NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

SPACE dot com ^ | 24 January 2003 | Leonard David

[vannrox]

VERY Cool.

[demlosers]

It's about time! A real propulsion system.

[apillar]

I thought President Bush was suppose to talk about this in the State of the Union address last night. Must have ended up on the cutting room floor to make room for the more politicaly correct hydrogen cars.

Oh, well I guess the important thing is that his budget is still funding it.

[skinkinthegrass]

The Meek shall inherit the Earth, the Bold shall reach for
the Stars - BUMP :)

[KevinDavis]

A nice space bump..... There should be a space ping list!

[demlosers]

Hey I like that line :)

[hopespringseternal]

A fully operational fleet of space planes -- the number yet to be determined -- is eyed to be up and running in the 2010 to 2012 time frame.

I have complete confidence in NASA's ability to utterly screw this up. Mission #1 is maintaining and growing the bureaucracy, so there is simply no way they will ever produce a launch system that is anything other than a bureaucratic boondoggle.

[DoughtyOne]

This is 2003. What NASA admits here is that an OSP won't be operational until 2010 to 2012. They want to take a year and a half to even decide what plane to persue.

I'd like to view this as positive. Instead I see it as another dropped football.

Let's recall that in 1988 the SSTO was proposed to be in test phase by 1990. In 1990 it was supposed to be in test phase by 1993. In 1997 it was supposed to be in test phase by 2000. Now they are saying "something???" will be test phase by something like 4.5 years from now.

Frankly I don't think NASA has the capability to drive this program. They should set up a consortium of Lockheed, Boeing and other corporations to drive a SSTO development design and construction phase, then get out of the way. Other than that, NASA is just screwing around one more time. And that is pathetic.

[ArrogantBustard]

The Challenger disaster didn't just kill seven astronauts and destroy millions of dollars worth of equipment. It ripped the guts out of NASA. It is no longer the organisation the put men on the Moon. It's no longer even the organisation that designed and built the Shuttles. It's the organisation that can't send an unmanned probe to Mars, because of stupid screw-ups. They returned to the original insignia, but not the original spirit. Sad, really.

[DoughtyOne]

Opening up space would be an opening up of an entirely new industry. It would be the equivelant of the discovery of the computer, the internet or the telephone. This will drive technologies we haven't even thought of yet. It will drive jobs through design, development, construction, logistics, deployment and the inhabitation of space. This will drive a new civilization, one that will inhabit near space, the moon the planets and one day beyond.

I know this is simplistic stuff, but for some reason our government has dragged it's feet for over thirty years.

Either we're going to do this thing, or some other nation will. If not us, someone else will gain the high ground. What the hell are we waiting for.

Imagine the idea that we put off the development of the computer for just ten more years, it's too costly. Contemplate that for a moment. That's exactly what the government says when it talks of the OSP. Folks we need more than an OSP. We need the SSTO space plane right now.

If Bush wants to devote $50 billion dollars to the program, I'm all for it. The new frontier the SSTO will open up, will forever emboss the US on the history of this region of the Universe. The result will be more government revenues, an exponential explosion of technologies, jobs and revenue streams.

Lets kick this thing into high gear and get on with the inhabitation of space. It's our destiny for the taking.

[DoughtyOne]

Look I'm just a layman, but it's clear we are not getting the bang for the buck. Short, mid and long term planning seems non-existant. About every three years they announce some plan that seems for all the world to emulate a slow motion train wreck.

Job one is an SSTO space plane. It must be capable of launching somewhere between two and five times as much payload as the shuttle.

I cannot emphasise this enough. Without this space plane, we are forever affixed to the surface of this planet. Costs for entering space will not deminish. We will never have a turn-around time of less than a few days unless we adopt this plan and implement it.

The day we lauch the first of these operational SSTO space planes, our world will be forever changed. Doesn't that represent a goal that is worth persuing? By all indications, not until 2012.

Thanks for nothing NASA.

[buccaneer81]

PING>>>

[aruanan]

"Because we all hate him and want him to leave, please take him!" "Remember…you are nominating your teacher for a roundtrip, not one way," O'Keefe explained.

I guess the kid's just going by the record.

[Mamzelle]

dittoes. Like the Space Station is going to have a significant payload. Right. Expensive rides for jockeys--

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Salgak]

No, Job One is an SSTO, period. Whether it's a space-plane, a DC-X type Rocket, or whatever, we NEED SSTO: Rockets the way God and Heinlein intended !

[DoughtyOne]

My driving goals are these: Payload delievery, landing on a runway, turn around. We need to be able to come as close to commercial aircraft parameters as is humanly possible. The day we can take off, deliver to space, return, reload, take off and deliver to space again, using the same craft in less than twelve hours will be the day space becomes commonplace. At that point, you won't be able to close the door ever again. Within eighteen months we will have hundreds of people in space. Within five years we'll have thousands. Within a decade we'll have tens of thousands in space.

[RightWhale]

A cheap way, relatively cheap, is piggyback launch. An ordinary jetliner for first stage, the second stage the orbiter and return vehicle that lands on the same runway the jetliner took off from. The jetliner can also launch dumb cargo orbiters when it isn't necessary to have staff accompany the tonnage.

The manned orbiter needn't be huge like the Space Shuttle. It would carry just personnel. Their luggage would be on the freighters, probably launched first.

[RightWhale]

Maybe this time NASA will get it right. The problem with the development of the Space Shuttle was that the original concept, which was simple and straightforward, was diluted by dumping multiple missions on the vehicle. Keep the mission limited and simple this time.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

A cheap way, relatively cheap, is piggyback launch. An ordinary jetliner for first stage, the second stage the orbiter and return vehicle that lands on the same runway the jetliner took off from. The jetliner can also launch dumb cargo orbiters when it isn't necessary to have staff accompany the tonnage.

The manned orbiter needn't be huge like the Space Shuttle. It would carry just personnel. Their luggage would be on the freighters, probably launched first.

18 posted on 01/29/2003 9:10 AM PST by RightWhale
 

Piggy-back is okay, but I envision it taking an additional period of time to link up.  Seems to me we should be looking for opimal design goals, not coming up with another half-measure to get us there in lieu of what we really want.  I don't mean to put this down completely, because I recognize the theory is sound.  In my opinion it's sortof like wanting to move from the Model-T to the Viper, but settling for the Edsel because we don't want to do the R&D necessary to do the full move.  I think the SSTO is within our grasp if we dedicate ourselves to a full court press for a few years.

I am disappointed that we don't set lofty goals, then damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.  Kennedy set a goal of landing on the moon by the end of the 60s.  We did it.  Here we're just talking about developing a new engine, the SSTO driver.  The rest is gravy.

If we use the new drive system to place unmanned cargo ships in space, I'm okay with that.  Some craft will have humans and some won't.  Some will fill up with cargo and others will fill up with paying passengers.