Posted on 01/29/2003 6:17:13 AM PST by vannrox
What this tells me is that the DoD already has "space planes" flying, and perhaps even operational.
An SSTO won't alter that equation very much -- you still have to launch and then land an aircraft. If anything, an SSTO carrying capacity will be far less than a Shuttle due to mass fraction limitations.
The real issue is getting stuff into space cheaply and easily. The Shuttle is expensive primarily because of how much manpower is required to prepare it for launch. Expendable boosters tend to cost far less per launch, but they're also far less flexible.
The main question for an SSTO is whether it can reliably turn around in 12 hours to perform the same mission. As with the Shuttle, the major issues affecting rapid turnaround are maintenance and durability of the vehicle structure and thermal protection systems; and the reliability of the propulsion systems.
If one or both of these turn out to be finicky -- as they likely will be due to their extreme performance requirements -- then an SSTO will not provide rapid turnaround.
In addition, integration of payloads with the vehicle tends also to be time-consuming.
I believe so, too. They shouldn't do that, limit the approaches to space travel that way. If the contestants could airlaunch, the contest would already be over, probably a year ago. The objective is to get into space, not to build another rocket.
I don't care how it happens, we need to put our heads together and resolve the problems involved with getting ourselves on the road to space.
There will be hurdles. When I look at the massive engines required to drive a cruise ship, or the massive task of putting a 747 into the air, or the massive task of developing the Saturn 5 system that took us to the moon, I know that insurmountable tasks are surmountable.
We are going to do this. The question is, are we going to get our heads out of the dark place and do it now, or are we going to sit on our asses explaining how hard it's going to be until we finally get the backbone to do it thirty years from now?
No messy first-stage rocket with huge motors and special, huge ground-support facilities. Just build the upper stage and the crew capsule. It's a much smaller problem and much cheaper. Almost anything would do for the crew capsule, it doesn't even need wings to make a soft landing near a convenient pick-up zone. A TIG welder and some of that special ceramic foam [I know somebody from Alfred] and you are in business.
Wouldn't doubt it.
Hell, Kelly Johnson's 60's sliderule/technology of the SR-71 damn near got you there way back when. Imagine what the black project types have been able to work on with CAD computers and say 70's/80's technology. We've seen a lot of it in the stealth birds, but I suspect there's a lot we haven't seen too.
When I say capable of flying into space, I'm refering to near space. They were not capable of going orbital.
I bring this up because I've surmised that we do have the capability today to fly some of our aircraft into space. The Aurora, which is assumed to exist with some good basis in fact, may be capable of flying into space.
Our theories on space entry have been molded by huge Saturn rockets and a trajectory that sees it going down range as it gains height and speed to eventually go orbital. That isn't the only way to enter space. If you want to stay in space for a period of time, it's the way to do it. But if you just want to go up, do some business and come back, there's another way. When the X planes flew into near space, they essentially went straight up. Once in near space, they were subject to falling back to earth since they weren't orbital. But they could expend more fuel and maintain or go deeper into space.
Under little or no atmospheric pressure, these planes could travel across across the planet or simply do tests and maneuver. Once they were done, they could simply use thrusters to re-enter the atmosphere and land. Remember, they wouldn't be traveling upwards of 17,000 miles per hour. They would be dropping back into the atmosphere at a few hundred miles per hour. The problem with super-sonic heat degrading re-entry would not be present.
The X plane was capable of going five to six thousand miles per hour. If I understand this correctly, that was under atmospheric conditions. Let's consider what might be possible if this plane were to fly into near space. Once it was clear of atmosphere, this plane could excellerate to speeds much faster than the five or six thousand it could in the atmosphere. Would it be possible for it to excellerate to orbital speeds? I don't believe so, because it would be using engines that required oxygen to burn. Now I may be wrong here, because the propellent was probably made up of a mixture that had high oxygen content.
Where I'm going here, is to suggest that the Aurora or another craft is probably capable of the five to six thousand mile an hour range, possibly even the eight to twelve thousand mile per hour range. Once in near space, it could excellerate the rest of the way to go orbital. The problem is, they couldn't take heavy payloads with them.
I think it's highly likely that we have space planes now. They may not be what we'd like to see for full space inhabitation, but I do believe it's likely we've got a space plane cabability right now, for what it's worth.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that these planes can do surveylance anywhere on the planet by taking off from US airports. If push came to shove, I'll bet they could do other things as well.
If you are thinking "capsule" then it ain't going to cut it. Certainly, right now, there is no need to launch more than a handful of people at a time. But for space to be a viable industry, you are going to need to move people in significant numbers. If for no other reason than reducing costs with the $/head figure.
Ok, it sounds too hard for you. Perhaps you should find an easier job?
I am not kidding. If all we can get for $15 billion a year is what we are getting, then screw it. Shut the whole thing down, and try again in thirty years when the technology is there to do it economically.
If I whined to my boss like you are about how hard my job is, I would have the opportunity to find easier work in about 30 seconds.
I'm not interested in space tourism. That is someone elses department. I am interested in asteroid mining. It will be a business operaration with permanent staff stationed in space at a few critical locations, and most of the staff right on terra firma. There will be no need to ferry hordes of people to and from space. A few crews, perhaps 16 crews, with a staff level of 10 each will suffice. Most will travel into space and return one time and will stay in space for a few years. The work will be similar to hard-rock mining now: dangerous, highly technical, highly skilled, and boring as snot. Most workers will be able to retire after one tour in space and spend the rest of their lives impressing the impressionable at any seaside resort of their choosing for the rest of their life. Space launch capsules will suffice.
It is amazing that some of it depends on the skill level of a very few persons. Welding, for example. However, overall, we are not impressed with how wickedly HARD this technology might be. In 1970 about 300,000 engineers and other support staff were laid off from various aerospace projects like this. All of them were capable of handling some aspect of this HARD technology and that includes technicians whose special skills translate engineering into hardware. By the way, many of those 300,000 have lost trust in government projects as a career and wouldn't come back on any but a consulting basis even if chairs were in desperate need of warming.
That isn't an industry, it is a niche. Besides, I cannot find it believable that space mined minerals will be economically useful anywhere but space. Mining enterprises can barely stay in business on earth where the operating cost is a fraction of what it will be in space and the demand exponentially more than any in space will be for a long time.
Mining won't lead the way into space. In fact, no one has positively identified any economic interest in space other than satellites.
More than likely, space will be colonized when it becomes imperative to grab the high ground before someone else monopolizes 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.