U.S. astronauts are climbing back into space capsules. Here's howthey've improved over the past 50 years

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?

wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw


The USAF still likes spaceplanes:

https://www.space.com/25275-x37b-space-plane.html

https://www.space.com/36985-darpa-xs...m-express.html



There's also Dreamchaser:

https://www.space.com/37636-dream-ch...v-rockets.html



The Chinese and Europeans also have spaceplane projects:

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/5/1...rism-20-people

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...nside-a-rocket




But SpaceX, NASA, and the Russians are still sticking with capsules.

wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.


The USAF still likes spaceplanes:

https://www.space.com/25275-x37b-space-plane.html

https://www.space.com/36985-darpa-xs...m-express.html


The USAF thinks they're made of money and note that it doesn't do
anything that either a capsule OR a regular spaceplane would do.


There's also Dreamchaser:

https://www.space.com/37636-dream-ch...v-rockets.html


Assuming they finish it. Note that Dragon carries 20% more cargo (by
weight) and is available now vice Dream Chaser perhaps being available
in 2021. That difference in payload as well as the Dream Chaser
decision to launch on ULA launchers is going to make it significantly
more expensive per launch.


The Chinese and Europeans also have spaceplane projects:

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/5/1...rism-20-people


Not an orbital system and still largely dreamware.


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...nside-a-rocket


Like the USAF system. Too small to do much (assuming they finish it).


But SpaceX, NASA, and the Russians are still sticking with capsules.


Because they're all in the business of actually putting stuff in
orbit.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and
soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and
designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts
lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of
choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.



My understanding is that NASA is the one insisting on a water landing for
Dragon V2, but SpaceX for its own missions still plans to ultimately do land
landings.

I expect we'll eventually see us move back towards small spaceplans/lifting
body designs in a few decades, but it'll take some time.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

In article ,
says...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and
soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and
designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts
lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of
choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.



My understanding is that NASA is the one insisting on a water landing for
Dragon V2, but SpaceX for its own missions still plans to ultimately do land
landings.

This has changed somewhat recently. Reportedly SpaceX is the one who
shelved development of Dragon V2 vertical landing. The reasons for this
aren't terribly clear, but there are hints from SpaceX that this is
because they've decided to change the (Mars) landing mode of their
(eventual) Mars vehicle.

Also, SpaceX is supposed to have a press briefing about the changes in
their Mars program sometime this fall. Hopefully we'll get more
information then which will allow us to "connect the dots".

I expect we'll eventually see us move back towards small
spaceplans/lifting body designs in a few decades, but it'll
take some time.

Possibly. Sierra Nevada Corporation is still working on Dreamchaser,
but it's only under a cargo contract with NASA, so it will lack the
ability to carry people. Also, SNC isn't exactly a "big player" in
aerospace. You're playing (quite) long odds if you think they'll
eventually dominate manned space travel.

The USAF is funding Experimental Spaceplane program (XS-1), which sounds
really cool, but it's nothing more than a (smallish) winged reusable
first stage. It's very hard for me to see this thing being cheaper than
a reusable Falcon 9 first stage. There are several reasons for this.
First the contractor is Boeing. Second, the thing will use what's left
of the parts of old SSMEs assembled into working engines (i.e. the bits
NASA isn't planning on using for SLS) and the SSME is not known for
being a "cheap" engine by any stretch of the imagination. Third, LH2 is
not a very dense fuel so this will result in a quite large "space
plane" when compared to say a LOX/kerosene stage. Fourth, winged
landing vehicles are more complex than a VTVL in aerodynamics,
structures, dynamics and control, and etc. Costs scale more closely
with complexity than size, but in the case of the XS-1, it's got
complexity and size as its drawbacks.

So, any way you run the accounting, I have a feeling XS-1 is going to be
a dismal (economic) failure. Despite the prejudices of the USAF, there
is nothing magic about wheels on a runway that will make "spaceplanes"
inexpensive to operate.

So, from my point of view, we're not sitting on the cusp of a resurgence
in "space planes". They're just too expensive to develop and too
expensive to fly compared to their simpler, cheaper, VTVL counterparts.

I'd also note that in the consumer world, the market of small flying
machines is dominated by quad copters, not fixed wing aircraft. VTVL
tech has literally matured to the point where it's cheap enough and easy
enough to fly that you can buy one in the children's toy aisle for less
than $100.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:

This has changed somewhat recently. Reportedly SpaceX is the one who
shelved development of Dragon V2 vertical landing. The reasons for this
aren't terribly clear, but there are hints from SpaceX that this is
because they've decided to change the (Mars) landing mode of their
(eventual) Mars vehicle.

Also apparently NASA weren't happy about cargo flights being used for
testing powered landings.

Also, SpaceX is supposed to have a press briefing about the changes in
their Mars program sometime this fall. Hopefully we'll get more
information then which will allow us to "connect the dots".

Elon is giving another presentation at IAC in Adelaide on the 29th,
cyrrently due to start talking at 04:30 UTC. Speculation is for a
not-quite-so-BFR that can be built in existing SpaceX facilities and
which won't require major strengthening of HLC-39A.

Anthony

In article , says...

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:

This has changed somewhat recently. Reportedly SpaceX is the one who
shelved development of Dragon V2 vertical landing. The reasons for this
aren't terribly clear, but there are hints from SpaceX that this is
because they've decided to change the (Mars) landing mode of their
(eventual) Mars vehicle.

Also apparently NASA weren't happy about cargo flights being used for
testing powered landings.

Also, SpaceX is supposed to have a press briefing about the changes in
their Mars program sometime this fall. Hopefully we'll get more
information then which will allow us to "connect the dots".

Elon is giving another presentation at IAC in Adelaide on the 29th,
cyrrently due to start talking at 04:30 UTC. Speculation is for a
not-quite-so-BFR that can be built in existing SpaceX facilities and
which won't require major strengthening of HLC-39A.

Yes, the rumors are flying. I've heard that the not quite so big BFR
would fly exclusively out of Texas, not LC-39A, but that doesn't seem
likely. I would think with this new vehicle SpaceX would want to court
things like cargo launches to NASA's proposed lunar orbiting station.
If so, NASA would likely be more comfortable with KSC launches.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Anthony Frost wrote:

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:

This has changed somewhat recently. Reportedly SpaceX is the one who
shelved development of Dragon V2 vertical landing. The reasons for this
aren't terribly clear, but there are hints from SpaceX that this is
because they've decided to change the (Mars) landing mode of their
(eventual) Mars vehicle.

Also apparently NASA weren't happy about cargo flights being used for
testing powered landings.


Why would they care? They get their cargo on the way up, not the way
down. I think it's funny that NASA lets astronauts ride on Soyuz,
which relies on power at landing on dirt for them to survive, yet is
being obstructionist to safety certify Dragon V2 for fully powered
landings on dirt.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .

wrote:

"In 1961, an American astronaut reached space for the first time and
soared
through the heavens in a gumdrop-shaped capsule.

Since then, people have flown to the moon, created space planes and
designed
rockets that return to Earth for precision landings. But when astronauts
lift off
next year from U.S. soil for the first time in six years, their vehicle of
choice
will be another capsule."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html




How do the benefits of capsules and spaceplanes compare?


Capsules have lower dry mass for the cargo they carry, since you're
not carrying along all that lifting structure. I was rather
disappointed to see SpaceX back away from a powered landing on land
for the Dragon V2, since that would have addressed one of the
advantages of spaceplanes in that they don't require 'recovery forces'
to fish them out of the water. Small spaceplanes tend to be more
'reusable' than capsules. However, the fiasco that was the Space
Shuttle backed everyone away from the idea of spaceplanes.


My understanding is that NASA is the one insisting on a water landing for
Dragon V2, but SpaceX for its own missions still plans to ultimately do land
landings.


They changed that plan in the last few months. It's apparently too
hard to get it certified as safe so that they're allowed to launch
with that intent, so it's all water landings for everyone now and
they're not working on powered landings anymore.


I expect we'll eventually see us move back towards small spaceplans/lifting
body designs in a few decades, but it'll take some time.


I think the best approach is small spaceplanes for people and small
cargos and big dumb expendables for big cargo. But I think the
Shuttle soured the spaceplane punch for a long while to come.


--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush