Jon Berndt wrote:



There's another anti-OSP column this morning:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=870

There are as many views on this matter as there are people. Unfortunately,
there is one point that sticks out to me as being wrong in the above
mentioned column. That is, Don Peterson is against OSP because (among other
reasons) there is no new technology in it. I think that reason is one aspect
of why other projects have either failed to be completed or didn't end up
working as advertised.

I noticed the same thing in the article; what exactly is the benefit of
a revolutionary new technology in regards to an operational as opposed
to experimental vehicle? If we want to get it done quickly and on a
budget then using proven technology that we have experience with would
seem to be the way to go. We have a classic example of the other
approach in the X-33 project; which broke one of the Skunk Work's
hard-learned lessons- never use more than one major new technology in
any new project. They had learned that the hard way with the CL-400's
liquid hydrogen fuel/hydrogen expander motors and the A-12's titanium
structure/turboramjet engines- major headaches ensued on both those
programs; but with X-33, they proposed to use new lightweight metallic
TPS tiles, the linear plug nozzle motor, and the composite hydrogen
tank...trying all three at once was asking for trouble; and that's just
what they got.
Occam's razor would suggest a ballistic capsule approach for OSP; as
that's the one that gives you the highest payload to orbit for vehicle
weight and therefore launch vehicle size. The aerodynamics of such a
design are very well understood in both the ascent and reentry regimens,
and such a vehicle can be built comparatively fast and cheap if we don't
start adding bells and whistles to the design. Further it's
comparatively small size and simplicity compared to the Shuttle would
greatly simplify maintenance and need reduced ground personnel numbers-
thereby lowering operating costs, while at the same time making the
transfer of safety concern information more efficient and timely, due to
the fewer total people involved.

Pat