We don't need no stinking capsules...

If were throwing money around for new ideas, what's the harm in reviving
DynaSoar? C'mon folks we were damned near already there in 1965 on an
antique Titan III for crying out loud!

To update this design we'd need to go to a six man (ahem person) crew, no
cargo, use another EELV for that, to get you up and down. On time, to 1
possible landing targets, with options to proceed to alternate landing strips
on a flyback reusable vehicle. The good news is we have a whole boatload of
design options in 2010 that weren't available to us in the 1960's...

What a concept.

Cripes, if you believe in Star Trek, heck even Zephram Cochrane could
have done that in his backyard in his spare time!

I think its becoming clear that this is going to have to come from NASA.
The USAF has become too enamored of UAVs & USVs. If I were an actual AITA*
pilot in the 'farce I'd be dammed worried about the future of my job...

Dave

*Ass In The Air

On 05/13/2010 01:00 PM, David Spain wrote:
If were throwing money around for new ideas, what's the harm in reviving
DynaSoar? C'mon folks we were damned near already there in 1965 on an
antique Titan III for crying out loud!

To update this design we'd need to go to a six man (ahem person) crew,
no cargo, use another EELV for that, to get you up and down. On time, to
1 possible landing targets, with options to proceed to alternate
landing strips on a flyback reusable vehicle. The good news is we have a
whole boatload of
design options in 2010 that weren't available to us in the 1960's...

What a concept.

Cripes, if you believe in Star Trek, heck even Zephram Cochrane could
have done that in his backyard in his spare time!

I think its becoming clear that this is going to have to come from NASA.
The USAF has become too enamored of UAVs & USVs. If I were an actual
AITA* pilot in the 'farce I'd be dammed worried about the future of my
job...

Too expensive to develop for commercial crew to ISS so the commercial
providers won't go for it.

Not suitable for evolution to beyond-LEO re-entry so NASA won't go for it.

On 5/13/2010 10:00 AM, David Spain wrote:
If were throwing money around for new ideas, what's the harm in reviving
DynaSoar? C'mon folks we were damned near already there in 1965 on an
antique Titan III for crying out loud!

To update this design we'd need to go to a six man (ahem person) crew,
no cargo, use another EELV for that, to get you up and down. On time, to
1 possible landing targets, with options to proceed to alternate
landing strips on a flyback reusable vehicle. The good news is we have a
whole boatload of
design options in 2010 that weren't available to us in the 1960's...

What a concept.

Their were proposals to do something like that at the beginning of the
Constellation program:
http://www.tallgeorge.com/projectconstellation.php

Pat

On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:00:26 -0400, David Spain
wrote:

If were throwing money around for new ideas, what's the harm in reviving
DynaSoar?

On February 1, 2003, it became forbidden to discuss putting anything
with wings into space. "Wings are eeeeeeeviiiiiilllll!"

OSP died, Apollo on Steroids was born.

Just like how Solids became eeeeeeviiiillll on January 28, 1986,
until, well, they weren't evil anymore and Ares I was shoved down our
throats as the "safe, simple, soon" Shuttle successor.

Brian

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Too expensive to develop for commercial crew to ISS so the commercial
providers won't go for it.

I "get" this idea, but then I also "don't get" this idea.
It may be more expensive to develop but what about the real costs and those
are the recurring costs to operate? Esp. if that capsule requires water
recovery ops? Who's really paying the tab? The providers or NASA?

Not suitable for evolution to beyond-LEO re-entry so NASA won't go for it.

Hmm. In the days of Apollo when we didn't have long term presence in LEO
(Salyut notwithstanding) that made sense. But today, with ISS likely to be
around for some time and possibly more return from LEO options on the way, why
is this necessary? Why not "abort to" and "return to" LEO as suitable options
for beyond LEO missions?

Dave

Brian Thorn wrote:
Just like how Solids became eeeeeeviiiillll on January 28, 1986,
until, well, they weren't evil anymore and Ares I was shoved down our
throats as the "safe, simple, soon" Shuttle successor.

"safe, simple, soon and now shutdown"...

Dave

On 05/14/2010 07:48 PM, David Spain wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Too expensive to develop for commercial crew to ISS so the commercial
providers won't go for it.

I "get" this idea, but then I also "don't get" this idea.
It may be more expensive to develop but what about the real costs and those
are the recurring costs to operate? Esp. if that capsule requires water
recovery ops? Who's really paying the tab? The providers or NASA?

The basic concept of both COTS and CCDev is that both pay. NASA provides
money for reaching development milestones but deliberately does not pay
the entire development cost of the vehicle. That requires the commercial
provider to seek private investment to cover the rest, ensuring that
they have "skin in the game" and that they will be diligent about
producing a design that is commercially viable.

Designs that are more expensive to develop carry higher risk to capital
and so will be less likely to attract private investment.

Not suitable for evolution to beyond-LEO re-entry so NASA won't go for
it.

Hmm. In the days of Apollo when we didn't have long term presence in LEO
(Salyut notwithstanding) that made sense. But today, with ISS likely to be
around for some time and possibly more return from LEO options on the
way, why is this necessary? Why not "abort to" and "return to" LEO as
suitable options for beyond LEO missions?

Because "abort to" and "return to" LEO require shedding 3+ km/s of
velocity somehow. Doing it propulsively requires lugging all that
propellant with you. Doing it with single-pass aerocapture (required to
prevent subjecting the crew to multiple lengthy passes through the Van
Allen belts) subjects the spacecraft to a high heat load so it will need
a heat shield anyway. It costs very little extra mass to make that heat
shield capable of direct entry (certainly far, far less than the
propellant mass needed to brake into LEO) and that opens up the "abort
to surface" option. At that point you might as well make it the baseline
anyway.

Most designs aren't suitable for brake-into-LEO anyway, since they
usually have a service module covering the heat shield that carries most
of the propulsion and life support. They'd have to jettison the SM prior
to aerocapture, and once that's done, they're pretty much screwed in
terms of actually being able to rendezvous with something within the
remaining lifetime of the crew module.

So direct entry will be the preferred mode of return from beyond-LEO
trajectories for decades to come, I believe.

On May 14, 6:47*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:00:26 -0400, David Spain
wrote:

If were throwing money around for new ideas, what's the harm in reviving
DynaSoar?

On February 1, 2003, it became forbidden to discuss putting anything
with wings into space. "Wings are eeeeeeeviiiiiilllll!"

"Wings will never work. They waste energy, create drag and they are
just dangerous. I'm telling you, Orville, men have been flying for
over a century and every one of them needed a balloon. That should
tell you that there is only one practical way to fly."