Unless Dubai wants one.
]]>Rockets can and will always beat winged craft--at least into the mid-future.
]]>-Its hard to hide spy satelites, they are warm in infrared but space is not, and you can't hide the launch vehicle.
-When you know where the satelite is, plan to do whatever evil while the satelite is over the horizon.
One-shot suborbital satelites would get expensive, and regular satelites can't maneuver much, so a suborbital spaceplane makes good sense.
A suborbital once-around spaceplane would have the overflight ability of a satelite, but it would fly over with only minutes of warning.
]]>The Space Review - Military Space Systems: The Road Ahead
As you will note the airforce need a lighter launcher to create a way that they can endanger or disrupt enemy space assets. A TSTO would be perfect especially as it would be cheaper.
]]>Please...
]]>Followint the links lead to a more coplete article [url=http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml]
Two-Stage-to-Orbit 'Blackstar' System Shelved at Groom Lake?[/url]
One Pentagon official suggests that the Blackstar system was "owned" and operated by a team of aerospace contractors, ensuring government leaders' plausible deniability. When asked about the system, they could honestly say, "we don't have anything like that."
Even a simpler proceedure such as Shuttle SRB recyclying
is a logistical headache.
I cannot believe we are going to design another Toy for the
Top Gun set at NASA.
We aren't building a spaceplane right now, nor in the nearish future, but not because of the reasons you have cited.
If you had more then single-digit numbers of neurons in your head and have been reading the actual posts in the thread, you would have learned that a spaceplane is only a good idea if it can be flown repeatedly.
It is quite possible to build a real spaceplane that can withstand multiple flights (I am aiming for 25) that does not need refurbishing between them. Modern technology is a generation beyond what Shuttle was built with, and we can today build rocket engines, heat shields, and other equipment that are up to the task.
Yes a Shuttle-II would be expensive to develop (at least $15Bn), no doubt about it. They will also be very expensive (I would estimate as high as 15X-20X a comperable launcher) to build even if development were free. No argument there...
...but if the spaceplane can fly several hundred times for under a fifth of the cost of an expendable rocket each, then the spaceplane has rockets beat cold.
The Space Shuttle of today was a disaster, no question about that, a debacle of terrible proportions. Why? Because it was supposed to make too many people happy. Make NASA happy with it being reuseable and carry intermediate payloads (~40MT), make the USAF happy with single-orbit polar trajectories (big wings, lots of lift, heavier), and the accountants happy (small development and flight costs, which are mutually exclusive)... Shuttle could have only done only one of these things, but NASA was stupid and tried to do all three with technology that wasn't good enough.
And so, here we are.
]]>I cannot believe we are going to design another Toy for the
Top Gun set at NASA. Two Crew have to be dedicated to
just Pilots on the Shuttle. That's 28% of your Human Wetware that becomes useless during the Mission itself.Think about the extra hardware a Shuttle needs so it
can function as a reuseable craft.Landing Gear Assembly. Actuator Motors for control surfaces. Double occupancy Cockpit. Extra large windows. Large
Surface Area Reentry Thermal tiling.
Unless we are talking about a Scramjet aircraft that severely lowers the cost of LOE I see no reason to make your new spacecraft reuseable. Reusabilty is a gimmick intended to justify "space plane" technology, and simply a jobs program
for the contractors.How can this be true?
Because taking apart a man rated craft after it has flown and
refurbishing it and recertifying for use is acutally much more
expensive than building expendable throw away Assebly line
spacecraft. The Shuttle is the proof of this.It is far better to go with an modenized Apollo Command module adapted to hold 6 crew and 1 pilot. If you need a larger Mission Ship. Just have larger module dock with the CM nose to nose. (obviously a small LOE Retro-Maneuver module
would be required also)
Indeed but if you can reuse these parts time and time again then there actual cost reduces as they are only intial outlay. When it comes to CEV it means you will spend a few million to purchase the one shot capsule and heatshield. If we can develop a TSTO then as it is used more and more it will overtake a CEV design.
But as for crew being put down as useless thats a load of ####. In a mission on the shuttle these crew also are quoted as doing there other specialities and can frankly be classed as scientist/mission technicians first and as pilots second.
We have already shown that the Shuttle was a disaster from a financial sense as its particular design was so flawed and it flew so little and needed so much in ground support. But one of its worst problems was it was to be the be all and end all. It had to carry cargo at the same time as crew and it did neither well. It weighs almost 105 tons and this is all fired up and returned. the TSTOs that are planned here are a lot smaller and are dedicated to a specific purpose either cargo with no crew on board at all and manned which is just that a pure passenger load. It also reuses all other items ie the lower stage is reused and as it does not leave the atmosphere and will likely be a jet powered plane can simply be quickly reused so reducing cost.
And it is the amount of flights that means actually how expensive a flight is. Look at how airlines are able to keep airplane tickets down just by constant flights.
]]> Think about the extra hardware a Shuttle needs so it
can function as a reuseable craft.
Landing Gear Assembly. Actuator Motors for control surfaces. Double occupancy Cockpit. Extra large windows. Large
Surface Area Reentry Thermal tiling.
Unless we are talking about a Scramjet aircraft that severely lowers the cost of LOE I see no reason to make your new spacecraft reuseable. Reusabilty is a gimmick intended to justify "space plane" technology, and simply a jobs program
for the contractors.
How can this be true?
Because taking apart a man rated craft after it has flown and
refurbishing it and recertifying for use is acutally much more
expensive than building expendable throw away Assebly line
spacecraft. The Shuttle is the proof of this.
It is far better to go with an modenized Apollo Command module adapted to hold 6 crew and 1 pilot. If you need a larger Mission Ship. Just have larger module dock with the CM nose to nose. (obviously a small LOE Retro-Maneuver module
would be required also)