Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

Trebuchet · 2004-07-23 13:44:33

Congress has written legislation defining private manned space travel and basically clearing the way for private manned spaceflight. The legislation firms up the licensing process for the vehicles and gives them their own official status seperate from other means of transportation. They also make reduce liability - basically people going into space will do so at their own risk.

Of course, the bill still needs to be passed in its final form, but that should be a formality given that the Senate has matched the House's version of the bill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5490410/]Link

dicktice · 2004-07-24 13:41:30

I now believe, with 20/20 rear vision, that had it not been for the Moon 'space race" we would have commercial suborbital spaceplane transportation by now, with all sorts of proposals proliferating about how to orbit a "space platform" from which to assemble and launch an expedition to Moon and--from a Lunar colony there--on to Mars, with all sorts of space probes interspersed. Had Kennedy lived, of course, he might have avoided the Vietnamn war and brought about a third alternative, but it wasn't in the cards. So here we are, back to front: Why not imagine we're back there and brainstorm how it might have happened, just to see if we aren't overlooking something that would have been the only way to go, back then?

Grypd · 2004-07-24 15:57:21

It is without doubt the space race that destroyed cheap flights to space. It is only now that Rutan is trying to catch up where the USA left its space planes 40 years ago

From 1961 to 1968 the North American X-15 was the most successful plane flying up to mach 6 and the three of them made over 199 flights 19 of which went above the 50 miles 80km space height earning pilots astronaut wings.

It was the pressures to compete with the Soviet block that resulted in the use of Ballistic Missiles to get into space. If it had not been for that space flight now would in likelihood have been common. Von Braun had always planned to use space planes to get cheap access to space with the heavy rockets purpose simply to have put infrastructure into orbit.
He had even planned this when he was using V2's he had some with wings and planned to put pilots in them.

This missile use meant that everyone else would not use other means to get into space. Britain with its SR.53 fighter was on its way but like all space and future planes research project cancelled. It is also ironic that the shuttle as initially thought of and planned almost till it was ready to be made was what we would call a fully reusable Space plane. Now it is a monster, and we plan to use it like a heavy launching rocket (shuttle c )

Space planes would and will allow cheap access to space. Imagine if it would cost 15000 $US to get a person up there. That means space tourism would not be just for the super rich it gets close to what is capable for us the normal people.
That was the plan for the German Sanger space plane and that would only have cost 10 billion $US to make it happen that is only 10 shuttle flights.

This was in the 80s we now have better materials and could do it a lot cheaper!

Euler · 2004-07-24 17:31:30

Space planes have been heralded as the key to cheap access to space since before people could travel into space. However, experience has shown that multistage expendable rockets are still the cheapest method of getting to space, and attempts to get closer to the space plane ideal have always ended up costing more. The problem is that getting into orbit is extremely difficult, orders of magnitude more difficult than suborbital flight.

No one has ever succeeded in building a SSTO vehicle of any kind. I realize that one could be built by simply adding additional engines to the of upper stages of some current rockets. However, this is not done because the payload fraction of such a vehicle would be very small, and the vehicle would not be economical.

Making the SSTO reusable is even harder, because the entire vehicle would have to have a heavy heat shield, and the vehicle would also need some method of landing safely. If this can be done at all with our current technology, it would result in a vehicle with a miniscule payload and high operating costs.

Eventually space planes may be the cheapest way to get into space. However, I think that we are still decades away from that happening. Using chemical rockets and currently available materials, space planes just aren't practical.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-25 07:37:54

I believe that's the current state of play, all right.
Without claiming any expertise in rocket science, I've read enough from various well-informed people to realise that Single-Stage-To-Orbit vehicles are technologically and economically marginal at present. In fact, given the theoretical performance limits of chemical rockets and the forseeable improvements in materials science, I think it's difficult to see any immediate future for the SSTO concept.
Any improvements in materials would probably be just as advantageous for 'big dumb boosters' as for SSTO vehicles, so those improvements would likely be used to make conventional staged rockets cheaper, rather than to make state-of-the-art space planes.

I don't know just how cheap rockets could become if they were truly mass-produced(?) but I think access to orbit is always going to be expensive unless we can come up with something revolutionary. Ideally, we will find a way to manipulate gravity, without breaking every rule in the physicists' handbook! But, in my opinion, the construction of several heavy-duty space elevator cables may be our best option, which is why I'm so interested in the progress being made in that department.

Sorry! I guess I'm getting a little bit off-topic here.

Grypd · 2004-07-25 08:03:34

Single stage to orbit is almost impossible for us at the moment, yes i agree.

But if you are aware most spaceplane concepts are to use two or more reusable stages and this allows the savings to be made. Big dumb boosters will always be able to launch the heavier loads but a spaceplane can get people to space cheaper.

It takes will and political capital to get this done and at the moment it is not in Nasa's interest. Cheap flights mean lower cost plus systems of work.

Euler · 2004-07-25 11:12:50

Any improvements in materials would probably be just as advantageous for 'big dumb boosters' as for SSTO vehicles, so those improvements would likely be used to make conventional staged rockets cheaper, rather than to make state-of-the-art space planes.

It is true that improvements in materials would benefit both conventional boosters and SSTOs. However, technological innovations should help the SSTOs more than they help the conventional boosters. The reason for this is that the SSTO has a much smaller ratio of payload mass to structural mass. If you reduce the structural mass of a conventional booster by 10%, you would likely increase the payload by 20-30%. However, if you can reduce the structural mass of the SSTO by 10%, it could double or triple your payload.

This argument leads to the conclusion that SSTOs will become more and more competitive with conventional boosters. Eventually, the SSTOs will probably become more economical than the conventional boosters. It is just a question of how long it will be before that happens.

Rxke · 2004-07-25 11:25:32

Expensive as launchers might be by themselves, isn't the biggest cost operational? Compare the standing army needed for STS, with, say the Proton/Soyuz-launches.

SSTO, manned or unmanned? (manned with pilot, i mean) Could one build a fairly simple SSTO for unmanned operation, get the wrinkles out, and then use it for manned launches, by 'simply' fitting the cargo-bay with an autonomeous pressurized spam-in-a-can module? That way the vehicule itself stays as simple as possible, added complexity for manned flights is in the payload

(whoa, wiiiiiiiildly off-topic)

dicktice · 2004-07-25 11:59:04

My last post was about suborbital aerospace planes, but all of the posts since have emphasized the impossibility right now of SSTO's. Suborbitals should, with the right engineering approach, provide a commercially viable transport alternative for a halfway-around-the-world alternative to the now-unacceptable supersonic atmosphere means between Canada and Australia, say. I'd hoped to stimulate discussion about the best way to do suborbitals first, perhaps discovering along the way some fresh approach to eventual orbit-achieving aerospace plane technology as the next step.

Euler · 2004-07-25 12:20:57

I don't see a rocket powered vehicles becoming commercially successful transports. Flying to the other side of the world is significantly more difficult than just flying to 100km. In addition, for the vehicle to be successful, it would have to carry a large number of people, fly several times per day, and be much safer than current rockets.

On the other hand, if you can make scramjets economical and reliable, they might lead to long range hypersonic transport. I think that this is the most promising approach if you want to work your way up to a spaceplane.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-25 17:30:18

Good point about the relative merits of advances in materials science, Euler. I see what you mean about the payload mass ratio.
I guess if you can develop a viable hybrid engine, jet/scramjet/rocket, together with lighter stronger materials for structural components and fuel tanks etc., then the SSTO concept will be realised. But what of nuclear engines?
If we could produce a Nuclear Thermal Rocket with negligible contamination in the exhaust, would it be light enough to provide the efficiency improvements necessary to make SSTO feasible right now?
And where might Quantum Nucleonic Reactors fit into the picture? Could they be used as part of a hybrid SSTO engine to improve efficiency? ???

Apologies to those who may have covered these concepts in other threads here at New Mars. I confess I haven't been keeping up with every thread in recent months.

Hi, Rik! Your comments about operational costs are very topical at the moment. I see Lockheed have just done some tests on airbag systems for landing capsules on the ground instead of at sea. This would presumably make capsules more re-usable (less salt water damage etc.) and obviate the need for expensive naval task forces to recover crews offshore.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-23 13:44:33

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#2 2004-07-24 13:41:30

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#3 2004-07-24 15:57:21

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#4 2004-07-24 17:31:30

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#5 2004-07-25 07:37:54

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#6 2004-07-25 08:03:34

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#7 2004-07-25 11:12:50

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#8 2004-07-25 11:25:32

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#9 2004-07-25 11:59:04

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#10 2004-07-25 12:20:57

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

#11 2004-07-25 17:30:18

Re: Congress Clearing A Path - For private manned spaceflight

Board footer