Capsules versus Alternative Spacecraft

This is more of a general discussion than an alternate history scenario or challenge. Historically, the assumption was that people would go into space using winged spacecraft, which would make a conventional landing upon their return. In practice, only capsules and large combi (passenger and freight) shuttles have flown into space (the Space Shuttle and Buran), and the general view is that large combi shuttles are not worth the added cost and safety risk. However, minishuttles (such as the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and MiG-105 Spiral), smaller lifting bodies (such as the X-24 series), lenticular spacecraft (see the Kehlet lenticular vehicle, lenticular Apollo, and the North American Aviation lenticular space bomber), and other alternative spacecraft designs intended primarily for crewed spaceflight have never been tested, although a few have been proposed. Would those spacecraft have any safety, economic, or performance standards higher than a conventional capsule?

Well the horizontal landing would make landing controllable, which would save time and money on recovery. Orbital only though, although this might not be such a limitation if you could get it into approximately the same orbit as a returning capsule, since you then have the chance of recovering the crew in orbit, and maybe later reusing the Service and Command Modules.if you equipped them with refuelling ports.

Delta Force said:

This is more of a general discussion than an alternate history scenario or challenge. Historically, the assumption was that people would go into space using winged spacecraft, which would make a conventional landing upon their return. In practice, only capsules and large combi (passenger and freight) shuttles have flown into space (the Space Shuttle and Buran), and the general view is that large combi shuttles are not worth the added cost and safety risk. However, minishuttles (such as the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and MiG-105 Spiral), smaller lifting bodies (such as the X-24 series), lenticular spacecraft (see the Kehlet lenticular vehicle, lenticular Apollo, and the North American Aviation lenticular space bomber), and other alternative spacecraft designs intended primarily for crewed spaceflight have never been tested, although a few have been proposed. Would those spacecraft have any safety, economic, or performance standards higher than a conventional capsule?

Click to expand...

In 'The Right Stuff' it is explained that the whole rocket and capsule system was thought up as an aeromedical experiment, and only adopted because it promised to be the quick and dirty approach at a time when NASA was under pressure to get an American into space TOMORROW DAMN IT! The test pilots the astronauts were chosen from called the rocket and pod system volunteers 'Spam in the can', it was considered pointlessly dangerous for various reasons.

So killing the capsule idea is just a matter of not having a mood of national crisis. Just let the USAF go ahead with the X-20 and Manned Orbiting Laboratory that they had planned. That done the space program will have a body of information to use in designing the follow on craft which could be run an extension of the long running X-plane program which had been doing this sort of experiment for nearly two decades at this point.

Build and run the X-20 and MOL while carefully noting the pluses, minuses and 'damn, that's odd' information revealed. See what makes sense from there.

They study land landing for Gemini and Apollo capsule
Gemini would using a Rogallo wing, but NAA/Rockwell not complete the landing system on time, so NASA had to take parachute.
NAA/Rockwell proposed for Apollo CSM Block III and Logistic Spacecraft, a forerunner of Paragliding for capsule land landing.

but Apollo program was dying and Shuttle was taken...

Bumpity bump.