Orbital Space Plane

The recently reviewed Orbital Space Plane Level II Requirements
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf (executive summary) make no mention
of reusability. Given also the six month on orbit requirement, cargo
and four person capability OSP appears to be no more than a stretched
1960's technology Soyuz. Where is the NASA vision?

Zzed wrote:

The recently reviewed Orbital Space Plane Level II Requirements
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf (executive summary) make no mention
of reusability. Given also the six month on orbit requirement, cargo
and four person capability OSP appears to be no more than a stretched
1960's technology Soyuz. Where is the NASA vision?

Back in the 60's. Maybe they need to go back to some of the things they
were doing in the 60's to find it again ;-).

In article ,
Zzed wrote:
The recently reviewed Orbital Space Plane Level II Requirements
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf (executive summary) make no mention
of reusability.

"Reusable" is actually rather difficult to define precisely. (Are the
shuttle SRBs reusable? It's debatable.) What happens if parts of it
are not, e.g. an ablative heatshield?

NASA is making an attempt, at least superficially and perhaps honestly,
to specify what OSP is supposed to do, rather than what technology is
supposed to be used.

Why should OSP automatically be required to be reusable? Because you want
to see that technology advanced? That is the #1 mistake NASA has made on
several major vehicle programs in the last few decades: confusing
technology advancement with vehicle development, and requiring each
program to do both.

Given also the six month on orbit requirement, cargo
and four person capability OSP appears to be no more than a stretched
1960's technology Soyuz.

Perhaps that is what NASA needs for its operational manned-spaceflight
system. There's a reason why the Russians are still using Soyuz.

When was the last time you flew on an airliner that didn't look a whole
lot like a 1960s design?
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
Where is the NASA vision?

It died with the space age in 1969. Welcome to the management age.

Doug

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
The recently reviewed Orbital Space Plane Level II Requirements
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf (executive summary) make no mention
of reusability. Given also the six month on orbit requirement, cargo
and four person capability OSP appears to be no more than a stretched
1960's technology Soyuz. Where is the NASA vision?

I guess they want to keep their options open. A non-reusable capsule is
still an option for the OSP (never mind the P).

OTOH, a fully re-usable capsule shouldn't be that much more difficult,
right? Just add a couple of metal-carbon plates and we're done. Am I missing
something here?

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
Where is the NASA vision?

It died with the space age in 1969. Welcome to the management age.


Don't just blame it on NASA. Politics and the American taxpayer sentiment
(who were more concerned about the war in Vietnam after the initial
landing
was a success) had a lot more to do with it. I think NASA wanted to go to
Mars before 1980,

I dont think anyone would or should have let them do the battelecruise style
flight to mars.

What we DO need though - is to plan a Mars Direct style mission to get a bit
of vision back into things

Doug

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
Where is the NASA vision?

It died with the space age in 1969. Welcome to the management age.


Don't just blame it on NASA. Politics and the American taxpayer
sentiment
(who were more concerned about the war in Vietnam after the initial
landing
was a success) had a lot more to do with it. I think NASA wanted to go
to
Mars before 1980,

I dont think anyone would or should have let them do the battelecruise
style
flight to mars.

What we DO need though - is to plan a Mars Direct style mission to get a
bit
of vision back into things

Mars direct won't work. It costs too much money to send a dozen missions or
so to Mars, with (except for some nice TV programming for the first flight)
little in return. After they land people won't give a rat's ass, but they
*will* ask about why Medicare is being downsized to death whilst $200billion
is being spend on 'useless' Mars missions.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
Where is the NASA vision?

It died with the space age in 1969. Welcome to the management age.


Don't just blame it on NASA. Politics and the American taxpayer
sentiment
(who were more concerned about the war in Vietnam after the initial
landing
was a success) had a lot more to do with it. I think NASA wanted to go
to
Mars before 1980,

I dont think anyone would or should have let them do the battelecruise
style
flight to mars.

What we DO need though - is to plan a Mars Direct style mission to get a
bit
of vision back into things

Mars direct won't work. It costs too much money to send a dozen missions
or
so to Mars, with (except for some nice TV programming for the first
flight)
little in return. After they land people won't give a rat's ass, but they
*will* ask about why Medicare is being downsized to death whilst
$200billion
is being spend on 'useless' Mars missions.

Errrr - $200b? You obviously havnt a clue what Mars Direct actually is then?

Doug

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Zzed" wrote in message
om...
Where is the NASA vision?

It died with the space age in 1969. Welcome to the management age.


Don't just blame it on NASA. Politics and the American taxpayer
sentiment
(who were more concerned about the war in Vietnam after the initial
landing
was a success) had a lot more to do with it. I think NASA wanted to
go
to
Mars before 1980,

I dont think anyone would or should have let them do the battelecruise
style
flight to mars.

What we DO need though - is to plan a Mars Direct style mission to get
a
bit
of vision back into things

Mars direct won't work. It costs too much money to send a dozen missions
or
so to Mars, with (except for some nice TV programming for the first
flight)
little in return. After they land people won't give a rat's ass, but
they
*will* ask about why Medicare is being downsized to death whilst
$200billion
is being spend on 'useless' Mars missions.

Errrr - $200b? You obviously havnt a clue what Mars Direct actually is
then?


So, you're one of the few who thinks this can be done for $20billion then?
Ha!

Errrr - $200b? You obviously havnt a clue what Mars Direct actually is
then?


So, you're one of the few who thinks this can be done for $20billion then?
Ha!


It can certainly be done for a great deal less than $200b

Doug