New NASA Spaceplane concepts

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:45:47 GMT, Agent Blue wrote:

I vote for version #1 or #4.

http://tinyurl.com/lv3m

Let's see how long it takes for the project to either be scraped or
it's development timeframe be extended because funds will have to be
siphoned off to keep the shuttle flying and the space station in
orbit.

Botch
ROMAN: I tell you what I see when I look out there. I see the undeveloped resources of Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste, medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails,syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste all safely contained sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now I ask you what do you see?


CHET: I just see trees.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:45:47 GMT, Agent Blue wrote:

I vote for version #1 or #4.

http://tinyurl.com/lv3m


Here's an irony.

The Shuttle replaced the Apollo capsule because of claims it would be:

FASTER, CHEAPER, BETTER.



The OSP (Apollo like) Capsule might replace the Shuttle because it is
claimed to be:

FASTER, SAFER, BETTER.





--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California | Free! Free!
E-mail - | A Trip To Mars,
Visit my Titan I ICBM website at: | For 900 Empty Jars!
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile | -Burma Shave-

"Agent Blue" wrote in message
...
I vote for version #1 or #4.

http://tinyurl.com/lv3m


Based on what education and thinking do you make this vote?

"Agent Blue" wrote in message
...
Agent Blue wrote in
:

"Dosco Jones" wrote in
news:h3N4b.4884$tw6.3591 @newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:


Based on what education and thinking do you make this vote?

Strictly looks.


Just to clarify....I was talking about the looks of the spaceplane
concepts, not my looks.

By the way, some of you (Dosco) need to chill out and have a few beers
or something. I make a post about a spaceplane concept that I like and I
have to provide my education and rationale for it?


Yes, you do, if you want to be taken seriously. Or, as you did, say it was
based on simple impression.

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...

", what is the thoughts on what the next space
transportation vehicle should look like?

The capsule approach would have much simpler systems and would be the most
likely to meet the goal for a 2008 flight. The other designs look like mini
shuttles and are going to have fancy heat tiles and landing gear and flight
controls....that is a whole lot of extra stuff.

So....this thing is still mainly going to be used to support ISS. That is the
main reason for routine manned flight at the present time. The design phase is
budgeted at $2.8 billion, so for design and procurement we are looking at about,
wild guess, $8-10 billion. Then add the per-flight costs of say $300-400
million. Starts to get expensive. And the cargo capability is going to be a
token amount compared to the shuttle.

Would a current-technology replacement for the shuttle, retaining its cargo
capacity, not give more for the dollar? Still gets back to the question of
where do you go in the thing. For the cost of the space plane we could do a
Mars orbital mission.

"Kent Betts" wrote in message

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message

", what is the thoughts on what the next space
transportation vehicle should look like?

budgeted at $2.8 billion, so for design and procurement we are looking at
about,
wild guess, $8-10 billion.

I hope not.

Then add the per-flight costs of say $300-400 million.

It had better not be.

Starts to get expensive. And the cargo capability is going to be a
token amount compared to the shuttle.

Once ISS is deemed complete, how much do they really need? If they are
flying more often, what cargo capability is needed - especially if pure
cargo flights could be done using an expendable and either "towed" to ISS
using whatever new vehicle is developed, or docked automatically?

Would a current-technology replacement for the shuttle, retaining its
cargo
capacity, not give more for the dollar? Still gets back to the question
of
where do you go in the thing. For the cost of the space plane we could do
a
Mars orbital mission.

Interplanetary or lunar missions are different missions, different
functions - therefore different forms. I would not expect or design a
vehicle to do space-taxi-to-ISS and also lunar/interplanetary missions. I
think it would blossom the development costs exponentially to have to
develop a vehicle that would be expected to fill needs that wide ranging.

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...

Interplanetary or lunar missions are different missions, different
functions - therefore different forms. I would not expect or design a
vehicle to do space-taxi-to-ISS and also lunar/interplanetary missions

I didn't mean we should send the OSP to Mars. I am questioning the wisdom of
building another vehicle that has only the purpose of going to the ISS, because
1) we already have one vehicle doing that - STS and 2) for the amount of money
it will cost to build a second ISS support vehicle, we could cancel the OSP
plans and use the funds for a Mars orbital mission. Or other project.

Your comment that wings are not a top priority - which I agree with - got me
thinking about why do we need the OSP at all? The OSP looks like it is going to
be used as a transport/crew return vehicle. The OSP is going to be docked at
the ISS for the duration of the crew mission? Or just for short stays?

The $8 billion development cost and $300-400 launch costs are going to be in the
ballpark. Is a deluxe version of the Apollo capsule worth this much? Or a
4-man Shuttle? I am not saying it isn't.....just that it is borderline, IMO.

"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" wrote in message
m...

the only thing NASA can do is cut
costs on human spaceflight, and that means a crew
vehicle for ISS support.

Well if the OSP is an economy measure, lets go with the capsule design.

Well if the OSP is an economy measure, lets go with the capsule design.

I agree. This is one thats faster better cheaper. The plane u\is unnecessary
and if another shuttle is lost before whatever replaces it is up and running
were likely grounded forever.

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...

Based on what has worked in the past, and on ease of design, I favor the
Apollo-like concept with a steerable parasail for a final land-based
touchdown. I'd design the internal components to be reflown, but not the
heat shield or the hardware used to cushion the landing.

Dosco




I will admit that I am not an engineer, but it seem to me that using a
something as complicated as a parasail is OK for onetime use such as the
lifeboat. Trying to use it time again on a regular use vehicle, is asking
for trouble. At some point will we not see a vehicle hit the ground 400 mph
dragging the twisted parasail behind it like a Estes rocket with streamer
recovery? Would not a fixed wing mini shuttle launched atop its booster in
work better, or a capsule like the 5 crew Apollo (with some modifications
for land landing) or an enlarged Soyuz be more practical. In 10 years will
we not talk about that "stupid parasail idea" like some now discuss the
tiles, and solid boosters after a returning spacecraft takes out one of the
roller coasters in Disney Land.