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.Would it be plausible for the ESA to establish a manned space program by the late '90s using a POD in the early '70s?
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.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.
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.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.
"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.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.
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.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.
Are there any gains besides crossrange and somewhat lower G's?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.
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.Are there any gains besides crossrange and somewhat lower G's?