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 11, 9:50*am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
means this

* * * * As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
on an expendable rocket. *


No, it doesn't.
A. It would have to be a lot larger to carry crew, so no hardware can
be shared
B. This will have a big impact on the launcher, The X-37 in within
the fairing. A larger craft would be in the airstream causing
integration problems
c. The X-37 is missing a lot of crew required systems.

Orion is being delayed by Ares I.

On Nov 11, 9:50*am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

with the glaring need for lower cost to orbit means this
program is the one that now makes sense.


The X-37 has nothing to do with low cost. It is a spacecraft and not
a launcher

Me wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:50 am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
means this

As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
on an expendable rocket.


No, it doesn't.


I think Mr. Nebus was being satirical.

Pat

On Nov 11, 1:17�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:50 am, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
means this

� � � � As, clearly, building a human-carrying spaceplane based on the
work of a robot spacecraft whose first flight might be sometime next year
if all goes well that launches on an expendable rocket will be faster and
cheaper than building a human-carrying capsule spacecraft that launches
on an expendable rocket. �

No, it doesn't.

I think Mr. Nebus was being satirical.

Pat

there have been rumors of a earlier air launched space plane.......
vaguely recall it might have been helpful for columbia crew

On Nov 11, 9:46*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

I'm talking to a bunch of rubes. (the well-meaning kind)

Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
and national security?

The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.

Y'all were screwed, and most of you don't even realize it!

Meanwhile, the Pentagon roles out a shiny new prototype
no doubt chock full of all the projects that mysteriously were
'canceled' after Bush took office. They were all duds
everyone insists, yet fail to comprehend the military would
get to cherry pick the best under Bush/Cheney, not settle
for the crap that won't fly.

Canceled? No, you rubes, it was all transferred to the military
black budget.


Not true fool. What cutting edge technology? NASA wasn't working
anything that was transferred.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...


Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
and national security?

I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. In other
words, very little thought.


The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.


What technology? Evidence?

On Nov 11, 11:41�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

...



Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
and national security?

I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. �In other
words, very little thought.



The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.

What technology? �Evidence?

bush was the worst president in a 100 years. he mucked up anything he
touched.

hey just think what the 2 wars costs could of done in space??? sad
isnt it.

Snipped text:

" you (sic) ability to build rockets isn't much better."

As contrasted to whom?

Have we made mistakes? Oh Yeah!
Have we made misjudgements? Oh Yeah!

But who has accomplished more? Russia and the U.S. have both had many
things go wrong with their respective space programs. But whom else
would you cite as better in terms of proven performance over a broad
scope of spaceflight related activities? Yes, there are other centers
of excellence throughout the world, especially in Europe, China,
Japan, and India. But in a broad long term view, history does not
support the contention that there is a lack of ability to build viable
spacecraft.

As to a lack of political wisdom or business acumen, that is another
discussion.