttle is DEAD!<br /><br />It will still fly one or two (very dangerous) times, then IT WILL BE GROUNDED!<br /><br />You will see!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

In the first place you are not even an American, so your knowledge of what an American space program such as NASA can, and can not do, has to be somewhat limited at best. It is not someone like myself who has not only been an American all my life, but has devoted most of my life to the American space program that is NOT too optimistic, but someone as uninformed as yourself that if far too pessimistic.<br /><br />What I have called for in the shuttle schedule is nothing less than what NASA has said it can do, and I don't see any reason to believe they can't do it. After all, the shuttle is the same system that has flown as many as eight or more times in one year in the past. So it is NOT a great leap of faith to believe that three or even four ot more flights can't be accomplished by this same system. The current NASA schedule (and we should consult with someone such as shuttle-guy who has far greater knowledge of such matters than us) calls for some three flights next year beginning in May. Your saying that the shuttle will only fly for once a year would not be acceptable to either NASA or the congress that funds NASA. <br /><br />If the shuttle is going to fly to the relative safety of the ISS, where if a condition is discovered on the shuttle that would not be repirable at the station itself, then the astronauts could indeed be brought back to Earth on additional Soyus capsules. I would agree with you that NASA had better get back on the ball to accomplish this program or I think that congress will see to it that there will be NO NASA to accomplish anything!! <br /><br />Not only was I a part of every American space effort from Gemini to shuttle, but I have studied such programs all my adult life of some 45 years or so (I am 63). What do you in your pessimistic wisdom have to offer instead that would have a positive affect on the future of mankind in space instead of just knocking every effort currently being made by a country in which you don't even live!!

 

[dobbins]

I Give up. Logic and reality have no effect on you, nothing can move you away from your baseless assumptions. I simply can't take you serious any longer.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />Please, don't use similar arguments!<br /><br />The entire world know the Shuttles' story and plans!<br /><br />Give me GOOD ARGUMENTS.<br /><br />Explain me HOW a vehicle with so much problems can fly SIX TIMES per year!<br /><br />Probably there are some secret Shuttle flights that only americans can see... like in '60s Soviet Union...<br /><br />I will see in space directories, but I don't remember a year with six Shuttle launch, not even when Shuttles come NEW from its factory!<br /><br />arguments, please<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

I think there have been up to eight shuttle fights in a year and several years with six. It takes sixish months between shuttle flights so if everything goes smoothly that means six flights a year with a three vehicle fleet.<br /><br />There are lists of flights per year on this site, perhaps you could use the search box near the top od the page?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">In the meantime it is quite possible that people such as Burt Rutan in persuing the space tourism business may come up with a workable Horizontal Takeoff and Landing type of Lifting Body designed space plane. If so, then wonderful, but NASA can not count on this happening in the time frame given here.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. NASA is pursing a plan that minimizes program risk for a beyond LEO architecture. The private sector's focus for the near-term is suborbital and LEO, and they have more freedom to take risks on innovative designs than NASA does.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">So what is all this useless fuss about? I see people going back and forth and back and forth, and nobody seems to be getting anywhere here!!</font>/i><br /><br />My recommendations for the pro private sector and pro innovative deisgn crowd (of which I am one) are (1) work hard to earn lots of money, (2) live below your means so you can save/invest a fair amount of money, (3) buy a ticket on a commercial space flight that will be available in the next few years.<br /><br />Spending your own hard earned money on a commercial venture will do more to change the nature of spaceflight than posting on these message boards.</i></i>

 

[lampblack]

Well... it's worth noting that the first seven years of your timeline -- the gap in which there is "nothing" -- is actually time NASA will devote to retiring the shuttle and allegedly completing ISS construction.<br /><br />As regards CEV: the timeline actually BEGINS in 2011, when money starts really flowing into the actual CEV program (as opposed to shuttle or ISS). It's interesting: in just two years after the CEV program begins in ernest -- according to your timeline -- the first test flights are planned.<br /><br />And in seven years -- not an outrageous period, really -- the first lunar flights. And we'll finally have restored what we lost when the government killed the Apollo program. And it's not just two trips per year and moonrocks. With that infrastructure in place, lunar bases become an option. Mars becomes an option.<br /><br />What's wrong with that?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Here's what I expect, approval of at least part of the 19 flight manifest soon. I can accept that it will cover the flights through FY 2007. I expect slippage to occur at some point, tech glitches and weather problems will occur. I think this is why they have the 19 flights penciled in through FY 2009 rather than into FY 2010, so there is room for slippage.<br /><br />STS-121 is the biggy, if there is a foam problem then all bets are off. Unlike some posters I don't expect one, I just realize there is a small chance that the foam problem will still be there. I don't expect a recurrence of the foam problem to kill the program, but it will screw the schedule, perhaps to the point that there will be a reduction in the number of flights and more of the ISS dropped.<br /><br />Hubble Service. I don't expect to see this added to the manifest until after STS-121.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...up to eight shuttle fights in a year and several years with six..."<br /><br /><br />may be... when Shuttles was YOUNG and in GOOD HEALTH... but now Shuttles are OLD and DISEASED...<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">no, "was" 19, in september, but I've read a few days ago (now I search the source to post the link here) that NASA can't do more than two per year, so, max 8-10 flights within 2010, or, 19 flights, but, within 2015, not 2010 </font>/i><br /><br />There are plans, and then they are contingencies.<br /><br />The plan is for 19 flights, but I am sure NASA has worke out contingency sechedules for a wide range of possiblities. For example, (1) what if there are continued problems with the foam on the next flight, (2) what if NASA takes a big budget cut, (3) what if the $3-5 billion deficit for STS/ISS operations are not covered by Congress, (4) what if radar doesn't work as well as desired so the shuttle cannot launch at night, (5) what if ...<br /><br />They key is not to confuse a contingency with a plan.<br /><br />The problem is that contingencies are usually more exciting from the press perspective (drama!), so they tend to get more coverage than they probably should.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...time NASA will devote to retiring the shuttle and allegedly completing ISS construction..."<br /><br />I don't think will happen because it is too risky, also I hope that NASA stop the Shuttle flights and close the LEGO-like half-made old-as-Mir ISS (to make a better space station in future), it is only a waste of money!<br /><br /><br />"... the timeline actually BEGINS in 2011..."<br /><br />the first timeline I've read was:<br /><br />- 2012 simplied orbital-CEV<br /><br />- 2015 lunar-CEV and SDLV<br /><br />- 2018 first lunar landing<br /><br />but the plan have already had its first delay (CEV "selection" in summer 2006), then, the new timeline is:<br /><br />- 2013 orbital<br /><br />- 2016 lunar<br /><br />- 2019 moon<br /><br />you know that ALL (space or earth) complex projects have many (unexpected) delays, like was with Shuttle, like was (and IS) with ISS, etc.<br /><br />so, the "real" CEV-LEM2 timeline may be:<br /><br />- 2014/2015 orbitalCEV<br /><br />- 2017/2018 lunarCEV and SDLV<br /><br />- 2020/2022 first lunar landing<br /><br />we only need to wait (10-20 years!!!) to know the truth<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...There are plans, and then they are contingencies..."<br /><br /><br />I agree, but ALL (complex) plans are (always) FULL of unexpected contingencies, so, their timelines was NEVER respected!<br /><br />about the problems that may hold the Shuttles still grounded... my choice is for:<br /><br />(1) foam, and...<br /><br />(3) $3-5 billion deficit for STS/ISS operations<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">so, their timelines was NEVER respected!</font>/i><br /><br />That is generally true, so Griffin has included 12-18 months of padding in the 19 flight schedule. In other words, even if the schedule slips by over a year, NASA can still complete the flight plan.<br /><br />Never the less, there continues to be a fair amount of uncertainties. My choice for concern are "no go" on night launches and the $3-5 billion deficit. My concern for the concern is that IF the $3-5 billion deficit does materialize and IF Congress does not cover it, the money may come out of CEV/CLV and push those back 2 years.</i>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As regards CEV: the timeline actually BEGINS in 2011, when money starts really flowing into the actual CEV program (as opposed to shuttle or ISS).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't think that's true. Companies are already preparing to bid on CEV work, so there must be stuff starting sooner than that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But... if Shuttles are in so good condition (and so safe for crew to fly SIX times per year!), WHY spend money to build the CEV or change the Iran-Act to use the Soyuzs!?!?!? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because NASA isn't run by idiots; they want to have a backup plan in the case of a contingency. Besides, the Shuttle can't serve as a lifeboat, so if the Russians end up with critical funding problems down the road, it would be beneficial if NASA could help out with that. (Better than abandoning ISS, anyway.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For now I think the best way to go is with a sub-sonic first stage that just uses plain old jet aircraft technology.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's certainly the easiest to implement right now. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> In fact, it's already been done, although not with a spaceplane, so this is obviously doable: <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[propforce]

Ahhh... the X-15. Now fly that thing with a broken rib too ! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />The limiting thing was understanding this thing called "shock wave" and how it rattles the airplanes !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How quickly everyone forgot X-15! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dude, I have NOT forgotten X-15. In fact, I was talking about it not too long ago. There are MANY rocketplanes that have been dropped from aircraft, including the famed Bell X-1 and of course the most recent entry, SpaceShipOne. But all are suborbital; I thought we were talking about an orbital spaceplane, which disqualifies them.<br /><br />To date, the only vehicle to have made orbit after drop from an aircraft is the Pegasus rocket. It has been dropped by the B-52 and the L-1011 Tristar "Stargazer". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

Shuttle Guy, I was not clear on my post as I was in a hurry. My reference is to various posters who propose (on more than one thread in this forum), that it would make more sense to have a re-usable LEO-to-wherever deepspace craft, with some sort of spaceplane for ground to LEO and return. My point is that this sort of thing (although attractive) is beyond our technology and budget at this point.

 

[wdobner]

<i>My recommendations for the pro private sector and pro innovative deisgn crowd (of which I am one) are (1) work hard to earn lots of money, (2) live below your means so you can save/invest a fair amount of money, (3) buy a ticket on a commercial space flight that will be available in the next few years. </i><br /><br />It's all fine and well to have commercial spaceflight, but pulling the development money which NASA brings to the game simply because SpaceX and friends are in the business is ridiculous. Commercial spaceflight companies aren't going to have anything like financial or academic resources NASA can tap into through the federal government. To squander those resources on a trip to the Moon or even Mars while leaving the development of spaceflight technologies to purely commercial forces is a grave mistake. While VSE is ongoing we need a concerted effort on NASA's part to develop technologies which will make the space startup's job easier, even if it means NASA bringing something like the X-43D or X-30 to fruition. We currently lead the way in hypersonic development, but there's plenty of other nations out there that are working toward technlogies which could pave the way for an SSTO, and many of them are in a position that would benefit much more readily than we would. Russia or Japan would no doubt be thrilled to be able to fly their SSTO south out over the Pacific and achieve an equatorial orbit with no plane change maneuvers, and even the European countries might view the development of a spaceplane which can fly directly from their country as a great advantage, despite Kourou flying Arianes. <br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Why don't you contact George Lucas? I hear he's good at building SSTO space planes?<br /><br />

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dude, I have NOT forgotten X-15. In fact, I was talking about it not too long ago....<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dude ??? !!! ??? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

problems list:<br /><br />1: money<br /><br />2: money<br /><br />3: money<br /><br />19 shuttle flights costs<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dude ??? !!! ???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So I'm in a goofy mood today. I have tomorrow off work and am going to the Science Museum, so hopefully you can excuse a little levity on my part. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>