|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
bitflip wrote: that escape rocket over his head). The spaceplane represents several new technology development efforts. I say build both for different reasons. Any thoughts? Build the capsule. The spaceplane is a complete waste, except as a welfare program. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
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 Sounds good to go for now. Then work on the space plane and do it right. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
"bitflip" writes:
I say build both for different reasons. Any thoughts? Yes. Don't bother with space planes at all. If a capsule looks better now than an X-38 type of vehicle, why pursue one in the future. What will magically make it better in the future? Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
The only way to do a "space plane" right is not to do one in the first place. What will a reusable space plane, "done right" give you that a reusable capsule won't? Jeff Thats a GREAT question. Just what are the advantages? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:48:48 -0500, "bitflip"
wrote: 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 spaceplane could as well. See Space Shuttle. 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). There's no particular reason that the crew cabin couldn't be seperable from the rest of the airframe in a spaceplane. As long as you design it that way from the beginning. See B-1, F-111. The spaceplane represents several new technology development efforts. It does? What do we need for an OSP that we don't have today? Hell, what do we need for an OSP that we didn't have 20 years ago? Brian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
jeff findley wrote
"bitflip" writes: I say build both for different reasons. Any thoughts? Yes. Don't bother with space planes at all. If a capsule looks better now than an X-38 type of vehicle, why pursue one in the future. What will magically make it better in the future? I also think that for delivery and return of people from orbit capsules are the obvious way to go for now. We know how to do capsules, and, if creeping technophilia is firmly suppressed, they could be done reasonably quickly, cheaply, and at relatively little developmental or operational risk. It would be nice if they were reusable, but that wouldn't be strictly necessary. No harm in putting "space planes" -- lifting bodies or whatever -- into a modestly funded research program. Some need might appear in the future, and doubtless interesting data could be collected in the meantime. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
Why not have individual escape capsules like the B-57 had?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
Eric Pederson deZ to respond writes:
This is a case where size does matter. For a small vehicle with a round trip payload similar to that of a mini-van, a capsule is likely the right answer. For larger man-tended one-way payloads, a capsule on top of a cargo stage would work. If you really want large return payloads, active landing systems (wings or motors) enter the picture and things get more complicated. First, the return of large payloads is a capability that is used on the shuttle (e.g. Spacelab up and down flights), but now that ISS is in orbit, I'd think that your largest downmass would be an ISS rack. You can design a capsule big enough to return lots of racks (think Saturn IVB diameter capsule). Second, active landing systems need not have really large wings or resemble a "space plane". DC-X landed without parachutes, but did not resemble a "space plane". It looked more like a super stretched out semi-ballistic capsule to me. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ACRV - Capsules or spaceplanes
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... 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) CU Elmar "bitflip" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... 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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From wings to capsules, and RLV's to ELV's - steps backward? | vthokie | Space Shuttle | 3 | January 16th 04 04:43 AM |
Nasa may use Apollo-like capsules | Carlos Santillan | Space Shuttle | 3 | September 22nd 03 01:08 AM |