Time to Revisit the Aerospace Plane Concept in Light of this Disaster

self | 02/01/03 | LS

[LS]

Yep. I discovered, when I wrote my history of NASP, that NASA never believed in the scramjet, but went along to get the money. It was an abuse. The AF, however, believed in the scram, and wanted to make it work. Had NASA put its heart into the program, I think today we'd have an airbreathing engine that could go at least Mach 8, and maybe 10.

[LS]

I know you never heard of it. That's the point. With any POWERED vehicle, you must save some fuel. You are still operating in a shuttle mentality that we were trying to escape. Notice a 747 doesn't want to get rid of all fuel before it lands. A lot, yes. But POWERED re-entry is much more desirable than gliding.

[LS]

If you care to read my study, a shortened copy is available in "Air Power History" 1994. However, in my final report to the Air Force (and throughout) I constantly fought for more privatizing of the space effort.

To an extent, the Aerospace Plane did take steps in that direction. First, several air contractors participated in the main program (McDonnell Doug., Rockwell, P&W, Rocketdyne, GD, and, earlier, Lockheed and Boeing). I'm convinced that had the program put a usable prototype out, you WOULD have seen private-sector copycats fairly soon.

One of my jobs was to figure out how to advance the technology and make recommendations. I recommended a national prize for single-stage-to-orbit, wherein I'm convinced a private firm would quickly give us the technology we want for a fraction of the cost of NASA's programs.

But realistically, if you think the U.S. is going to disband NASA, it won't happen, and therefore REALISTICALLY the best we can do is to constantly push NASA toward more privatization in every area. (BTW, Soyuz is a government program).

[LS]

My point is that if we had supported NASP in 1986 after Challenger, we might not have to grieve first.

[LS]

Exactly. And the NASP program proved they could STORE and PUMP the hydrogen, so it is feasible.

[ffusco]

Your a prince. Bashing American technology before the facts are in while offering condolences is right out of the DNC play book.

[LS]

It did not require an "inordinate" amount of funding, especially for the technological problems it tackled. But my point was that every DELAY and government STRETCH-OUT actually INCREASED the cost. I remember, after one stretched out budget came back, that the managers sat around a table cancelling a dozen tests, or pushing them back. Each time, they would note how much cancelling or pushing it back COST THE TAXPAYER and would shake their heads.

[537 Votes]

Can we grieve, first?

With all due respect, I really wonder how much grieving I can do for people whose names I never even knew until this morning. There's authentic emotion, and then there's the synthetic kind which intellectually intimidated people like using in order to belittle those who are intellectually capable of thinking up solutions to prevent future tragedies.

Technically-knowledgeable people often respond to tragic circumstances by trying to think up solutions. This is not coldly insensitive; it is wonderfully appropriate. And in its own way, it is the sincerest form of demonstrating true grief.

[LibKill]

I, for one, would think that a newer more reliable space bird would be a great memorial to these intrepid souls. But I can understand if others don't want to think about it just yet.

[RightWhale]

Airplanes are fine, but they have to re-enter the atmosphere. I would prefer the early space capsule design for getting back to earth over the ability to land near the airport snack bar. Re-think the whole concept and separate crewed launches from freight launches.

[alloysteel]

Using these space shuttles to operate our space program is like using DC-3's for the main routes on airlines in 2003. It could be done, but there aren't enough DC-3's to do the job satisfactorily, and they are inherently far more cumbersome and inefficient than the third and fourth generation jets which have replaced them.

If we started right now, how soon would the "scram-jet" be operational? What are our other options?

[thulldud]

Technically-knowledgeable people often respond to tragic circumstances by trying to think up solutions. This is not coldly insensitive; it is wonderfully appropriate. And in its own way, it is the sincerest form of demonstrating true grief.

Hear, hear. I ask everyone to consider that this sort of response is exactly what the shuttle crew themselves would consider an appropriate honor. After all, they didn't go into space because they wanted to live forever -- they went to learn and achieve. The risk of life balances the potential win of each mission. They could minimize it, but it never goes away.

Dare nonetheless.

[The Duke]

Also, I find myself wondering what we're supposed to be "grieving" about? I must admit that I've not gone through a grieving process for any of our soldiers killed in battle, nor would I expect them to feel the loss if I perished. That doesn't mean that I don't have tremendous gratitude and respect for the sacrafices that they have all made on the nation's behalf.

Rather than grieving for those who perished today, I feel more inclined to honor them, and then to look postively towards the future of America in space. Let us not let the world come to know us as a nation of crybabies, but a nation of bold explorers, a nation in which all citizens have some measure of "The Right Stuff".

[HairOfTheDog]

It seems like an incredible waste of human life......just to study "dust". Couldn't this mission have been completed by an unmanned space drone?

I would rather have three minutes of wonderful than a whole life of nothing special.

There is safety in staying home.... but little chance for complete and absolute amazement.

[canuck_conservative]

"But POWERED re-entry is much more desirable than gliding."

Not necessarily. Powered re-entry means you have to carry along a bunch of liquid hydrogen (or whatever fuel) all through the orbital phase and - riskiest of all - the shaking, white-hot heat of upper re-entry. That's a long time for accidents to happen and dangerous as h*ll!

Glide re-entry does have its advantages.

[no-s]

Look, the whole thing is still incredibly dangerous. Lives must be risked for manned spaceflight to succeed. We must honor the fallen by aggressively examining all aspects of the program.It's important to know what happened, how it happened, and especially why.

I feel the role of the government should be examined as well. Look at what has happened to all of the alternative launcher initiatives on the part of industry. Any that looked competitive with NASA were sabotaged financially by NASA. A program viable in all other respects must still operate with NASA's blessing.

All that is left of the fallen is an investigation, a memorial, and compassion for family and friends. We owe it to ourselves and the future to not let them die in vain. If we learn anything we must apply those lessons learned. And we must also look back to what is already well known, This is where I climb up on my soapbox, and please don't take this the wrong way.

Asking for a government solution here is asking for more of the same. NASA should be a research organization contracting out research. Building and operating a space fleet should not be in the NASA charter. There do exist current, viable contenders to NASA's space flight and research operations. This includes the Russian program, and private concerns currently operating outside the missle-launcher industrial complex, for example Kistler Aerospace comes to mind. We don't need cadillac programs. The most successful operating spacecraft available today is Soyuz, arguably 1950's era technology. If we want a replacement, a government program is the most backasswards solution, if at all possible. The competition and initiative required for a succesful NASP or SSTO is verifiably not present in the FedGov, or they would have already succeeded after 40 years of trying!

For further insight look up links to the Space Access Society. You won't find it at NASA, except in research.

[LS]

I think, giving reasonable funding, you could have an operational Mach 6 scram in about 5-6 years; and after that, the progress goes much faster. We have continued several of these programs at low levels, including "Hyper-X" and two others. They have very low funding, though.

[hoosierham]

So what about the waste in human life of those who die in accidents at home, including drowning in the tub ?

NOTHING is completely safe.

Explorers do it for love of knowledge and maybe a little fame, later come the pioneers who die learning the best way to survive, and then the settlers who truly make it part of man's domain.

The explorers are still the only ones going into space.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

No. We need to move forward, and to do so aggressively. Anything else would be an insult.

[merak]

Shuttles were a good design for the 1970s. It's time for NASA, and America, to come into the 21st century with a new spaceplane that acts like a taxi or a truck, not the Titanic.

One way of looking at it is this: I wouldn't think of driving down I95 in a 20-year-old car; why would anybody want to go to space in a 20-year-old space vehicle?