From wings to capsules, and RLV's to ELV's - steps backward?

The Bush administration's new space policy would result in the
abandonment of winged or lifting body vehicle concepts for NASA's next
manned spacecraft in favor of a capsule design. Doesn't this seem
like a step backwards? Obviously the lunar (and beyond) requirement
would dictate such a configuration, but for LEO missions, it seems
like it would be a shame to once again only have ballistic entry
capsules, after we had advanced to runway landing vehicles. From a
safety perspective, which vehicle design is superior? The Soyuz
method of making an imprecise, hard landing always seemed very crude
to me. I never thought the U.S. would go back to that.

More importantly, I have seen no mention of RLV's in the new human
spaceflight plans. Should we not by now have a new generation of
fully reusable launch vehicles? How long will we be relying on
expendables?

I'd love to see human flights beyond low earth orbit, but I certainly
didn't expect the new vehicle of the 21st century to be an Apollo
style capsule sitting on top of an expendable rocket!

The Bush administration's new space policy would result in the
abandonment of winged or lifting body vehicle concepts for NASA's next
manned spacecraft in favor of a capsule design. Doesn't this seem
like a step backwards? Obviously the lunar (and beyond) requirement
would dictate such a configuration, but for LEO missions, it seems
like it would be a shame to once again only have ballistic entry
capsules, after we had advanced to runway landing vehicles. From a
safety perspective, which vehicle design is superior? The Soyuz
method of making an imprecise, hard landing always seemed very crude
to me. I never thought the U.S. would go back to that.

More importantly, I have seen no mention of RLV's in the new human
spaceflight plans. Should we not by now have a new generation of
fully reusable launch vehicles? How long will we be relying on
expendables?

I'd love to see human flights beyond low earth orbit, but I certainly
didn't expect the new vehicle of the 21st century to be an Apollo
style capsule sitting on top of an expendable rocket!

This has been discussed here a lot. The capsule design can be built sooner, its
well understood, should be cheaper and more reliable too. Reusable doesnt
necessarily save money, the shuttle is a prime example of that!

A winged vehicle is sexier, but less cost efficent

Capsule components can be reused, like control panels. Besides a vehicle in
continious production can be incrementally improved over time. I still wonder
where we would be today if the saturn family hadnt been scrapped. Those
boosters could of been made reusable, the initial plans were made. But the
shuttle was SUPPOSED to cost less

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...

The Bush administration's new space policy would result in the
abandonment of winged or lifting body vehicle concepts for NASA's next
manned spacecraft in favor of a capsule design. Doesn't this seem
like a step backwards? Obviously the lunar (and beyond) requirement
would dictate such a configuration, but for LEO missions, it seems
like it would be a shame to once again only have ballistic entry
capsules, after we had advanced to runway landing vehicles. From a
safety perspective, which vehicle design is superior? The Soyuz
method of making an imprecise, hard landing always seemed very crude
to me. I never thought the U.S. would go back to that.

More importantly, I have seen no mention of RLV's in the new human
spaceflight plans. Should we not by now have a new generation of
fully reusable launch vehicles? How long will we be relying on
expendables?

I'd love to see human flights beyond low earth orbit, but I certainly
didn't expect the new vehicle of the 21st century to be an Apollo
style capsule sitting on top of an expendable rocket!

This has been discussed here a lot. The capsule design can be built
sooner, its
well understood, should be cheaper and more reliable too. Reusable doesnt
necessarily save money, the shuttle is a prime example of that!

A winged vehicle is sexier, but less cost efficent

Capsule components can be reused, like control panels. Besides a vehicle
in
continious production can be incrementally improved over time. I still
wonder
where we would be today if the saturn family hadnt been scrapped. Those
boosters could of been made reusable, the initial plans were made. But the
shuttle was SUPPOSED to cost less


The way things are going, I'll expect to see a private RLV (possibly 2STO)
from the private sector before NASA gets around to it.
Sub-orbital flights are fine for a while, but sooner or later, the people
who will be paying the big bucks so they can experience "spaceflight" are
going to want a fully orbital vehicle - not only is this eventually doable
but also likely inevitable.
And the Private sector could certainly make it much more cost-effective than
NASA could ever hope to - if I ever have the oppurtunity to purchase a ride
into orbit (assuming I get at least semi-rich), I am certain it won't be
from NASA.

Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...

The Bush administration's new space policy would result in the
abandonment of winged or lifting body vehicle concepts for NASA's next
manned spacecraft in favor of a capsule design. Doesn't this seem
like a step backwards? Obviously the lunar (and beyond) requirement
would dictate such a configuration, but for LEO missions, it seems
like it would be a shame to once again only have ballistic entry
capsules, after we had advanced to runway landing vehicles. From a
safety perspective, which vehicle design is superior? The Soyuz
method of making an imprecise, hard landing always seemed very crude
to me. I never thought the U.S. would go back to that.

More importantly, I have seen no mention of RLV's in the new human
spaceflight plans. Should we not by now have a new generation of
fully reusable launch vehicles? How long will we be relying on
expendables?

I'd love to see human flights beyond low earth orbit, but I certainly
didn't expect the new vehicle of the 21st century to be an Apollo
style capsule sitting on top of an expendable rocket!

This has been discussed here a lot. The capsule design can be built

sooner, its

well understood, should be cheaper and more reliable too. Reusable doesnt
necessarily save money, the shuttle is a prime example of that!

A winged vehicle is sexier, but less cost efficent

Capsule components can be reused, like control panels. Besides a vehicle

in

continious production can be incrementally improved over time. I still

wonder

where we would be today if the saturn family hadnt been scrapped. Those
boosters could of been made reusable, the initial plans were made. But the
shuttle was SUPPOSED to cost less



The way things are going, I'll expect to see a private RLV (possibly 2STO)
from the private sector before NASA gets around to it.
Sub-orbital flights are fine for a while, but sooner or later, the people
who will be paying the big bucks so they can experience "spaceflight" are
going to want a fully orbital vehicle - not only is this eventually doable
but also likely inevitable.
And the Private sector could certainly make it much more cost-effective than
NASA could ever hope to - if I ever have the oppurtunity to purchase a ride
into orbit (assuming I get at least semi-rich), I am certain it won't be
from NASA.

I'd like it, too.

But the basic reality is that orbit is "25 times harder" than
sub-orbital. Even that's an understatement, because with the goal so
much harder, you need more vehicle, making the 25X all the more harder.
Let's say the extra requirements above the simple 25X kinetic energy add
up to another 4X. You're talking two orders of magnitude of difficulty,
and remember that we're only *close* to someone winning the X-Prize.

Criticize NASA all you want. The fact is, what they're doing is HARD,
and we've been lulled into a complacent attitude about it, perhaps by
watching too much Star Trek/Wars and Babylon 5. (Similar credit is due
to USSR/Russia and China, too.)

Dale Pontius