Strong case for capusle OSP

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zy.html

This article lists some very compelling reasons why the OSP should be a
capsule.

Dr. O wrote:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zy.html

This article lists some very compelling reasons why the OSP should be
a capsule.

One could read a lot of the reasons as reasons why OSP wont fly, and
shuttle will continue til eternity...

Gene DiGennaro wrote in message ...

I'm kind of a fence sitter as far as the capsule vs wings debate. I'm
partial to winged vehicles simply because in a capsule you have to
rely on a parachute that must unfurl after being stowed for a long
time. I do wonder if the US had flown an equal number of manned
capsule missions as the shuttle has flown, would there be parachute
failures? Soyuz experience doesn't seem to indicate this but I still
wonder.

Parachutes were never a problem for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,
and especially Soyuz. What makes you think the Americans can't
build parachutes at least as good as the Russians?

On a related question, with precision slashdown capabilities, would an
ocean landing be absolutely necessary for a manned capsule? In other
words, could NASA splash down a capsule into an inland lake? This
would eliminate the need for a large naval recovery committment like
we had in the 60's. Also unless the lake was the Great Salt Lake, the
capsule would be coming down in fresh water. I see this as an
advantage in spacecraft refurbishment and turnaround.

The Soyuz does not land on water. It comes down on land. Retro rockets
slow its fall. I can see no reason why it would be difficult to design a
capsule
that can handle both land or sea.

ta

Ralph

This article contains Jeff Bell's usual load of distorted crap. I'm not
saying I favor a winged OSP, just that Bell's arguments are inaccurate and,
in some cases, outright falsehoods. If I can find the time I'll write a
rebuttal.

-Kim-

"Winged spaceplanes will weigh three times as much as capsules, and their
wheels will probably explode during reentry. They need to carry their abort
motors all the way to orbit because that's how Dyna-soar was designed. You
can't put them in a shroud because you can't get out of a shroud fast enough in
an abort (What about the shroud on the Soyuz? What shroud? Don't ask me, I'm a
planetary scientist, not a rocket scientist.)"

"Capsules good, spaceplanes bad! Spaceplanes will never work! They will borrow
your power tools without returning them, leave the toilet seat up, play loud
music late at night, and run off with your daughter. Also, their windows will
melt."

I am profoundly disapointed that the Economist, which is usually one of my
favorite magazines, chose to quote him in their recent article on the shuttle.
Twice.

Will McLean

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zy.html

This article lists some very compelling reasons why the OSP should be a
capsule.


I really wish he would tone down his hatred of winged vehicles.
His points get lost in it.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zy.html

This article lists some very compelling reasons why the OSP should be a
capsule.


SpaceDaily once again manages to lower it's editorial and journalistic
standards.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.


I'm kind of a fence sitter as far as the capsule vs wings debate. I'm
partial to winged vehicles simply because in a capsule you have to
rely on a parachute that must unfurl after being stowed for a long
time. I do wonder if the US had flown an equal number of manned
capsule missions as the shuttle has flown, would there be parachute
failures? Soyuz experience doesn't seem to indicate this but I still
wonder.

Of course with winged recovery, you have take your heavy wings into
orbit with you. Then they need to be protected during reentry....well
you know the drill.

On a related question, with precision slashdown capabilities, would an
ocean landing be absolutely necessary for a manned capsule? In other
words, could NASA splash down a capsule into an inland lake? This
would eliminate the need for a large naval recovery committment like
we had in the 60's. Also unless the lake was the Great Salt Lake, the
capsule would be coming down in fresh water. I see this as an
advantage in spacecraft refurbishment and turnaround.

Comments anyone?


Gene

"ralph buttigieg" wrote in message
...

Gene DiGennaro wrote in message ...

I'm kind of a fence sitter as far as the capsule vs wings debate. I'm
partial to winged vehicles simply because in a capsule you have to
rely on a parachute that must unfurl after being stowed for a long
time. I do wonder if the US had flown an equal number of manned
capsule missions as the shuttle has flown, would there be parachute
failures? Soyuz experience doesn't seem to indicate this but I still
wonder.

Parachutes were never a problem for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,
and especially Soyuz. What makes you think the Americans can't
build parachutes at least as good as the Russians?

I wouldn't say NEVER.

Soyuz 1 of course had a parachute failure (though that was one of several
problems.)

On at least one of the Apollo flights one of the 3 chutes failed to unfurl
properly as I recall.



On a related question, with precision slashdown capabilities, would an
ocean landing be absolutely necessary for a manned capsule? In other
words, could NASA splash down a capsule into an inland lake? This
would eliminate the need for a large naval recovery committment like
we had in the 60's. Also unless the lake was the Great Salt Lake, the
capsule would be coming down in fresh water. I see this as an
advantage in spacecraft refurbishment and turnaround.

The Soyuz does not land on water. It comes down on land. Retro rockets
slow its fall. I can see no reason why it would be difficult to design a
capsule
that can handle both land or sea.

True.

Though keep in mind the retro rockets have been known to fail also.

No system is perfect.


ta

Ralph

(Gene DiGennaro) writes:

I'm kind of a fence sitter as far as the capsule vs wings debate. I'm
partial to winged vehicles simply because in a capsule you have to
rely on a parachute that must unfurl after being stowed for a long
time.

Funny, they seem to work on 6 month Soyuz flights. Furthermore, you
can carry a backup parachute with far less weight penalty than you can
carry backup wings.

I do wonder if the US had flown an equal number of manned
capsule missions as the shuttle has flown, would there be parachute
failures? Soyuz experience doesn't seem to indicate this but I still
wonder.

There was one parachute failure on one Apollo flight. However, Apollo
used three parachutes, so the failure of one to fully inflate didn't
lead to death of the crew. Failure of one wing on a vehicle like the
shuttle has been shown to be unsurvivable.

Of course with winged recovery, you have take your heavy wings into
orbit with you. Then they need to be protected during reentry....well
you know the drill.

Wings are heavy, parachutes are lighter. Because of this, you can
build redundancy into the parachute system (e.g. a primary and backup
parachute like Soyuz or three parachutes like Apollo). Furthermore,
you can replace the parachute with a parafoil and have better control
of your landing point, without increasing the mass of the system to
the point where it equals that of wings.

On a related question, with precision slashdown capabilities, would an
ocean landing be absolutely necessary for a manned capsule? In other
words, could NASA splash down a capsule into an inland lake? This
would eliminate the need for a large naval recovery committment like
we had in the 60's. Also unless the lake was the Great Salt Lake, the
capsule would be coming down in fresh water. I see this as an
advantage in spacecraft refurbishment and turnaround.

NASA already has recovery ships for the SRB's, so why not use them to
recover the capsule off the coast of KSC? This reduces costs by
eliminating the need to transport the capsule for long distances after
landing, and it eliminates the need to add infrastructure to an inland
lake.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

McLean1382 wrote:

"Winged spaceplanes will weigh three times as much as capsules,

Except if they get canceled during development, because they cost too
much and provide too little...

However, just before Dynasoar got canceled, it *did* weight about three
times of Mercury (both were single seaters), and Hermes did weight just
a bit more than Ariane V could carry before it got canceled, and its
performance had shrunken to the level of Sojus...

Robert Kitzmueller

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" writes:

Soyuz 1 of course had a parachute failure (though that was one of several
problems.)

According to astronautix.com, the main chute didn't deploy due to a
pressure sensor failure. The reserve chute was deployed manually, but
got tangled in the drogue chute. A properly designed system would
either allow manual deployment of the main chute, or would allow the
release the drogue and main chute before deploying the reserve chute.

On at least one of the Apollo flights one of the 3 chutes failed to unfurl
properly as I recall.

Resulting in the crew splashing down safely. This wasn't fully
redundant since the same thing happening on a landing would have been
far worse for the crew.

The Soyuz does not land on water. It comes down on land. Retro rockets
slow its fall. I can see no reason why it would be difficult to design a
capsule
that can handle both land or sea.

True.

Though keep in mind the retro rockets have been known to fail also.

Resulting in a bone jarring landing with the possibility of injuries.

No system is perfect.

True, but any landing you can walk away from... ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.