AHC: Manned ESA space program by late '90s

Would it be plausible for the ESA to establish a manned space program by the late '90s using a POD in the early '70s?
Easy, just convince the CNES that shuttles aren't all that wonderful and have them go for a boring capsule like the Viking instead.

The convincing can either be some folks at CNES/ESA choosing a lower risk path, the US not developing the Shuttle, or the Shuttle development failing due to cost overruns and technical issues.
 
It's possible, but not easy. Keeping the UK in the game would help, but is almost impossible by the very early 1970s.

The only other means is to ditch Hermes before any real development work begins and go with a capsule design, likely using an augmented and 'man-rated' Ariane 44L. This would make ESA Manned Spaceflight possible by the mid-late 1990s.

There are two TLs here which will see it happen. Eyes Turned Skywards, by e of pi and Truth is Life. And ESA ATL Plausibility Checks and Development, by myself.
 
This seems like an opportune time and place to ask, why is any sort of spaceplane whatsoever automatically a mistake and a bad thing?

I'm not asking in your thread, Bahamut, or Eyes Turned Skyward, because in those timelines the course is set in stone as it were against any such.

I believe e of pi would tell me he's already asserted that a spaceplane is more weight for no serious gain over a simpler capsule.

However, a capsule is rather tricky to maneuver to a landing at a designated site, meaning the program needs to deploy recovery teams to far-flung and somewhat unpredictable locations. A capsule might in principle be refurbished (say with a new heat shield each time) and reused, but so far while this is what the very latest generation of future systems promises to do, no one has actually done it yet. Whereas a properly designed spaceplane is inherently reusable.

I can agree that the OTL US STS was a mistake, since it was trying to be a "one size fits all missions" system. If however the program had focused on just making the essential crew launch and recovery module resuable, a spaceplane on a much smaller scale would suit. Then, as is evolving in Eyes TS, a standardized (and one-use) launch vehicle can launch the plane plus a trailing disposable service/mission module that gives the orbiting crew living and working space and includes the orbital maneuvering engines and fuel. Conceptually more like the Soviet TKS--which had a minimal-sized crew launch/return capsule attached, via a hatch in the heat shield, to a combined service/mission module that included capabilities like docking ports for space station service. Except I am suggesting the spaceplane, a small one, takes the place of the return capsule, and the hatch to the service module need not go through the main heat shield at all.

One capability such a system would lack completely would be to return significant amounts of payload to Earth. But OTL I'm not aware of that capability of the Shuttle being used much if ever, whereas I can at least imagine designing a specialized capsule to be launched empty that a return payload can be placed into.

Another drawback a Shuttle advocate could point out is that in addition to specialized mission elements and/or cargo for a space station, the disposable Service/Mission module contains also orbital maneuvering rockets that ideally could and should be reused, and should go in the spaceplane instead. Actually in my head I find myself veering in that direction constantly!:p So, a somewhat bigger spaceplane with a somewhat smaller and unpowered annex module, one that contains the fuel for the mission (beyond a certain minimal reserve onboard the space plane) and specialized mission hardware and supplies.

I would think such an approach, as opposed to the STS that tries to cram absolutely everything one might ever want into one standard frame, would be more economical and competitive with a simpler capsule version of same, and the spaceplane's superior return capabilities would pay off, yielding an overall clearly more advanced and useful system.

For the "spaceplane" in particular, at some tradeoff of lower speed and altitude aerodynamic performance, this sort of lenticular approach looks to me like a promising but untried one. Allegedly a minimal lenticular capsule is actually superior to the Apollo-type, probably competitive with the minimal Soyuz type in that respect but much more flexible in terms of landing modes. It offers less temptation to upgrade the capsule to incorporate service-module type engine installations but I believe that sort of thing would be entirely doable too. Both these designs offer the prospect of a hatch to the back for access to a mission module which in turn can have space-station docking capabilities. The latter NAA big concept has shown has its space maneuvering engine where we'd want that, but giving it two smaller engines off to the sides would address that concern. I suspect the lenticular designs at all levels would also benefit from having a relatively small set of turbojet engines installed for final landing approach thrust, or failing that rockets of considerably less impulse requirement than the Soyuz landing rockets.

So I do think there were options available. Maybe ESA should not undertake them, but actually designing in better cross-range and landing options seems more urgent for ESA recovery, since the US after all had a world-spanning Navy and the Soviets huge sprawling ranges of land territory available, Europe has neither.

If the lenticular approach is as doable as it looks on Astronautix, it's a shame no one has tried it.
 
Last edited:
I believe e of pi would tell me he's already asserted that a spaceplane is more weight for no serious gain over a simpler capsule.
I believe e of pi might assert with more nuance that a spaceplane and a capsule both offer potential, and that for most potential systems in the near-term the wings don't offer much that a capsule doesn't in terms of gains to the desired role.

However, a capsule is rather tricky to maneuver to a landing at a designated site, meaning the program needs to deploy recovery teams to far-flung and somewhat unpredictable locations.
Take a look at a statistical analysis of Soyuz landings (a ballistic capsule with not much in the way of cross-range capability). The average distance from the planned site is 13.1 km--less than 8 miles, and the median is only 9.1 km. Even the maximum is only 49 km--Capsules like Apollo with more cross-range capability can get even less than that, and if you must have <1km precision, a steerable parachute, parafoil, or propulsive landing can get you there.

A capsule might in principle be refurbished (say with a new heat shield each time) and reused, but so far while this is what the very latest generation of future systems promises to do, no one has actually done it yet. Whereas a properly designed spaceplane is inherently reusable.
"Properly design" sounds a bit like playing "no true Scotsman." Does Shuttle then not count? What about the X-37B? If your definition of "properly designed" is inherent easy reuse, then you might as well call it a lower technical readiness level than reusable capsules--the MOL Gemini-B test flight was a reuse of the Gemini-2 spacecraft, and Gemini wasn't even designed with re-use in mind. That makes Gemini by that standard more of a "properly designed" spaceplane than any craft that's ever flown.

One capability such a system would lack completely would be to return significant amounts of payload to Earth. But OTL I'm not aware of that capability of the Shuttle being used much if ever, whereas I can at least imagine designing a specialized capsule to be launched empty that a return payload can be placed into.
It was used a for satelites like in STS-51A, and of course in every flight with an MPLM to station or free-flights with (OTL) Spacelab. Now a "properly designed" capsule could have simply offered that volume internally, but...whatever.

If you're really interested in spaceplanes vs. capsule vs. lenticular, you might try creating an account here and asking. The folks at NSF have a ton of knowledge and experience.
 
I believe e of pi might assert with more nuance that a spaceplane and a capsule both offer potential, and that for most potential systems in the near-term the wings don't offer much that a capsule doesn't in terms of gains to the desired role.
Are there any gains besides crossrange and somewhat lower G's?
 
Are there any gains besides crossrange and somewhat lower G's?
Some people think it looks sexier? That's about the only other one I see that a "properly designed" capsule couldn't also meet. The question is for a particular application which is a better option.
 
Last edited:
Top