Orbital Space Place project

I've been reading up on the "Capsule" vs "Something with Wings"
debate. To my mind, as a software engineer who lives wherever
possible by the "Keep It Simple" principle, the "capsule side" make
compelling case.

Along with the inherent simplicity, it seems that a capsule approach
is something that could evolve over time as requirements change.

I'd be interested to hear how people think "Something with Wings" is
going to be more capable etc.

(I expect they'll go "Something with Wings", as I guess the capsule
approach might be perceived as a backwards step).


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:54:05 +1000, in a place far, far away, Brett
O'Callaghan made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(I expect they'll go "Something with Wings", as I guess the capsule
approach might be perceived as a backwards step).

Anything that has to be delivered with a Delta IV or Atlas V is a
backwards step.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

O'Callaghan made the phosphor on my
(I expect they'll go "Something with Wings", as I guess the capsule
approach might be perceived as a backwards step).
Anything that has to be delivered with a Delta IV or Atlas V is a
backwards step.

Why? If it does the job.

Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:54:05 +1000, in a place far, far away, Brett
O'Callaghan made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


(I expect they'll go "Something with Wings", as I guess the capsule
approach might be perceived as a backwards step).


Anything that has to be delivered with a Delta IV or Atlas V is a
backwards step.


You mean like plastic disposable twin blade razors are a step back from
straight edge reusable razors like your grandfather used?

This whole reusable mantra is sentimentality not common sense.
If you can deliver missions using ultracheap and reliable disposable
rockets why do you even need reusable rockets?

You dont need a reusable rocket to launch most satellites.
The only purpose for a reusable spacecraft is if you need to return
cargo(cargo meaning stuff or people) to the earth.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:29:59 -0400, in a place far, far away, stephen
voss made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Anything that has to be delivered with a Delta IV or Atlas V is a
backwards step.

You mean like plastic disposable twin blade razors are a step back from
straight edge reusable razors like your grandfather used?

No. Those are affordable.

This whole reusable mantra is sentimentality not common sense.
If you can deliver missions using ultracheap and reliable disposable
rockets why do you even need reusable rockets?

You can't deliver missions that most people are interested in that
way.

You dont need a reusable rocket to launch most satellites.

Who cares? That's entirely beside the point.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
stephen voss wrote:
This whole reusable mantra is sentimentality not common sense.
If you can deliver missions using ultracheap and reliable disposable
rockets why do you even need reusable rockets?

If that could be done, then we wouldn't. Trouble is, it can't be. Not
for a definition of "reliable" that would be considered acceptable for any
other form of transportation -- that is, the sort of reliability that is
needed to really open the skies to mankind.

Would you fly on an airline that dropped 1% of its flights in the ocean?
Would you entrust a multi-million-dollar cargo to such an airline? For an
expendable rocket, a loss rate of only 1% is considered excellent; most US
rockets are not that good. This sort of loss rate would be considered
criminal negligence in most other fields.

It has been estimated that if you really sweated manufacturing technology
and such, you *might* be able to get a 0.1% loss rate with expendables.
That would be considered wonderful by today's launch customers, but it is
not good enough for many things people would like to do in space. It's
still orders of magnitude worse than even advanced aircraft.

To do any better, you need systems in which every vehicle can be
flight-tested repeatedly before carrying paying payloads.

You dont need a reusable rocket to launch most satellites.

If all you want to do is to launch "most" satellites, that's true. If
your dreams of what should be done in space go no farther than launching
occasional ultra-expensive communications satellites (and losing 1% of
them), expendables are fine. If you see the night sky as a black wall,
forever closed to most human activities, there's no problem.

As H.G. Wells put it, in "The Country of the Blind": "Their imagination
had shriveled with their eyes."
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
snip
You dont need a reusable rocket to launch most satellites.

If all you want to do is to launch "most" satellites, that's true. If
your dreams of what should be done in space go no farther than launching
occasional ultra-expensive communications satellites (and losing 1% of
them), expendables are fine. If you see the night sky as a black wall,
forever closed to most human activities, there's no problem.

A lot of what will need to be sent up will be commodity stuff - air,
water, wall and flooring materials, electrical cabling, pipes, etc.
That stuff can stand way more g forces, and the transport vehicle
really doesn't need to return to earth. It seems silly to send that
stuff up in a vehicle that needs to carry wings and systems to keep
people alive.

Passenger transport is a different situation. There's not really a
competition. There's just going to be two transport systems, one for
freight, and one for people and sensitive cargo.
Harmon

his whole reusable mantra is sentimentality not common sense.
If you can deliver missions using ultracheap and reliable disposable
rockets why do you even need reusable rockets?

Because they are not cheap in any sense. The Saturn V cost $180M a shot.
Space will *never* be a venue of human expansion as long as even a short
mission involves throwing away that much.

capsule has slowed down sufficiently, the fins would unfold and direct the
capsule toward the landing site as it fell. In essence it is an Earth
lander.

Oh, great. Moving parts to fail. That's a good idea.

capsule has slowed down sufficiently, the fins would unfold and direct the
capsule toward the landing site as it fell. In essence it is an Earth
lander.

Oh, great. Moving parts to fail. That's a good idea.

And where would you put these fins? AIUI, the ship is a spheroid or a blunt
cone, not cylindrical.

Oh, great. Moving parts to fail. That's a good idea.

Mary


If the fins couldn't move, they couldn't steer.