Military Space Plane vs. Ares 1...which could be operational first?

With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.


U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html


s


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Well, is this plane capable of sustained orbit? How long is its duration?
Does it enable docking with other vehicles?
I find it hard to believe that , presumably the previous administration did
not at the very least use the resources of Nasa to speed this development if
indeed, it has any relavence to the currunt problem. the obvious way out of
the current situation is to start buying in the Russian technology and
launching Soyuz derived hardware from America.

Other than that, a short extension to Shuttle would cover this and then
maybe some kind of new direction might be needed.

An interesting item in New Scientist last week showed how your previous
President had a high IQ but this was only half the story. it takes some
different abilities to actually be able to overcome predujices we all have
and simply decide on what to do from the merits of the schemes presented.
This is why so many inventors etc, are lousy businessmen!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.


U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "
http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html


s


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.

U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html

s

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

A 10x larger "Space Plane" seems like a good idea.

~ BG

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.

U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html

s

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

S PS is terrific. However, what's a really good interplanetary
shuttle (half again or twice the volumetric size) with a nuclear
energy package and those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard energy or solar derived energy,
most any fuel or substance can be utilized for ion thrusting,
especially nifty and extremely dense as well as already charged up and
ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon(Rn222) as obtained from a
few kgtonne of radium that could otherwise utilized.

~ BG

On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.

U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html

s

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle), and its 100 tonne payload
capacity that’s also packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being
pulled or pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would
otherwise remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going
to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kgtonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; our moon should have loads of radium.

~ BG

On Nov 22, 10:44*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 10, 4:41*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:





With the cancellation of Ares1-Y, it looks to be at least
six or eight years before Ares could see a manned flight.
Does it make sense to pursue two different paths to replacing
the shuttle?

I believe that the lack of support for another moon-shot, combined
with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.

U.S. Air Force Aims to Launch Space Plane Next Year

"As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to
serve as a testbed for dozens of technologies in airframe,
propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes
of making space transportation and operations significantly
more affordable. "http://www.space.com/news/090602-x-37b-space-plane.html

s

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle), and its 100 tonne payload
capacity that’s also packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being
pulled or pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would
otherwise remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going
to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kgtonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; *our moon should have loads of radium.

*~ BG

I would love to see that. Flash Gordon tech comes true!