ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes

"Elmar Moelzer" writes:

Hmm, I am not a big fan of that CTV, be it capsule or Plane. But my I wonder
why we just dont use the old Dyna- Soar- design?
It is already there (has been for 40 years) and reminds me a lot of that new
spaceplane in all aspects...

It never flew, so it is unproven in many ways.

I have to shake my head thinking about NASA redoing something that the
Airforce wanted to do 40 years ago (and that was cancelled back then) and
then needing 12 billion dollars and 8 years for that...
I mean the airforce did not need 8 years to develop the Dyna Soar and at
that time they had to start from scratch for every single part of it,
whereas nowadays we have got much more experience (at least thats what one
would believe)

Worse, the Air Force canceled the program when it became clear that
there was really no need for such a vehicle. Sure, they've been
wanting it for decades, but they haven't spent the money yet, and
their budget is far, far bigger than NASA's.

So, if the Air Force canceled Dynasoar and later pulled out of the
shuttle program, tell me why spaceships that have wings and land on
runways are such a desirable thing to have.

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

Hey Jeff!
I thought the Dyna Soar programme was pretty far developed already.
Encyclopedia Astronautica sais, that it was cancelled 8 months before the
first drop- test.
I am fully with you on that wing- comment. I think that wings are not
necessary. Personally I like concepts like the DC- X. They seem more logical
to me.
CU
Elmar



"jeff findley" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
"Elmar Moelzer" writes:

Hmm, I am not a big fan of that CTV, be it capsule or Plane. But my I
wonder
why we just dont use the old Dyna- Soar- design?
It is already there (has been for 40 years) and reminds me a lot of that
new
spaceplane in all aspects...

It never flew, so it is unproven in many ways.

I have to shake my head thinking about NASA redoing something that the
Airforce wanted to do 40 years ago (and that was cancelled back then)
and
then needing 12 billion dollars and 8 years for that...
I mean the airforce did not need 8 years to develop the Dyna Soar and at
that time they had to start from scratch for every single part of it,
whereas nowadays we have got much more experience (at least thats what
one
would believe)

Worse, the Air Force canceled the program when it became clear that
there was really no need for such a vehicle. Sure, they've been
wanting it for decades, but they haven't spent the money yet, and
their budget is far, far bigger than NASA's.

So, if the Air Force canceled Dynasoar and later pulled out of the
shuttle program, tell me why spaceships that have wings and land on
runways are such a desirable thing to have.

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

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:44:57 +0200, "Elmar Moelzer"
wrote:

Hmm, I am not a big fan of that CTV, be it capsule or Plane. But my I wonder
why we just dont use the old Dyna- Soar- design?

If we're going to use a 40-year-old design, we might as well choose
the one which actually flew... Apollo.

Apollo, as flown, was capable of carrying 5 (Skylab rescue
configuration) and could have gone to six with some work. X-20
DynaSoar had a crew of one.

Brian

"James Oberg" wrote in message
. ..
The capsule has another feature -- it is a prototype of a command module
which can be modified to venture beyond LEO and return, whenever we decide
to pay for it.

I think this should be one of the major considerations for NASA - especially
if it wishes to proceed with its L1 Gateway.

Blurrt






"bitflip" wrote in message
...
A debate has been developing for the past 3 months, Apollo derived
capsules
or a spaceplane. Astronauts have expressed good support for the capsule
concept. Its possible to have a capsule tested and on the space station
in
3-5 years. The capsule has zero new technology development, can hold 6-7
people and even support a cargo variant. A capsule has a zero zero
escape
option if on an EELV (one astronaut told me he felt safe on a Soyuz with
that escape rocket over his head). The spaceplane represents several new
technology development efforts. I say build both for different reasons.
Any
thoughts?