With shuttle's fate largely sealed,does that mean winged spaceship is dead,and will remain dead in the forseeable future?

I always like winged spaceplane,and hate capsule,no matter how secure
the capsule is,although after Columbia disaster,shuttle's final demise
is certain and winged spaceship is out of fashion, I still hope I can
see spaceship gliding back from space like a bird rather than smashing
into earth like a big,stupid rock.I also hear that for the past half
century,the Air Force,just like me,always has a thing for winged
spaceship,is that true?If so,is that possible that the Air Force does
not yet give up design of spaceplan and some secret work is still going
on in some secret bases?

(Because I'm quite uninformed concerning space policy and technology,I
asked a rather stupid question,hopefully,there are knowledgeable people
here who can help me)

wrote:

I also hear that for the past half
century,the Air Force,just like me,always has a thing for winged
spaceship,is that true?

In an ideal world, *anyone* would prefer a more maneuverable return
vehicle. The trouble is that everything that goes into it -- wings,
more complex thermal protection, stronger airframe -- adds non-payload
mass to a launch system that had a small payload fraction to begin
with.

Yes, it's always been a factor that some players -- not all in the Air
Force -- "have a thing for" aircraft-style vehicles rather than
capsules (and reusables rather than expendables, an overlapping but
not identical choice). But the bottom line is math and economics: the
former may end up costing more per kg to orbit unless they can also
achieve higher flight rates and/or lower operating costs per launch.

"Monte Davis" wrote in message
...

The trouble is that everything that goes into it -- wings,
more complex thermal protection, stronger airframe -- adds non-payload
mass to a launch system that had a small payload fraction to begin
with.

Yes, it's always been a factor that some players -- not all in the Air
Force -- "have a thing for" aircraft-style vehicles rather than
capsules (and reusables rather than expendables, an overlapping but
not identical choice). But the bottom line is math and economics: the
former may end up costing more per kg to orbit unless they can also
achieve higher flight rates and/or lower operating costs per launch.

That's exactly right. Since vehicle structural mass is a huge factor
in launcher performance, having a heavy winged orbiter in effect
greatly reduces the mass ratio. The orbiter becomes in essence
part of vehicle structure.

E.g, the shuttle weighs roughly 200,000 lbs minus payload,
which weighs about 50,000 lbs (correct me if wrong).
If it weren't for the orbiter, the "shuttle" system could
launch about 250,000 lbs to LEO. That in turn means the
current shuttle must fly 4-5 times to (or cost 1/4th to
1/5th as much per launch), just to break even on price
per lb to LEO.

Winged vehicles are cool, but at what cost?

one day they will create a reentry transhab inflatable renentry
vehicle......

today winged vehicles just arent practical.

the shuttle was a big waste of money and 30 years

Monte Davis wrote:
wrote:

I also hear that for the past half
century,the Air Force,just like me,always has a thing for winged
spaceship,is that true?

In an ideal world, *anyone* would prefer a more maneuverable return
vehicle. The trouble is that everything that goes into it -- wings,
more complex thermal protection, stronger airframe -- adds non-payload
mass to a launch system that had a small payload fraction to begin
with.

Yes, it's always been a factor that some players -- not all in the Air
Force -- "have a thing for" aircraft-style vehicles rather than
capsules (and reusables rather than expendables, an overlapping but
not identical choice). But the bottom line is math and economics: the
former may end up costing more per kg to orbit unless they can also
achieve higher flight rates and/or lower operating costs per launch.

Yes,Shuttle is dangerous,it's complexity and danger involving launch
and reentry may constitute insurmountable hurdles for now,but that
doesnt mean we cant overcome these problems in the future,in the wake
of two shuttle disasters,I know that it is politically impossible to
design our future spacecraft as winged vehicle,but we should not just
simple give up the whold idea of space "Boeing 747",we should continue
the research into it,let's NASA decide what kind of spacecraft it
needs,you can kill the shuttle program,but dont force NASA to kill the
idea,at least let them or Air force,or DARAPA or whatever government
agency to continue the the research,I'm sure that kind of basic
research does not cost much.As we understand more and more about
shuttle's danger,please dont forget shuttle's also more comfortable for
the astronaut,it can carry more load,and of course,it's cool.Is that
the whole of technology:make people more confortable,make things more
powerful,and at the same time,make things more beautiful.

As far as Russia (and possibly Europe and Japan) is concerned,
winged manned spacecraft are the futu

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

Maybe. Kliper will be considerably smaller than
Shuttle.

--Damon

"Joe D." wrote:
That's exactly right. Since vehicle structural mass is a huge factor
in launcher performance, having a heavy winged orbiter in effect
greatly reduces the mass ratio.


If the space inside the wings were used to store fuel (like in
commercial aircraft for instance), then the weight of the structure of
the wings wouldn't be fully wasted.

If the wings needs to be very strong for re-entry, then use that
strength to carry payload inside the wings (fuel) during take off so
that you make use of that strength that would otherwise go usused.

Damon Hill wrote:

As far as Russia (and possibly Europe and Japan) is concerned,
winged manned spacecraft are the futu

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

Kliper is no shuttle. It may be a flying design instead of a ballistic
capsule, but it still lacks the cargo capacity of shuttle, and the space
working abilities that the shuttle has due to its arms, large cargo bay etc.

wrote:
I always like winged spaceplane,and hate capsule,no matter how secure
the capsule is,although after Columbia disaster,shuttle's final demise
is certain and winged spaceship is out of fashion, I still hope I can
see spaceship gliding back from space like a bird rather than smashing
into earth like a big,stupid rock.I also hear that for the past half
century,the Air Force,just like me,always has a thing for winged
spaceship,is that true?If so,is that possible that the Air Force does
not yet give up design of spaceplan and some secret work is still going
on in some secret bases?

(Because I'm quite uninformed concerning space policy and technology,I
asked a rather stupid question,hopefully,there are knowledgeable people
here who can help me)


In fact, the concept of a winged re-entry vehicle has been falsely
blamed for the problems experienced by the Shuttle program. The problem
with the Shuttle is not the wings, it is the tandem launch
configuration. If you had a winged vehicle on top of a conventional
vertical stack the problems would be no better or worse than for a capsule.

John

In fact, the concept of a winged re-entry vehicle has been falsely
blamed for the problems experienced by the Shuttle program. The
problem
with the Shuttle is not the wings, it is the tandem launch
configuration. If you had a winged vehicle on top of a conventional
vertical stack the problems would be no better or worse than for a
capsule.

John
I disagree The wings add excess weight, and with their larger size
than say a capsule, add extra exposure to in orbit debris hits, let
alone the extra weight for airfoil control on reentry.

it looks sexy but when treying for low cosat per orbit its probably not
the best choice. at least the shuttle isnt.