You mean SpaceDev's Dream Chaser space plane?
Conceptual design:
Shown on top of modified Atlas V rocket:
Posted on 02/13/2010 5:05:52 AM PST by saganite
Instead of a rehashed Apollo capsule, why not a reduced size shuttle. Start with the Dyna-Soar, scale it up to carry 4-5 passengers, no cargo.
The shape of a capsule is best for re entry. Seems those guys back in the 60’s got it right the first time.
At least all the talent and skills will not be wasted, as will be lost when the massive firings within the NASA manned space divisons begin.
Of course none of these hopeful ventures get around the legal problems of direct private ventures into anything beyond LEO. For anything beyond LEO, all these companies will be totally reliant on NASA contracts - and thus still at the mercy of politicians and bean counters.
The laws of physics haven’t changed. Apollo was based on real science.
The shuttle design is more complex and has more opportunity for problems. Additionally, a smaller shuttle wouldn’t have the payload capabilities necessary.
Nasa contracting is nothing more then the same people handing their friends new contracts. But they are better than the Air Force contracting office.
NASA has done this before. They passed along transhab, the capsule now being produced by Bigelow Aerospace, and VASIMR, an electric propulsion system. Both of those programs, which NASA turned over to private companies because they couldn’t continue funding them, are nearing fruition. Moving viable projects from NASA to the private sector is a good idea no matter whose back gets scratched.
As I said, NO cargo capability. Leave that for unmanned drones. If you are going to have commercial flights, use a space plane. Those work for re-entry also, as we have seen for ~130 flights. Mounting it atop the booster removes the chances of damage to the thermal protection systems. You also have better re-usability.
A small version will be less complex, as there will be no big rocket engine on it, just a small one big enough to slow it down for re-entry. Overall, it would be no more complex than the Orion. For the other proposals to Orion, look here... http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cev.htm
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know why we’re still using rockets? Why aren’t we designing rail guns that can launch coffin sized pods? With our understanding of physics and some micro-maneuvering engines we could easily place the pods into an area small enough catch them. Everything we need could be broken down to coffin size and re-assembled. When we aren’t sending building materials and people, we could send water and oxygen. Although every load would be small, a rail launcher could be used 24/7/365.
My guess is, we’re still using rockets because we’ve always used rockets.
You mean SpaceDev's Dream Chaser space plane?
Conceptual design:
Shown on top of modified Atlas V rocket:
Good for launching certain things but anything that could be injured by the G loads (human bodies, electronics) aren’t good candidates. So far as I know, we’ve never used a rail gun to launch anything.
If you plan upon putting a human in this pod the acceleration would kill him/her.
The initial acceleration of the pod would be like a luge track roof support pole (traveling WAY over 90 mph) hitting a supine astronaut (luger) at rest. Disaster.
Gass said he’s most proud of how ULA’s 4,200 employees dropped their former affiliations with Lockheed Martin and Boeing and worked to knit together the rival rocketmakers.
“One day you’re competitors and the next you’re in the same company, and people did that with such professionalism,” Gass said.
Does anybody recall how many Amercans got the axe and how many were downsized and outsourced to China when they executed this merger?
Yes, although Lockmart had a spaceplane proposal too. It would also be launched on an Atlas.
Launching a man from Earth using a rail gun would kill him, but what about the moon? The big problem is that it would have to be a rail of about 12 km long. That’s doable, though.
My thinking was to send people up in capsules and have all their supplies waiting for them. However, the g-load problem could be solved if the body was completely surrounded by hyperoxiginated (breathable) water. The navy uses liquid suits for extremely deep dives. A fetuses, for an example of a body packaged in water, have survived accelerations that killed the mother, such as traffic accidents and falls from great heights. The real problems with launching somebody in a coffin-sized capsule are: 1. very limited life support. You’d better be 100% sure you can catch them in the allotted time, and 2. I get claustrophobic in small cars and I’d never ask somebody else to do something in the realm of personal danger that I wouldn’t or couldn’t.
There may be a problem with Atlas. I worked for an Atlas contractor and a direct on that contract told me the company had lost significant documentation. The follow-on hardware was being assembled by people who just knew how. It’s been a long time and I’m sure most of those people are gone. I never asked but I’m sure the reason the documentation hadn’t been re-assembled was that the company would never admit they had the problem and company thinking is; we only do stuff we’re paid to do. Company politics would prevent a manager from using company money to do something that the customer should (in company thinking) pay for. Can we still build the Atlas?
It’s possible that ongoing obsolescence solved the problem as documentation would have been created along with later hardware.
And you should know this because...? Perhaps you would favor handing out the contract to to low bidders riddled with PLA agents simply to get a low price?
Military procurement has always been terrible - it is the nature of the beast.
Army procurement used to operate on the principle: embezzle funds and buy shoddy hardware, ask for more;
Navy procurement used to operate on the principle: buy the best hardware, ask for more for its personnel;
Air Force procurement used to operate on the principle: buy all the best for its personnel, ask for more to buy hardware.
“Why aren’t we designing rail guns that can launch coffin sized pods?”
I think the g-forces would be prohibitive for a manned railgun launch. Projectiles can go hypersonic before they’ve even left the rails. You’d be a little puddle of goo at the back of the pod!
“And you should know this because”
Because I’ve been watching NASA procurement for a long time. For example their IT is procured through a Veterans Administration contract and they won’t look at anyone they haven’t done business with for 10 years.
Army and Navy procurement are better. The Air Force screwed up the new tanker despite 10 years of working on it. They screw up every major procurement they do. Delay after delay, cost overrun after cost overrun.
But perhaps you prefer to continue with the nepotism and corruption. So take your cheap shot about PLA agents and stuff it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.