United States Congress Formally Endorses VSE

[najab]

I wouldn't call the Shuttle a space plane - it lands like a brick.

 

[drwayne]

You know, I remember not so long ago being surprised when I looked up the glide ratio of some lifting bodies, and SG pointed out that the shuttle was very similar.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Good....

 

[najab]

It's about 25 miles or so from Orlando to KSC - the Shuttle is well over 80,000ft passing over Orlando and is down to ~10,000 by the time it lines up coming out of the HAC. Quite an impressive sink rate!

 

[dobbins]

It also costs more to fly than an ELV, the opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish. We would have come out ahead if we had stuck with Apollo.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>It also costs more to fly than an ELV, the opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish. We would have come out ahead if we had stuck with Apollo.</i><br /><br />Indeed. And yet, here we are, looking at another 30+ years of STS-derived launch vehicles, including the use of SRB's to launch crews and the development of an ultra-expensive expendable heavy lift vehicle where expensive SSME's will be thrown away on every flight! <br /><br />There's no reason that something like this, launched initially by a Delta IV heavy or equivalent expendable booster, couldn't succeed in providing cheaper, safer access to space. Further down the road, perhaps it could be mated with a partially or fully reusable launch vehicle. A small space plane is what NASA wanted initially, before military requirements reshaped the shuttle's design, and if we could finally develop one for crew transport, it would no doubt be much more economical than STS.

 

[dobbins]

The goal is access to more of space than LEO. That portion is going to be turned over to private companies if they can come up with the transportation. What the vehicle looks like is just a minor detail.<br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

Like it or not the CEV (Apollo if you insist) capsule design is the cheaper, safer and more proven space vechicle than any space plane. Space planes look pretty but cost much more to develope, service, transport etc. and comparatively unsafe. Also, space plane designs are not optimal for Lunar and Mars missions and beyond which is where we are headed in the future.<br /><br />Yes lifting body designs look really cool, but isn't what a vechicle can accomplish much more important?

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Yes lifting body designs look really cool, but isn't what a vechicle can accomplish much more important?</i><br /><br />The CEV capsule and STS-derived launch vehicles will do nothing to make spaceflight more frequent or routine. Instead of spending billions to send 4 astronauts to the moon a couple of times per year, we should develop a vehicle that can give us safer, more affordable access to space. And I believe that when spaceflight does become more routine and flights to and from LEO start to approach airline style operations, it will be lifting body space planes that will define the next chapter in human spaceflight. NASA's CEV design is the result of a defeatist attitude. The administration is no longer willing to accept challenges, take on risk, and push the envelope. They are taking the cheap and easy route, and it's a path that will result in wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on soon-to-be obsolete systems as the rest of the world passes us by. Perhaps Europe or Japan will take the lead in scramjet propulsion or RLV development while NASA puts the bulk of its resources into its vintage capsules and its expensive STS-derived launch vehicles that exist because of political considerations more than technical merit. <br />

 

[subzero788]

Countless lifting body designs have plagued nasa over the years and got no where. At the least the CEV is based on proven technology. At the moment it is cheapest alternative to get out of LEO. I dont deny that space planes will play a big role in private enterprise to LEO but I think they are unneccessary for trips to the Moon, Mars and beyond. Unfortunately nasa can't afford to produce a a lifting body design at the moment and even if they could I don't think its the safest option at the moment--perhaps in the future but for now we've got the CEV. Lobby congress for a larger NASA buget! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Perhaps Europe or Japan will take the lead in scramjet propulsion or RLV development while NASA puts the bulk of its resources into its vintage capsules and its expensive STS-derived launch vehicles that exist because of political considerations more than technical merit.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually the reason nasa is investing in what you describe "vintage capsules and expensive STS-derived launch vehicles" is because it is just about the cheapest and quickest option they have avaliable--developing brand new rocket engines that are not SD would cost a lot more and/or take a lot more time to develope. Seeing as NASA is planning the ESAS for the same budget (adjusted only for inflation) they have adopted a stragety that fits within these constraints. Its not perfect but I think damn good for what they have avaliable. Donate them a couple of hundred billion dollars and maybe they can afford a spanking brand new space plane