Slashdot Mirror

Russia had multiple space plane projects:

Buran - which the entire USSR space industry loved to hate as it was contrary to what they wanted to develop and done as a tit-a-tat with the shuttle

Multiple early Buran prototypes - much smaller, but closer to what is on the "Chinese" picture. Some flew unmanned for at least some test flights. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/maks_2.jpg other media can be found around the web

Mig 105/Spiral - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105

Uragan Space Interceptor - rumoured to be a 105 on steroids - http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm

...and it took just a few missions for the enthusiasm to mostly vanish ;/ - I guess "it's epic because the first will only happen once" doesn't have much appeal for nth landing.

I kinda regret how Russians didn't make it (it was not only a case of few setbacks along the way - it was almost like they didn't really want to succeed), how N1 was cancelled just before v2 (with its mostly understood problems possibly resolved) was ready, how the ignorant Soviet generals pushed for a "strategic parity" with (nonexistent) advantage supposedly given by the Shuttle / how they caused immense waste of funds(*) (at least the engineers did it a bit more sensibly: Energia was an example of Ares V-like approach, from the start - but of course it also wasn't really given a chance / at least we got its boosters out of the deal - Zenit seems to be the most cost effective launcher around)

If first on the Moon, I wouldn't be too surprised if they were able to maintain a small lunar base for the past ~3 decades; for less than what Energia-Buran cost them. In such reality US would most likely want to reach for another big mission - so we would possibly have, a bit similar in style to Apollo, Mars landings by now. Much more fun all around.

Having attained such stage of exploration, we would probably also be stuck for a long time - but at least in a place with in-situ resource utilization possible.

As it stands now - while I'm not too far from the age you were during Moon landings, I might very well not live long enough to see Mars ones. I'm not even certain about another lunar ones... (at least upcoming decade might be quite fun, with a few rovers - watching live stream on YT/etc. will be interesting)

(*)Unless that was the point of the Shuttle, to provoke Soviet Union into similar program with all its costs - but in this case, it succeeded 2 decades ago / why, since then, was it allowed to suck also NASA dry?

Not quite.

All miscreants out there have a regularly updated almanach which tells them when they are "under the bird". That is why the UAVs have managed to achieve much more than spy satellites. However you cannot launch a UAV over China, Russia or anything more advanced than a banana republic. Here a craft that can be refuelled is priceless.

The worrying element however is Russia's rumoured response to these developments. It is considering unfreezing the development of the Uragan space interceptor. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm That is an outright military platform armed to the teeth. It was frozen back in USSR days because USA stopped launching the shuttle from Vanderberg same as the freezing of Polus/Skif. However most parts exist till this day in storage and reviving them will not take long. That will take the ABM and weapons race to a whole new level.

There's a good history of Buran over at Astronautix. First the article about the craft itself, another (with a lot of overlap) about the project, then a short piece about the Buran Analogue. A very good write-up with several good photos (sad ones at the end) over at Aerospaceweb.

If you've got some time to kill, you can find a Buran mock-up sitting at the Baikonur Cosmodrome on Google Earth. Also the final resting place of the Buran that flew and the Energia reusable launch vehicle, but it's a little hard to locate.

There's a good history of Buran over at Astronautix. First the article about the craft itself, another (with a lot of overlap) about the project, then a short piece about the Buran Analogue. A very good write-up with several good photos (sad ones at the end) over at Aerospaceweb.

If you've got some time to kill, you can find a Buran mock-up sitting at the Baikonur Cosmodrome on Google Earth. Also the final resting place of the Buran that flew and the Energia reusable launch vehicle, but it's a little hard to locate.

There's a good history of Buran over at Astronautix. First the article about the craft itself, another (with a lot of overlap) about the project, then a short piece about the Buran Analogue. A very good write-up with several good photos (sad ones at the end) over at Aerospaceweb.

If you've got some time to kill, you can find a Buran mock-up sitting at the Baikonur Cosmodrome on Google Earth. Also the final resting place of the Buran that flew and the Energia reusable launch vehicle, but it's a little hard to locate.

Total project cost was $ 80 million, using a Titan II converted surplus ICBM as the launch vehicle.

Some of the NASA contributions, such as the Orbiting Meteoroid and Debris Counting Experiment were in the price range you claim.

Well, they're kind of crammed on the Dragon, too.

I'd much rather see an HL-42 styled craft. Give me a horizontal landing, on an actual runway. None of this splashing down in the ocean and waiting for the flippin' navy to rescue you.

He's talking about developing general technologies and capabilities that would be useful for a wide variety of missions outside of Mars, and if nobody wants to pull the trigger on the Mars mission in 20 years, we still have all the technology and capabilities.

I'd be happy just with 1985's Orbital Transfer Vehicle.

Think you guys will have one of those built by 2030?

So use a personal heatshield to decelerate? (of course, it's an open question if this would turn out to be more reliable and mass-efficient than simple lifeboat capsule)

Projects meant to provide personal reentry...shroud, really, mentioned here (among many other rescue options), might be also worth a read in context.

But we shouldn't be shooting for the moon in a giant rocket. That's a recipe for re-creating Apollo, the most useless endeavor I can imagine for the space program. Instead we should be first developing the orbital technology where we can get mass to orbit cheaply, then refuel in orbit for the next stage. Bring crew up separately. Assemble a lunar vehicle in orbit. And so on.

DIRECT is not an Apollo rehash, and a multiple launch, refuel in orbit scenario is exactly what they have been suggesting. Designing one launcher and using it multiple times is cheaper than designing a big grunty rocket to lift mass, and a small rocket to lift people, especially if the law requires shuttle technology reuse. All I'm saying is that under those constraints, DIRECT is better than the Program of Record (ARES).

I have no doubts that a clean sheet design process would turn out a better rocket system. I have no doubts that private industry could do a better job at building it than NASA. Personally, I'd like to see an orbital assembly and refuelling depot in the plane of the ecliptic (easy launch to the planets), and a craft like the HL-42 ferrying people back and forth.

The space tug was one of the first things that was cancelled in the space station program http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm We're doing this whole space station thing in such a half-assed manner because approximately half of the people in Congress would dearly like to see the entire thing cancelled (and this is not a vote along party lines). They try at every chance to kill the thing outright but it's always so far been saved at the last moment (with subtantial cuts) in a political compromise. And the thing about a compromise is that it's a solution that no one is happy with, ie, half-assed. That's the main reason. The other reason is that the station is in LEO, and thus is subject to significant atmospheric drag via the attenuated atmostphere. It's not a permanent orbit. Within a few years at most, without periodic reboosts (which cost fuel), the station would reenter the atmosphere and burn up. The primary reason that the station is in such a low orbit relates to the quality of the launchers we had to launch it. Without a Saturn V class, we had no real capability to project more mass than a telecom satellite to a significantly higher orbit. The Clarke orbit is filled with junk from dead comsats, so it's unsuitable for permanent habitation even if we could reach it with so much mass. And the area between LEO and GEO is mostly unreachable by the supply and personnel rockets we had with significant payload. So basically, the reason this station program is so half-assed can be laid at the feet of the people who killed the Saturn V. Skylab was launched in 1 launch. The ISS took dozens to be mostly complete.

Your first reference is wrong in several aspects. The Russians, or rather the Soviet Union, did in fact make a staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine named RD-0120, which was used in Buran in parallel with staged combustion LOX/Kerosene engine RD-170. RD-0120 had similar performance to the SSME except it was designed to be non-reusable, with much cheaper construction using less parts.

Also several things have happened after that article was written. ESA has been working on a staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine codenamed VEDA. The Russians have recently switched the Soyuz second stage to the staged combustion LOX/Kerosene RD-0124 engine and have in fact proposed replacing all Soyuz engines with staged combustion variants. Atlas V uses the staged combustion RD-180 LOX/Kerosene engine. Angara and Long March 5 are planned to use staged combustion technology. Taurus II is planned to use the NK-33 staged combustion LOX/Kerosene engine.

The fact is staged combustion technology has been increasingly used in space launch applications contrary to what the article claims.

Your first reference is wrong in several aspects. The Russians, or rather the Soviet Union, did in fact make a staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine named RD-0120, which was used in Buran in parallel with staged combustion LOX/Kerosene engine RD-170. RD-0120 had similar performance to the SSME except it was designed to be non-reusable, with much cheaper construction using less parts.

Also several things have happened after that article was written. ESA has been working on a staged combustion LOX/LH2 engine codenamed VEDA. The Russians have recently switched the Soyuz second stage to the staged combustion LOX/Kerosene RD-0124 engine and have in fact proposed replacing all Soyuz engines with staged combustion variants. Atlas V uses the staged combustion RD-180 LOX/Kerosene engine. Angara and Long March 5 are planned to use staged combustion technology. Taurus II is planned to use the NK-33 staged combustion LOX/Kerosene engine.

The fact is staged combustion technology has been increasingly used in space launch applications contrary to what the article claims.

Boeing did a study of making a winged Saturn V first stage back in 1962.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/winturnv.htm

The payload penalty might be problematic. Also, you can't really cluster more than 2 flyback stages due to the size of the wings. If you could use a parafoil and land with skids, that might solve that problem and to be fair western rockets don't really use clustering (Delta IV Heavy being a notable exception).

Spy satellite are great things and can photograph pretty much anything given a long enough period of time; the problem is they're only going to be over the exact patch of dirt you're interested in perhaps once a week, and it might be cloudy (or night time!) when that happens.

There are numerous orbits that allow for imaging the Earth surface at regular intervals, some like the Molniya orbit can be set up with extremely long dwell time over the area of interest, semi-synchronous pass over twice a day and there are non-synchronous orbits so they can image every where within a day or ever several hours. If Google Earth is sharp enough that I can see my mailbox, imagine what the big-boys can do. The KH-11 is basically a Hubble telescope with a 95 minute orbital period looking at the ground. Try hiding something from that.

Can't you consider that the theorists (yeah, without much practical experience yet...) were simply wrong?

Yet, the builders of capsules (who don't have much practical experience either) are right? Here in the US, we're only on the fourth generation - and the Soviets aren't much better having contented themselves with tinkering with their second generation design for the last thirty odd years.
 
Not to mention the dearth of evidence that those theorists [who proposed reusables] are actually wrong.
 
 

(besides, portraying "spaceplanes" as the future wasn't nearly as universal as you make it to be; those from Werner von Braum, for example, were envisioned on the assumption that Mars has considerably denser atmoshpere)

Weren't universal? Close enough that difference is irrelevant.
 
As far as Wernher Von Braun goes, it helps to actually be conversant with space history.
 
(Hint: you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.)

So the first successful one? And who knows what the soviets did

Anyone who has actually paid attention to space history, especially with the massive amounts of information that has come out since the end of the Cold War, or who has the ability (and intelligence) to use Google.
 
The first Soviet weather birds were the Meteor series, with the first test launches being in 1964 and reaching full operation in 1969.

Possibly first to deploy, but not the first to build, by a good 50 years.

This is the first "solid fueled" Supersonic "Maneuverable" Cruise Missile.

Not the first to deploy either.

Possibly first to deploy, but not the first to build, by a good 50 years.

So don't use multi-stage and only use Orion in deep space?

The I remember talking around a plan for a Saturn rocket in the late 60s had several redundant steam-rockets. I don't know if that was actually what NASA was talking about. It appeared that by the late 70's we could have had a vertical takeoff and landing single stage to orbit Saturn class space craft with just water as an emission. Fully re-usable. It would have had the power and fuel to leave orbit with a vehicle which could return intact. If one thinks a Saturn V taking off would be interesting to watch, imagine seeing one land?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket has some info about NERVA rockets. Saturn C-5N is a Nuclear version of the Saturn 1st stage, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm I don't know what it's propellent was supposed to be but I'm sure that info is out on the web someplace.

Damn Jane Fonda for convincing the public that nuclear power was bad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16wwln-freakonomics-t.html

NASA has *always* started up more programs than it could ever finish, so there'd be a good chance of what would eventually be needed already coming down the pipe. Add to the NASA developments all those designs put together by aero-corps most of which didn't get used. It ends up looking like a set up when something tests out well and then gets canceled. Being successful and being able to fit future requirements are not the same thing, and until a good test, they can't tell what the operating parmeters are for the vehicle. Also in this category are most of the best designs, those done around the edges of the aerospace industries. An example of these is the entire line of a multi-project program's worth of vehicles designed by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm and http://neverworld.net/truax/

But the biggest culprit is of course programs developed to fulfill the goals of one administration, which get cut by the next or subsequent administrations. If NASA developed programs based on 'stair-step' continual expansion (making each step a requirement for the next) rather than political grandstanding, progress might be slower in gross effect but with far less net cost and effort.

As to 'why cancel the Ares and then start investigating a new heavy-lifter', first, Ares is not a new anything -- it's a hack built from shuttle components, meaning most of the technology is quite old (not to say that's bad, but it could be better). Second, the same could be said every few years for the last half century. Third, NASA and all the companies it feeds through its technology transfer program require constant renewal of R&D program direction in order to invent a whole new pile of golly-gee-whiz tech, and this is what NASA does best.

Take a look at the line of canceled and never-started projects derived from, and intended to expand, the Apollo lunar program. This is the best example of cancels soon after if not before development began. Follow the links below from the index page at http://www.astronautix.com/

Pre- and post-lunar Apollo (and other vehicle) variants:
Apollo Odds and Mods
Project Horizon
Project Lunex
Lunar Gemini

Saturn developement beyond initial lunar landings:
Saturn V

Lunar exploration and expansion :
Manned Lunar Bases
Manned Circumlunar
Manned Lunar Landers
Manned Lunar Flyers
Manned Lunar Rovers
Manned Lunar Orbiters

And a complete program already well into development, with success fairly assured. Had this not been canceled, Armstrong might still have been first one the moon, but definitely would have been the first to fly (not just ride) an orbital space plane. An extremely well documented example of cancelmania:
X-20/23/24 Dynasoar

One project NASA may presently be regretting not following up on was an improved suspension and steering design for the Mars rovers. I'm not fully up on the details, but it would almost certainly have allowed Spirit to dig itself out of the sand. Apparently the story of its development and rejection was covered by some science-based talk show around 10 years ago. Some of the reasons they didn't pick up on it at the time made sense; the design they used was so far along that changing it would have cost much more, and being developed by an individual rather than the design team, training to bring them up to speed just to evaluate it would have taken too long. However, since the alternative design was produced by a college sophomore and was clearly better than that which was produced by an entire team, the fact that they resented being shown up by a kid is a distinct possibility. That's supported by the fact that his performance report was glowing, yet when he went to check out his supervisor told him "Don't bother to ask for a letter of reommendation". Turned out he didn't need one for his next summer job, at the National Ignition Facility. We're waiting to see whether they're using his design on Curiosity.

NASA has *always* started up more programs than it could ever finish, so there'd be a good chance of what would eventually be needed already coming down the pipe. Add to the NASA developments all those designs put together by aero-corps most of which didn't get used. It ends up looking like a set up when something tests out well and then gets canceled. Being successful and being able to fit future requirements are not the same thing, and until a good test, they can't tell what the operating parmeters are for the vehicle. Also in this category are most of the best designs, those done around the edges of the aerospace industries. An example of these is the entire line of a multi-project program's worth of vehicles designed by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm and http://neverworld.net/truax/

But the biggest culprit is of course programs developed to fulfill the goals of one administration, which get cut by the next or subsequent administrations. If NASA developed programs based on 'stair-step' continual expansion (making each step a requirement for the next) rather than political grandstanding, progress might be slower in gross effect but with far less net cost and effort.

As to 'why cancel the Ares and then start investigating a new heavy-lifter', first, Ares is not a new anything -- it's a hack built from shuttle components, meaning most of the technology is quite old (not to say that's bad, but it could be better). Second, the same could be said every few years for the last half century. Third, NASA and all the companies it feeds through its technology transfer program require constant renewal of R&D program direction in order to invent a whole new pile of golly-gee-whiz tech, and this is what NASA does best.

Take a look at the line of canceled and never-started projects derived from, and intended to expand, the Apollo lunar program. This is the best example of cancels soon after if not before development began. Follow the links below from the index page at http://www.astronautix.com/

Pre- and post-lunar Apollo (and other vehicle) variants:
Apollo Odds and Mods
Project Horizon
Project Lunex
Lunar Gemini

Saturn developement beyond initial lunar landings:
Saturn V

Lunar exploration and expansion :
Manned Lunar Bases
Manned Circumlunar
Manned Lunar Landers
Manned Lunar Flyers
Manned Lunar Rovers
Manned Lunar Orbiters

And a complete program already well into development, with success fairly assured. Had this not been canceled, Armstrong might still have been first one the moon, but definitely would have been the first to fly (not just ride) an orbital space plane. An extremely well documented example of cancelmania:
X-20/23/24 Dynasoar

One project NASA may presently be regretting not following up on was an improved suspension and steering design for the Mars rovers. I'm not fully up on the details, but it would almost certainly have allowed Spirit to dig itself out of the sand. Apparently the story of its development and rejection was covered by some science-based talk show around 10 years ago. Some of the reasons they didn't pick up on it at the time made sense; the design they used was so far along that changing it would have cost much more, and being developed by an individual rather than the design team, training to bring them up to speed just to evaluate it would have taken too long. However, since the alternative design was produced by a college sophomore and was clearly better than that which was produced by an entire team, the fact that they resented being shown up by a kid is a distinct possibility. That's supported by the fact that his performance report was glowing, yet when he went to check out his supervisor told him "Don't bother to ask for a letter of reommendation". Turned out he didn't need one for his next summer job, at the National Ignition Facility. We're waiting to see whether they're using his design on Curiosity.

The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted. Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest.

If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation. See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $3 billion a year. And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.

So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at? Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs. This seems like a reasonable idea. We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.

The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch. Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation. The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch. Worst case, we start with the NLS review vehicle that NASA worked on back in 1993. Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready.

What boggles my mind? All of this effort in materials technology, to build a glorified Apollo capsule - c. 1967.

Yes, especially when something like this on a back burner somewhere.

You could shoot a rocket from a cannon, meaning you'd need less fuel (meaning a smaller fuel tank, meaning even less fuel) to get it up to speed.

That was pretty much the idea behind the later vehicles of the Project HARP in the 1960s, a joint project between the US DOD and Canadian Department of National Defence. The project was ended however, after some suborbital vehicles were fired but a few months before the first launch of their orbital prototype. After the project was cancelled, project lead Gerald Bull ended up going to Iraq to develop a supergun for Saddam Hussein, which ended... poorly.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/martlet.htm

Martlet 2G-1.

Martlet 2G1
Status: Development ended 1966.

The Martlet 2G-1 was the absolute minimum gun-launched satellite vehicle. Conceived when the HARP project was under threat, it was a seven-inch diameter, two-stage solid propellnat vehicle that would be sabot-launched from the HARP 16 inch gun. Its total payload in orbit would have been just two kilogrammes - ideal for today's planned nano-satellites. Unfortunately even this minimum orbital launch vehicle could not be demonstrated before the program was shut down.

During the last year of the HARP program, when it became clear that further funding was not forthcoming, and that the goals of the Martlet 4 program were not to be realised, full efforts were diverted to developing a Martlet 2G-1 orbital vehicle (GLO-1A). It was felt that if a satellite - any satellite, no matter now small - could be successfully gun-launched, that it then would be possible to encourage further funding, either public or private, which would permit the orbital goals of the HARP program to be realised. Unfortunately time and fate were against HARP and the project was closed down on June 30 1967, only a few months before an orbital 2G-1 could be flown.

LEO Payload: 2.00 kg (4.40 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 13.00 degrees. Total Mass: 500 kg (1,100 lb). Core Diameter: 0.30 m (0.98 ft). Total Length: 4.29 m (14.07 ft).

Stage0: 1 x HARP Gun. Gross Mass: 450 kg (990 lb). Empty Mass: 1.00 kg (2.20 lb). Motor: 1 x 16 in gun. Thrust (vac): 127,000.000 kN (28,550,000 lbf). Isp: 365 sec. Burn time: 0.0100 sec. Length: 36.59 m (120.04 ft). Diameter: 0.42 m (1.37 ft). Propellants: Guncotton.
Stage1: 1 x Martlet 2G1-1. Gross Mass: 130 kg (280 lb). Empty Mass: 21 kg (46 lb). Length: 3.21 m (10.53 ft). Diameter: 0.29 m (0.95 ft). Propellants: Solid.
Stage2: 1 x Martlet 2G1-2. Gross Mass: 41 kg (90 lb). Empty Mass: 7.00 kg (15.40 lb). Length: 0.53 m (1.73 ft). Diameter: 0.29 m (0.95 ft). Propellants: Solid.

So ho hum. After peeling off the unnecessary, inevitable and stilted rationalization for violence (hey, I enjoy war as much as the next soldier, but not with imaginary friends) I've decoded the message here. The article is intended more for flag waving than for technology announcement. In fact I believe this to be agitprop, simply propoganda to stir up any targets and make them believe this might be possible.

Oh, and possible it is. China had their turn recently. As for the US:

[ASAT SPIN]

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT )

Starting in 1960 the Department of Defense (DoD) started a program called SPIN (SPace INtercept).[1] In 1962, the United States Navy air launched rockets from an F-4D fighter as part of Project Hi-Hoe with the objective of developing an anti-satellite weapon.[3][4]

The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting satellite in May 1963.[5] One missile from this system known as Project MUDFLAP and later as Project 505 was available for launch from 1964 until 1967.[5] A nuclear armed Thor anti-satellite system deployed by the United States Air Force under Program 437 eventually replaced the Project 505 Nike Zeus in 1967. The Program 437 Thor missile system remained in limited deployment until 1975.

[ASM-135A]

(from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm )

Anti-satellite missile. Country: USA. Status: Retired 1986. Department of Defence Designation: ASM-135A. Popular Name: Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle.

The ASAT air-launched anti-satellite missile was developed by Vought in response to a 1977 Air Force requirement for a missile that could be launched from an F-15A fighter yet was capable of intercepting and destroying enemy satellites in low earth orbit. Four of five tests were successful before the program was cancelled in 1988.

To launch the ASAT, the F-15A pilot had to fly a precise launch profile. At the calculated pull-up point, flying at Mach 1.22, he had to pull into a 3.8 G, 65 degree vertical climb. The missile would automatically release itself at 11,600 m altitude, followed by first stage ignition. After the first stage burned out and separated, the second stage propelled the Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) into space in a near-vertical trajectory on a collision course with the target. The second stage was equipped with a hydrazine attitude control system and spin table for the MHV. The second stage would orient the MHV toward the oncoming satellite (as determined by pre-launch orbital tracking data), spin the MHV up, and then release it. The MHV homed on the satellite, which was approaching at 8 km/second, and destroyed the target by ramming it.

1985 September 13 - Western Test Range DZ -. First US ASAT intercept Agency: USAF. Apogee: 550 km (345 mi). Successful ASAT intercept test; rammed and destroyed the Solwind P78-1 satellite.

Manufacturer: Vought. Launches: 5. Success Rate: 100.00%. First Launch Date: 1984-01-21. Last Launch Date: 1986-09-30. Launch data is: complete. Apogee: 1,000 km (600 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 0 N ( lbf). Total Mass: 1,200 kg (2,600 lb). Core Diameter: 0.46 m (1.50 ft). Total Length: 5.40 m (17.70 ft). Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Boost engine: SR75. Cruise Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise engine: FW-4S TEM640. Cruise Thrust: 27.400 kN (6,160 lbf).

* Stage1: 1 x ASAT-1. Gross Mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). Motor: 1 x LPC-415. Length: 4.30 m (14.10 ft). Diameter: 0.46 m (1.50 ft). Propellants: Solid.

* Stage2: 1 x Star 20. Gross Mass: 301 kg (663 lb). Empty Mass: 28 kg (61 lb). Motor: 1 x Star 20. Thrust (vac): 27.135 kN (6,100 lbf). Burn time: 28 sec. Length: 1.50 m (4.90 ft). Diameter: 0.50 m (1.64 ft). Propellants: Solid.

A modified Boeing AGM-69 SRAM missile with a Lockheed P

i dont think that there has been any reason to separate the shuttle from the SRB's/fuel tank...ever.

I think the friends and family of the Challenger astronauts would strongly disagree with you on that one.

And even the ARES system doesnt allow for NASA to "pull" the crew module form the unlaunched SRB.

Wrong! Orion has a launch abort system that will pull the Orion away from the ARES in the event of a catastrophe. Also Apollo had a launch abort system that would pull the crew module away from the launcher in the event of a catastrophe. Even the Soyuz craft have them.

As for payload expendability, yes it would be a loss, but losing a multi-million dollar cargo would not have the impact that losing a crew would have. Rockets blow up all the time; payloads are lost regularly. It's not that big a deal.

Sure, but is it wise to have a "space truck" be your country's only way to get people into orbit?

No; at least, not in its current form. The Challenger accident was one of the primary motivations to the new NASA doctrine of separating crew and cargo. (Which lead to the 1.5 launch architecture embodied by ARES.) Cargo is expendable; crew isn't. In order to abort during the launch, it is much easier to pull a relatively lightweight crew module away from the rocket, than to move a 100 metric ton behemoth like the shuttle.

I think the better way to go would be to revive the HL-20 crew vehicle. It's small enough, and light enough, for an abort system to pull it away from the launcher in the event of catastrophe. Also, because it glides to a landing on a conventional airstrip, it is more elegant than the current Apollo-style plan of ditching in the ocean and hoping you'll be rescued by the Navy before you sink.

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House,....

Then we can rule out any significant breakthrough or giant step change, such as a million + pound payload, two stage/two motor with extremely simplified internals, with initial cost per pound to LEO about 25% (at best, possibly as little as 10% of this estimate; 2.5% that of Ares-H) of that of the best optimistic estimate that the Ares heavy would approach after 12 launches. Some of the technical details that were far less complex and more reliable than any in use or planned were panned a 'not interesting' and used as cause to dismiss the design, although some of those same details made it into later designs that flew.

The design was done for Aerojet in 1962 by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm The revolutionary sea launch aspect was the one portion actually tested in an earlier model. The simplicity of the design would make it possible to take from paper to LEO in 5 years. This is just one such design that could be retrieved from history where it was buried in favor of corporate welfare. This is one of the few actually done by a documented and well respected pioneer of rocketry http://neverworld.net/truax/ .

No gasps, no Salvage 1.

I was just showing that the numbers for aircraft payloads and rocket masses aren't that much at odds with each other.

And I showed where your assumptions diverge from reality. It's not just about raw mass.
 

I don't expect this video will change your mind...it's clearly a fabrication, something impossible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIOLvXy8Bk
Behold! Recent test of mock-up weighting 35 tonnes, half of the C-17 payload, dropped from the rear ramp of unmodified aircraft.

Do I really need to point out the difference between a (physically small) 35 ton mockup and a (physically large) 250 ton rocket? (And note that I never claimed it was impossible.)
 

Also, An-225 can carry 200 tonnes on its back so that's another option...one that Russians wanted to use in cheap launcher, actually... http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm ...too bad the project died together with Soviet Union. But their plans (which reached hardware development stage) clearly show that such launcher, with the weight of smallest Delta IV, can carry not 8.6 tonnes into LEO, but a spaceplane weighting almost 30 tonnes (with cargo)

Those are plans, not flight vehicles, and as above I shouldn't have to point out the difference between the two. In the real world of engineering payloads decrease and system weights increase when you move from paper to metal. Factor in the Soviet propensity to stubbornly stick to a project for political reasons even when the paper shows it to be dodgy...
 
Not to mention - you really should read what you link to, failing to do so makes you look stupid. Try reading the linked page above and note the cargo capacity of the MAKS orbiter. Once again, you're impressed by sheer mass and dick size with no more understanding of what the numbers really mean than the cushion beneath my butt.
 

Yes, it will be hard. Though I understand why you want it to be easy, it's not rocket science after all.

I don't know who you're responding to - because I never claimed I wanted it to be easy.

You really worked hard to ignore that I wasn't proposing usage of totally unmodified Antonov or any form of actual Delta IV (and when mentioning possible modifications, different structural requirements and corresponding weight increase, ignoring the benefit of launching at altitude above most of the atmosphere and with small delta-v already...). I was just showing that the numbers for aircraft payloads and rocket masses aren't that much at odds with each other.

I don't expect this video will change your mind...it's clearly a fabrication, something impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIOLvXy8Bk

Behold! Recent test of mock-up weighting 35 tonnes, half of the C-17 payload, dropped from the rear ramp of unmodified aircraft.

Also, An-225 can carry 200 tonnes on its back so that's another option...one that Russians wanted to use in cheap launcher, actually...
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm ...too bad the project died together with Soviet Union.

But their plans (which reached hardware development stage) clearly show that such launcher, with the weight of smallest Delta IV, can carry not 8.6 tonnes into LEO, but a spaceplane weighting almost 30 tonnes (with cargo)

Yes, it will be hard. Though I understand why you want it to be easy, it's not rocket science after all.

Oh, wait...

The real problem is the need for excessive weight reduction. This makes big spacecraft too fragile. If the Shuttle could afford the weight of a titanium skin, instead of fragile foam and tiles, it would be far less troublesome.

The best US spacecraft was probably the Gemini, which was Gus Grissom's baby, the Gusmobile. He designed the fighter pilot's spacecraft, the most maneuverable spacecraft to date. A Big Gemini, a 9-passenger version, made it to the mockup stage. If that had been built, the US would have had something comparable to Soyuz. Better, probably. It's striking that the US hasn't had a little spacecraft to send to orbit since the 1960s.

Grissom died in the 1967 pad fire, and nobody else had the clout to push the Gemini program forward after that.

Sadly, you seem a bit misinformed about the Buran and the Space Shuttle. The aerodynamic design of the Buran was so similar to the Space Shuttle because that aerodynamic shape is for the most part the best design for a spaceplane within the parameters and with the available technology each project had. Did the politburo order the design of their shuttle to look like it did? Yes, but not after determining that NASA had looked at 64 designs themselves and chose the Space Shuttle design and not until the Buran was compared to three other Soviet designs. The engines were moved to the stack for two major reasons, the Soviets had no desire or ability to design and research a reusable engine that performed as well as the SSME. The other issue was that the Soviets had little experience with LOX/LH2 propellants and with rocket engines that put out that much thrust. On the other hand, the Soviets had more experience with other liquid rocket engines than the US, so an engine that performed as well as the SSME, that used LOX/LH2, was designed. To reduce risk the engine was not made to be reused.

As for the liquid boosters of the Buran, they were of lower performance than the Shuttle's solid rocket engines. Variants on the Buran stack would have used four or even six liquid boosters. The Soviets used liquid boosters because they essentially had no experience with segmented solid rocket engines, but the US had been researching, designing, and using solid rocket engines for ICBMs and upper stages of rockets since the mid-1960s, so the US did have a bit of a technological advantage there. The boosters of the Buran also used LOX and Kerosene, a fine set of propellants at lower altitudes, but not as good at higher altitudes, that the Soviets had a great deal of experience with.

Until the Columbia broke up on re-entry in 2003, Alliant Techsystems, who then owned and still owns Thiokol, had been working on adding a segment to the SRBs, resulting in a five segment SRB, and adding a third SRB to the Space Shuttle stack. An increase in payload was the intention, and even the potential for entering a polar orbit would have been possible. The plan is to reuse this research to build safer, redesigned solid rocket engines for the Ares program, at least. The break up of the Columbia, of course, ended this work. However, the last flight of the Columbia used an older design of the main tank, and the tank was old as well. The insulation was perhaps a bit past its prime.

As for the re-use of old Soviet designs, certain pieces of technology have been reused already in the US when it was a better design, an upper stage of the Delta IV rocket uses engines derived from a Soviet design. The Shuttle orbiters have also been outfitted with better performance turbopumps derived from Russian designs. The Ariane series of rockets made by France were built through a partnership with the Soviet Union, before that the French had done little research into rockets. It isn't like all the Russian technology went to waste.

Try this as well:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

Yeah, but it's not a cheap rocket either. I read the NRO paid a billion for their launch.

I haven't read that. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

According to this Ares V is being designed with 7x the lift of the Delta IV. So you'd have to run 7:1 Delta IV's:Ares V, and there'd be some things just to big to lift.

And launch frequency trumps greater payload size.

That seems likely, but we're trying to build a moon base here, so what does it matter if we could do Apollo?

Because Apollo landed mass on the Moon that you could use to build a moon base. Googling around, I also found the Apollo LM truck. Basically, it's an unmanned version of the Apollo lunar module that could land 5 tons of cargo on the Moon.

Right, so that's the other trick - the Delta IV is (theoretically, granted) twice as likely to kill the crew. I'm not impatient enough for that.

No, it's not. First, as you most likely know, the Ares V doesn't carry crew. So we have to count on the Ares I whose first stage (a variation of the Shuttle solid rocket booster) has a failure rate of somewhere around 1 in 300. That alone is worse than the predicted LOM for the Ares I. Something is rotten. Plus that rocket just so happens to duplicate the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy and the near future Atlas V Heavy. I'm a big fan of the EELVs. I'm not a big fan of any attempt by NASA to compete directly with existing or near future US commercial launch capability. That's throwing away the future of the US in space more surely than if we deep-six the Ares program and forgo heavy lift for another few decades.

I'll have to agree with the parent here-- they don't seem to have "developed" anything. Reading the article, they seem to be proposing a nuclear rocket, which they will do a paper study of that will be done in 2012.

They actually developed a nuclear thermal engine some years back. They could dust that off, put it on top some Angara stages and build a rocket.

My apologies. I was talking about the subject discussed in the article; I wasn't talking about work done in the past.

They actually developed a nuclear thermal engine some years back. They could dust that off, put it on top some Angara stages and build a rocket.

The Soviets were a lot more willing to shove nuclear reactors in places we were politically unwilling/unable to. The Russians may even have some Soviet prototypes around. It would be the same barely-post-war era tech all their stuff was, and it would be really, really, REALLY dangerous to use, but the very well might have gotten beyond blueprints.

As a matter of fact, the Soviets had a large number of nuclear reactors on satellites satellites (actual nuclear fission reactors, not radioisotope generators):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/usa.htm

A number of them broke down and crashed back down to Earth, including one which crashed into Canada in 1978 and spread a decent amount of radioactive debris. Their nuclear-powered RORSAT series unfortunately also "had the lowest reliability and most quality problems of any Soviet space system."

Exactly. We should be using something like this instead of an Apollo style splashdown cone.

I wish we would back a design like Skylon. Now that would be something to get really excited about and it would fill even the general population with a sense of awe to inspire a whole new generation of space exploration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon

Nice looking bird. Trading off very high specs at transition altitude shows a design philosophy has been well thought out. But that motor is a complexity nightmare http://www.astronautix.com/engines/sabre.htm . Great idea with too many details. Great Idea: Manipulating the motor cowling into the pressure wave at Mach 2 to transition from necessary cowling drag reduction to pressure feeding the intake. Complexification: Inserting a Brayton cycle power loop for heat exchange between air and fuel in order to reduce fuel flow. A lot of machinery with finicky operating parameters just to perform a simple function. There's got to be easier ways.

Why is NASA so bent on using the solid-fuel boosters, when the military already has the much cheaper Delta iV Heavy and Atlas V rockets that have been proven?

The military doesn't 'have' those boosters. They buy those boosters from Douglas and Lockheed Martin respectively, as NASA could (and has for other programs). The distinction is minor, but the accusations and criticisms continually leveled often hang on this too often repeated error that started out as an intentional misdirection by critics with no cleaner agenda than what NASA and Morton Thiokol are credited with having.

Similarly the answer to 'why' is a matter of public record, as the entire process was publicly announced and conducted. If the news media is to cumbersome to sift through, very even handed summaries are available at http://www.astronautix.com/

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

You mean the Ares I that is being built by ATK and Boeing? Oh, wait, those are private companies too. In fact, Boeing is also responsible for two of the "private" rockets on your list. Of course, the Atlas rocket is a descendant of something developed for the military, so the private company didn't have to do the basic groundwork there, and the Delta was itself modified from the original Thor ballistic missile, another government project. Both have obviously changed since then, a great deal, actually. That's normal and good, but it's always the initial design work that's hard and hideously expensive.

Typical privatization freaks: the business plan always includes getting someone else to pay for the R&D, the infrastructure, the airport, the stadium, whatever. In this case, let the government pay for and perhaps do the original research, then profit off that work for years to come. In a way, that's all right--I don't want the government in the private satellite launch business any more than anybody else, and somebody's got to do it. I'm relatively pleased that despite some spectacular failures of their own, that they're using proven designs that were at least initially supervised by somebody with an eye twoards something other than the bottom line. It's just that when people talk about how superior private companies are in every single way all the time to any public venture, it might help to know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, and while we're at it: how about giving NASA a budget that actually corresponds with what we want them to do? If you told me to go to the moon and gave me chump change to do it with, I'd do exactly what they're doing--go back and try to re-invent what worked once before. Innovation costs money--it did then, and it will now.

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

You mean the Ares I that is being built by ATK and Boeing? Oh, wait, those are private companies too. In fact, Boeing is also responsible for two of the "private" rockets on your list. Of course, the Atlas rocket is a descendant of something developed for the military, so the private company didn't have to do the basic groundwork there, and the Delta was itself modified from the original Thor ballistic missile, another government project. Both have obviously changed since then, a great deal, actually. That's normal and good, but it's always the initial design work that's hard and hideously expensive.

Typical privatization freaks: the business plan always includes getting someone else to pay for the R&D, the infrastructure, the airport, the stadium, whatever. In this case, let the government pay for and perhaps do the original research, then profit off that work for years to come. In a way, that's all right--I don't want the government in the private satellite launch business any more than anybody else, and somebody's got to do it. I'm relatively pleased that despite some spectacular failures of their own, that they're using proven designs that were at least initially supervised by somebody with an eye twoards something other than the bottom line. It's just that when people talk about how superior private companies are in every single way all the time to any public venture, it might help to know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, and while we're at it: how about giving NASA a budget that actually corresponds with what we want them to do? If you told me to go to the moon and gave me chump change to do it with, I'd do exactly what they're doing--go back and try to re-invent what worked once before. Innovation costs money--it did then, and it will now.

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

You mean the Ares I that is being built by ATK and Boeing? Oh, wait, those are private companies too. In fact, Boeing is also responsible for two of the "private" rockets on your list. Of course, the Atlas rocket is a descendant of something developed for the military, so the private company didn't have to do the basic groundwork there, and the Delta was itself modified from the original Thor ballistic missile, another government project. Both have obviously changed since then, a great deal, actually. That's normal and good, but it's always the initial design work that's hard and hideously expensive.

Typical privatization freaks: the business plan always includes getting someone else to pay for the R&D, the infrastructure, the airport, the stadium, whatever. In this case, let the government pay for and perhaps do the original research, then profit off that work for years to come. In a way, that's all right--I don't want the government in the private satellite launch business any more than anybody else, and somebody's got to do it. I'm relatively pleased that despite some spectacular failures of their own, that they're using proven designs that were at least initially supervised by somebody with an eye twoards something other than the bottom line. It's just that when people talk about how superior private companies are in every single way all the time to any public venture, it might help to know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, and while we're at it: how about giving NASA a budget that actually corresponds with what we want them to do? If you told me to go to the moon and gave me chump change to do it with, I'd do exactly what they're doing--go back and try to re-invent what worked once before. Innovation costs money--it did then, and it will now.

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

Now if we only had a rocket to get it to the moon...

Um, there's plenty of US rockets available to get it to the Moon, just none built by NASA. It's also worth noting that all of the non-NASA rockets cost less than a billion dollars to develop, compared to the >$35 billion projected development cost for NASA's competing Ares I, which will have nearly identical capabilities to its competitors:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm

The basic idea is that if you can get to one of the (unstable) Lagrange points (#1-3), only a very small impulse is needed to go anywhere in the solar system.

Ok, this is the kernel of my argument. Stop using "dumbed down" descriptors like "only a very small impulse". You are dumbing them down even more.

It is an illustrative myth that "once you get into earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere." I did this math a long time ago. It goes like this... You need, ballpark, 7km/s to get into earth orbit. From there, you only need 11km/s to escape. That's a MERE 4km/s. THAT'S NOT MERE! "very little impulse is like "333m/s" maybe an OMS burn. 4KM/S is an apogee kick motor weighing in at a goodly portion of the total payload's mass. Gross Mass: 543 kg (1,197 lb) to get a 1737 lb (788 kg)spacecraft into GeoSynch. Not the moon, which is 10 times farther.

It takes a LOT of energy to get from here to 'there.' Chaos doesn't provide it. Stop making it sound like it does.