NASA wants to develop Space Plane to replace Shuttle

[The diplomat]

------------
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced plans for the Orbital Space Plane before space shuttle Columbia came apart over Texas and killed seven astronauts on February 1. But the tragedy has added a powerful incentive to find a cheaper, simpler and more dependable way to ferry astronauts between the space station and Earth.
-----------

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/08/31/sprj.colu.space.sedan.ap/index.html

You can see 4 artist drawings of possible concepts.

I sure hope this becomes reality soon.

[Ted Striker]

This seems like a smart idea.

Let the rockets put the heavy payloads into space

Shuttle people back and forth with a plane.

Any experiments that need to be done in outer space can be done on the space station

The shuttle is old and its one size fits all mission is outdated.

[The diplomat]

Isn't interesting that two of the concept drawings look just like the Space Plane in CTP2?

[Nubclear]

I want a pony

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I want a pony

Can't you ask your parents to get you one?

[mrmitchell]

Diplo -

If this helps us a)do more ISS work, b)colonise the moon, or c)land on Mars, then I'm all for it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
This seems like a smart idea.

Let the rockets put the heavy payloads into space

Shuttle people back and forth with a plane.

Any experiments that need to be done in outer space can be done on the space station

The shuttle is old and its one size fits all mission is outdated.

I couldn't have said this any better.

The Shuttle is not going to fly again for several years as it has to undergo a redesign. Why waste the money and time. Put all our resources into this new plane and in parallel develop new heavy rockets that have the potential to take us back to the moon and to Mars. Until we have them, we use the Russian rockets and capablities to support the space station and to repair hubble.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Can't you ask your parents to get you one?

[Dr Strangelove]

All I can say is good luck! So far I don't think there is yet a fuel available with enough power per pound to allow the construction of a space plane.

OTOH perhaps they could put an engine in a shuttle-like craft that would allow the vehicle to make a powered landing. That would take at least some of the worry out of re-entry. I'm not sure that it would preclude the occurence of an accident like thiis last one, though, since the critical problem was a damaged area of the plane. In order to have avoided this type of calamity they'd have to have somehow de-accelerated the plane to a much lower approach velocity, thereby preventing the build up of heat under the damaged section of the surface.

[DanS]

While it is not smart in the long run to break up the non-reusable propulsion device and the manned cabin, I think this will fit well right now. Basically, this is a much scaled down shuttle. I very much doubt the $2.4 billion number that they bandy about, though. The contractors want $10 billion to do it.

Maybe the tech will pan out in the next 10 or 20 years for a fully reusable rocket. That should be the ultimate goal. We just tried something similar a little too early and ended up with a flawed Shuttle that costs $500 million a launch.

Edit: While the Delta II is very reliable, it still has a 3% failure rate. People will die in these rockets more than in the Shuttle.

[GePap]

Space Elevator is the way to go.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
Space Elevator is the way to go.

You've been reading Red Mars too much.

It better not be scraped Like that X-thingy they had on the drawing boards a few years back. I am still waiting for NASA to start planing a manned Mars mission and return to the Moon.

NASA NEEDS MORE $$$ NOW!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Odin
You've been reading Red Mars too much.

I've never read Red Mars (only blue and green)..but towers of Paradise (by Arthur C.) is a great book. Eventually it will be done.

[:) Smiley]

Don't count on NASA doing nothing. It'll most likely be China, that actually has something to prove by sinking big bucks into space tech.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
All I can say is good luck! So far I don't think there is yet a fuel available with enough power per pound to allow the construction of a space plane.

OTOH perhaps they could put an engine in a shuttle-like craft that would allow the vehicle to make a powered landing. That would take at least some of the worry out of re-entry. I'm not sure that it would preclude the occurence of an accident like thiis last one, though, since the critical problem was a damaged area of the plane. In order to have avoided this type of calamity they'd have to have somehow de-accelerated the plane to a much lower approach velocity, thereby preventing the build up of heat under the damaged section of the surface.

It may also be possible to simply put the Spaceplane Backpack onto a Boeing, which then carries the Plane to greater Heights, before the Spaceplane itself ignites its Engines and travels on his own Power to Orbit.

Hermes, which was the (by now abandoned) Design for an european Spaceshuttle AFAIK should use this System.

I think it should be possible with todays technologies, as it should only carry Personnel into Space and no further Payload.

Would probably also more Safe than the old Shuttle Design (less Vibrations during Start and Flight, no Rockets which, once ignited cannot be stopped) and also Cleaner for the Environment (as probably less Fuel must be burned)