FA+
Shop
Manned spacecraft question
11 years ago
Hi, everyone! Just posting this so I can ask your opinion.
Anyone else out there keeping up with the various manned spacecraft being developed? There's quite a few designs out there.
I'm curious to know which one you think will manage to get into orbit with a crew first?
Here's a list of the spacecraft if you're not familiar with them:
SpaceX Dragon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(spacecraft)
Cargo version has already flown to the International Space Station three times. Manned version scheduled to be launched in a year or two.
(I think this one has the best chance of getting a crew into space first.)
Dream Chaser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
Sierra Nevada's spaceplane is scheduled for a test launch in late 2016.
CST-100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100
Spacecraft being developed by Boeing to ferry astronauts to the ISS.
Blue Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_O.....tal_spacecraft
Spacecraft being developed by Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos.
Never much news on how progress is going with this one. Bezos like to keep things about his spaceship secret until it's ready, I guess.
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
NASA spaceship meant for missions beyond Earth orbit. (Moon, Mars, etc.)
A test flight is supposed to take place this year. After that the first manned flight is scheduled for 2020.
PTK-NP/пилотируемый транспортный корабль нового поколения
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospe.....ansport_System
Russia's new spaceship for going to the Moon and beyond.
Excalibur Almaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_Almaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS_spacecraft
The TKS did fly to the Salyut space stations a few times in the 1970's, but never manned.
HTV-R
http://iss.jaxa.jp/htv-r/
http://archive.ists.or.jp/upload_pdf/2011-g-09.pdf
http://archive.ists.or.jp/upload_pdf/2013-g-16.pdf
Japanese idea for a manned spaceship.
Not likely to fly since there is news of the HTV being cancelled.
ISRO Orbital Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISRO_Orbital_Vehicle
Indian idea for a manned spaceship.
Might be cancelled, might not. The news about this spacecraft keeps changing.
Skylon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Single-stage to orbit spaceplane being developed in the UK by Reaction Engines Limited.
First test flights projected for 2019.
Anyone else out there keeping up with the various manned spacecraft being developed? There's quite a few designs out there.
I'm curious to know which one you think will manage to get into orbit with a crew first?
Here's a list of the spacecraft if you're not familiar with them:
SpaceX Dragon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(spacecraft)
Cargo version has already flown to the International Space Station three times. Manned version scheduled to be launched in a year or two.
(I think this one has the best chance of getting a crew into space first.)
Dream Chaser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser
Sierra Nevada's spaceplane is scheduled for a test launch in late 2016.
CST-100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100
Spacecraft being developed by Boeing to ferry astronauts to the ISS.
Blue Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_O.....tal_spacecraft
Spacecraft being developed by Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos.
Never much news on how progress is going with this one. Bezos like to keep things about his spaceship secret until it's ready, I guess.
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
NASA spaceship meant for missions beyond Earth orbit. (Moon, Mars, etc.)
A test flight is supposed to take place this year. After that the first manned flight is scheduled for 2020.
PTK-NP/пилотируемый транспортный корабль нового поколения
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospe.....ansport_System
Russia's new spaceship for going to the Moon and beyond.
Excalibur Almaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur_Almaz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS_spacecraft
The TKS did fly to the Salyut space stations a few times in the 1970's, but never manned.
HTV-R
http://iss.jaxa.jp/htv-r/
http://archive.ists.or.jp/upload_pdf/2011-g-09.pdf
http://archive.ists.or.jp/upload_pdf/2013-g-16.pdf
Japanese idea for a manned spaceship.
Not likely to fly since there is news of the HTV being cancelled.
ISRO Orbital Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISRO_Orbital_Vehicle
Indian idea for a manned spaceship.
Might be cancelled, might not. The news about this spacecraft keeps changing.
Skylon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Single-stage to orbit spaceplane being developed in the UK by Reaction Engines Limited.
First test flights projected for 2019.
But for sheer innovation, I'd go with Skylon.
the founders name? John Carmack.
I've been keeping up witht he unmanned satellite pages, MSL, New Horizons, Dawn, etc. but not the ones for humans.
After the cola wars, the console wars and Beast Wars, I just don't think I can keep up with this race!
The projects above don't show much advancement from what we had before, though Dreamchaser and Skylon look best, especially if they managed to solve the problem of a re-useable heat shieldiung for the re-entry. If I remember it eight, that wwas one of the things that made the Space Shuttle so expensive.
Why are we not able to plan a little ahead? I'm no areospace engineer, but should we not be able to design at least parts of a mission to be reused later?
Is it really cheaper to let something like hubble burn up instead of giving it a boost to the ISS? It might no be state of the art, but it should still have some use and getting up parts to the ISS should be easier than special missions to were it is now. Even if it can't be used again, at least some parts may be used in emergencies.
Even if Hubble can't be re-used, should we not be able to design stuff that can be re-used? As I said, space exploration goes too slow for my taste. No need to waste what little we have up there already.
Be a personnel shuttle.
Be a heavy lift craft.
Be an orbital lab.
and
Be able to launch into a polar orbit, only complete a fractional orbit, then land back at its launch site.[1]
The original plan was to build:
A Saturn replacement, which may or may not have had recoverable stages.
A space station
A small shuttle that could carry 5-10 people and little to no cargo.
As for making things for re-use in general: Making something that an be re-purposed means making something that is _heavier_ in an environment where people work to shave off ounces. It has turned out that launching special purpose telescopes and just letting them wear out is cheaper than a multi-mission thing like the Hubble that was upgraded and repaired.
(And JSYK: Hubble's orbit is 569km, the ISS is at 423km.)
[1] A mission the Shuttle never flew. It was easier to sneak things into orbit using disposable boosters, the 1980s are when the NRO stopped using film cameras in spy satellites and they thought better of stealing Soviet satellites.
>environment where people work to shave off ounces. It has turned out that launching special purpose telescopes and just letting them wear out
>is cheaper than a multi-mission thing like the Hubble that was upgraded and repaired.
I was thinking in more primitive terms and I know, I might be thinking too simple here.
A little preplaning and the hull of the hubble could be used as an estension for the ISS, the solar panels giving the station some reserve power. Even with the extra cost it should be cheaper gwtting parts up for life support and whatever else you want installed. The rest can be used for parts. Need a bit wireing? Or just some metal to fix small problems. Parts for emergencies you know.
Yes, the extra space is not much, but it's a start. What is something went wrong with a manned space mission? Now you have some exitra space to put the astronauts until they can be brought back down to earth. it might be the difference between:
"Yes, we have a space station up there, but we can't help the astronauts in peril, because we do not have the resources. I am sorry, but they are going to die."
and:
"Because of thinking ahead, we can take in the astronauts in peril until we can get them back to mearth."
Just one possible example.
Like I said, I may be thinking too simple here.
As for getting people back down: Every man in orbit has a seat in a reentry vehicle that is up there with him.
[1] Space is filled with "Red Queen's races" where any increase triggers feedback loops that require even more increases. For example, if you want to increase the ability of a craft to use thrust by it's engines exhaust velocity you have to almost triple the mass of the entire thing.
As for getting people back down, sure, they have a seat in the reentry vehicle that is up. That is until one day their reentry shield is damaged. Then the only options at the moment is gettin them on the ISS, hoping they can stretch the resources until they can get them down or leave them to die either by waiting until the air runs out or by burning up on reentry. That won't happen?
Let's say they had allowed the checks for damage on the Columbia and the repairs would have taken longer than they had air or food? I don't know the reserves in air and food the ISS had/has, but as stingy as they are with the space programs they should consider such options.
And like I said, that's just my take. Right now not many are really interested in long term plans up there anyway or someone would have taken NASA's annual space settlement contest more seriously.
The reuse/re-purpose/refit idea gets brought up every decade or so, it always ends up not being worth the effort. The real solution to being able to do more in space is to reduce the launch costs from thousands per kilogram to hundreds per kilogram.[0]
Your emergency scenario is rather extreme: You need to disable a reentry vehicle while making supplies tight enough to make it impossible to survive long enough for a rush supply mission to be sent, (a couple weeks at most[1], compared to the months that the supplies would last). This would involve either multiple incidents in close proximity or a single severe incident that would have a serious chance of killing the crew outright.
[0] There are four near-term feasible options for this: Recoverable/reusable boost stages, (SpaceX is working on this, but it is probably the most expensive), the DH-1 design, (intended for mass production, but it can only loft 2200kg to LEO), Sea Dragon, (think something half again as tall as a Saturn V and twice as wide as the IC first stage), and the nuclear DC-X, (it would use a mixed chemical and nuclear thermal rocket[2]).
[1] There is currently a logistics flight about once a month.
[2] Cue protests the first time you try to launch it.
http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/_....._Taurus_II.jpg
Finally a British contribution to mankinds space exploration
Space X has the manned capsule ready, and the Dragon is designed to be reusable. I used to work there. The problem is the NASA certification. Unlike many other projects, the Space X rocket is designed to work even with a failure. They had an engine failure recently, and still managed to put the pay load into space. Just not the orbit the customer wanted. In manned flight, that's the difference between a failed mission with a dead crew, or a failed mission with a live crew.
However, no space program will be really 'successful' until a totally reusable space craft is made to work reliably. It's just a matter of cost. How much would a plane trip from London, England to Los Angeles, America cost if every time you flew, they destroyed the airplane?