On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:21:11 -0700, Eddie Valiant
wrote:

I think it would probably make more sense to go the wings or lifting
body route if reusability were your prime concern. Then you'd have the
SM functions in the same airframe and can reuse the whole shebang.

And just to open a line of discussion, what would be the need for a
winged/lifting body concept over a capsule design?

Weight, for one. A crew module descent under parachutes is one thing.
Trying to bring the mass of the entire CM/SM down under chutes,
well... you can volunteer to be the first passenger! Now, a DC-X-like
design with powered vertical landing could work, too, but that also is
fairly far removed from the capsule concept, and we have a lot more
experience with wings and lifting bodies.

What does one do
over the other that would make it preferable? To my way of thinking,
the capsule would be the route to go since there's really no need
[that I can see] to carry large payloads up with a manned crew ala the
space shuttle.

I wasn't talking about the payload, I'm talking about the orbital
maneuvering system, power, long-duration life support, and fuel that
the Service Module carries. They're heavy and expensive, and they're
thrown away with all of the capsule concepts, and even some of the
wing/lifting body concepts.

I'd like to see the SM be reusable, too. Perhaps the design for the
OSP should have a universal cargo arear, where on some missions, the
"cargo" is actually a crew compartment. On other missions, it's an
MPLM or ATV-like cargo module. That way, we get full reusability of
the manned spacecraft, the cargo carrier, and the service module.

Brian