Note according to Milton Thompson they were going to do some neat stuff with the X-20 and it's rocket. For example let the pilot fly the ascent using a fly by wire system.
Earlier shuttle?
- Thread starter BlackWave
- Start date
It only goes to suborbital and even an LEO version would have an LEO capability of a few hundred kilograms, perhaps a tonne. Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9, even STS get 20 tonnes regularly.
Cook
Banned
Atlas, Delta and Falcon charge how many thousand dollars per kilo?
Branson is doing what should have been done from the start; developing equipment as that the market demands at a pace and price the market likes.
A ticket on a suborbital Virgin Galactic flight would cost 200,000 dollars. Assuming a 100 kilogram human, this translates to 2,000 dollars per kilo. And that's just for a few minutes of suborbital. For $300,000, SpaceX and its Falcon 9 will take you all the way to orbit. So, flight time several times as long, for 50% more cost (and that can go down when Musk gets the Falcon fully reusable).
If I remember correctly, it was stated by the company that once additional vehicles are constructed, the price would go down to 20,000 dollars per passenger, therefore 200 dollars per kilo. I doubt it would go down THAT much, but it could come close.
Robert...
I suspect that we may be talking past one another....
The CIA's involvement (or lack thereof, in the case of Dynasoar) was likely not at all relavent to Eisenhower's position regarding manned space. My original point (which may have been lost) is that Eisenhower crippled manned space by giving NASA (what became NASA, more precisely) the only ticket for space, and shut down numerous, potentially useful military and contractor-driven programs. Had this not happened, the competition (and quite frankly, far greater competence of the non-NASA crowd - NASA was at the time a bunch of amateur tinkerers with no real understanding of how to complete a project) might well have led to earlier, more robust, and more diverse space transportation infrastructures being in place. Clearly part of what drove Eisenhower was his fixation on Corona, which I believe was in turn driven by his deep distrust of the CIA, and hence his disinclination to stay with the quite frankly superior U-2 solution. Yes, the Dynasoar faced very serious technical limitations that would have precluded an earlier (earlier than 1965 for instance) launch, but this was hardly the only game in town. THe X-15 (as well as the follow-ons to the X-15 that were planned) would have been an invaluable technical demonstrator for instance, but much of the program was curtailed after NASA started bogarting most of the space-capable resources.
I don't at all disagree with you that ICBMs were going to be built, but there was no particular reason that they had to be built on the timetable that occurred in OTL. VanBush (I always loved that nickname) may have been the source for a great deal of the early controversy, but ultimately the resolution in the early 50s really resolved very little. Had Ulam not made his breakthrough, the inherent limitations on rocket technology of the period (particularly propellants) would likely have led to more bombers being built for longer, but you are absolutely correct that ICBMs would have eventually been created. The issues with the horrific guidance systems were largely resolved independently of the engine issues of the mid-1950s, which would have pushed the beginnings of the electronics developments needed to make true manned spacecraft practical. Without Ulam we might have seen one more generation of manned bombers, or simply updates of existing ones (there was a next-generation mod of the B-52 in the works, for instance), but I did not mean to suggest that ICBMs would not eventually win out. Might be an interesting subject for another thread though....
The payload issue for the Atlas D isn't as clear cut as you suggest. As you yourself point out they did build a larger one for Mercury (not a terribly good design, by the way), and even the early generation Gemini designs (when it was still Mercury mk II) were possible for that booster. No question that a bigger booster would have been better, but for small, lmited capsules it would have been a start.
Mentioning capsules for a moment, I should point out that while I believe that spaceplanes would eventually be the winner (just like ICBMs), there is nothing that would have precluded early launches with simple capsule designs. Note that most of the practical MISS designs were capsules, and it was these that were most likely to actually happen. For the 1958-1965 era, capsules would have likely been the way to go, but eventually the cross range capabilities of spaceplanes would have tended to make them more attractive, especially to the military. With that said, Gemini was a superb design (Big Gemini would have likely been better still) and would have been an excellent personnel hauler for early generation space stations. The big breakthrough in propellants in 1959-60 would have led to practical boosters in the size range for Geminis to be launched quite easily without the monsters like the Saturn being necessary. As I said, I prefer spaceplanes for the long term, but capsules will work quite nicely to the rest of the parts are in place.
With regard to the Dynasoar, the X-20 was originally designed for an early generation Titan, and though I rather doubt it was practical in that configuration, the design carried a great deal of extra equipment that a manned ferry wouldn't have required. So even with a single pilot, it still had room for simplification. As I said though, capsules might ahve been entirely practical for the interim...
Your point regarding mass is well taken, but a larger number of smaller boosters might have led to an earlier development of in orbit assembly and fuel depots, which in turn would have allowed simpler, less technically demanding designs to be used. This in turn would have eased the limitations imposed by the inferior materials technology of the time, and made some of the space stations designs mooted in the 50s and early 60s becoming practical. As long as we go with the large booster approach, the weight (and diameter!) limitations of existing boosters would handcuff any real attempts at serious space exploration.
To summarize then, my point was that with a change of heart by Eisenhower, a more diverse, less focused (and yes, more wasteful...there is always a tradeoff!) move into space would have been possible, which would have allowed a more robust infrastructure to be put into place. Apollo was wonderful in its own way, and I give thanks to God on a regular basis that I was able to watch the first moon landing, but it pushed back any real options for space exploration/exploitation by decades. However, Apollo, political stunt that it was, was the direct outgrowth of Eisenhower's choices in the mid 1950s...by the time that JFK made his speech, the die had been cast...
By the way, I took the liberty of looking at your website...very impressive!
I suspect that we may be talking past one another....
The CIA's involvement (or lack thereof, in the case of Dynasoar) was likely not at all relavent to Eisenhower's position regarding manned space. My original point (which may have been lost) is that Eisenhower crippled manned space by giving NASA (what became NASA, more precisely) the only ticket for space, and shut down numerous, potentially useful military and contractor-driven programs. Had this not happened, the competition (and quite frankly, far greater competence of the non-NASA crowd - NASA was at the time a bunch of amateur tinkerers with no real understanding of how to complete a project) might well have led to earlier, more robust, and more diverse space transportation infrastructures being in place. Clearly part of what drove Eisenhower was his fixation on Corona, which I believe was in turn driven by his deep distrust of the CIA, and hence his disinclination to stay with the quite frankly superior U-2 solution. Yes, the Dynasoar faced very serious technical limitations that would have precluded an earlier (earlier than 1965 for instance) launch, but this was hardly the only game in town. THe X-15 (as well as the follow-ons to the X-15 that were planned) would have been an invaluable technical demonstrator for instance, but much of the program was curtailed after NASA started bogarting most of the space-capable resources.
I don't at all disagree with you that ICBMs were going to be built, but there was no particular reason that they had to be built on the timetable that occurred in OTL. VanBush (I always loved that nickname) may have been the source for a great deal of the early controversy, but ultimately the resolution in the early 50s really resolved very little. Had Ulam not made his breakthrough, the inherent limitations on rocket technology of the period (particularly propellants) would likely have led to more bombers being built for longer, but you are absolutely correct that ICBMs would have eventually been created. The issues with the horrific guidance systems were largely resolved independently of the engine issues of the mid-1950s, which would have pushed the beginnings of the electronics developments needed to make true manned spacecraft practical. Without Ulam we might have seen one more generation of manned bombers, or simply updates of existing ones (there was a next-generation mod of the B-52 in the works, for instance), but I did not mean to suggest that ICBMs would not eventually win out. Might be an interesting subject for another thread though....
The payload issue for the Atlas D isn't as clear cut as you suggest. As you yourself point out they did build a larger one for Mercury (not a terribly good design, by the way), and even the early generation Gemini designs (when it was still Mercury mk II) were possible for that booster. No question that a bigger booster would have been better, but for small, lmited capsules it would have been a start.
Mentioning capsules for a moment, I should point out that while I believe that spaceplanes would eventually be the winner (just like ICBMs), there is nothing that would have precluded early launches with simple capsule designs. Note that most of the practical MISS designs were capsules, and it was these that were most likely to actually happen. For the 1958-1965 era, capsules would have likely been the way to go, but eventually the cross range capabilities of spaceplanes would have tended to make them more attractive, especially to the military. With that said, Gemini was a superb design (Big Gemini would have likely been better still) and would have been an excellent personnel hauler for early generation space stations. The big breakthrough in propellants in 1959-60 would have led to practical boosters in the size range for Geminis to be launched quite easily without the monsters like the Saturn being necessary. As I said, I prefer spaceplanes for the long term, but capsules will work quite nicely to the rest of the parts are in place.
With regard to the Dynasoar, the X-20 was originally designed for an early generation Titan, and though I rather doubt it was practical in that configuration, the design carried a great deal of extra equipment that a manned ferry wouldn't have required. So even with a single pilot, it still had room for simplification. As I said though, capsules might ahve been entirely practical for the interim...
Your point regarding mass is well taken, but a larger number of smaller boosters might have led to an earlier development of in orbit assembly and fuel depots, which in turn would have allowed simpler, less technically demanding designs to be used. This in turn would have eased the limitations imposed by the inferior materials technology of the time, and made some of the space stations designs mooted in the 50s and early 60s becoming practical. As long as we go with the large booster approach, the weight (and diameter!) limitations of existing boosters would handcuff any real attempts at serious space exploration.
To summarize then, my point was that with a change of heart by Eisenhower, a more diverse, less focused (and yes, more wasteful...there is always a tradeoff!) move into space would have been possible, which would have allowed a more robust infrastructure to be put into place. Apollo was wonderful in its own way, and I give thanks to God on a regular basis that I was able to watch the first moon landing, but it pushed back any real options for space exploration/exploitation by decades. However, Apollo, political stunt that it was, was the direct outgrowth of Eisenhower's choices in the mid 1950s...by the time that JFK made his speech, the die had been cast...
By the way, I took the liberty of looking at your website...very impressive!
I see and understand your point. I think you have some excellent things to look at for PoDs involving the space program in general. I do agree that Apollo, the Moon Race, and NASA distorted the development of space despite the sheer greatness of their achievement.
My focus was on what PODs would get spaceplanes sooner. My opinion is that you need bigger ICBMs earlier so that Dynasoar could be developed without the delays that happened with the boosters. One way to get that is have the miniaturization of the hydrogen bomb delayed by a few years. As this would have caused a different design to have been adopted for Atlas and Titan in the critical 1951 to 1953 time period. Another PoD would have been for Vannevar Bush opposition to be dropped or overcome which would have started ICBM development sooner. In addition likely there would have been a more diverse efforts with a Bush PoD as there would have been better continuity with the WWII efforts.
Thanks. If you decide to try it make sure use the 2006 edition of Orbitersim not the 2010. It has not been updated for the latest version. Also I have a partially done Gemini. It is physically accurate but uses Orbiter's default control layout to control the craft.
Thanks for your kind comments.
Yes, we agree re: spaceplanes. If you want to get them sooner, bigger ICBMs are the best way to do it, and the only way that is going to happen is for some overriding requirement to change. I am not sure if it would have made much difference (short of forcing virtually every aerospace firm to alter their design philosophy), but it is certainly possible, and (as you point out) the only way it is going to happen.
I will make sure to check out your software. I am (as you might have noticed) a huge Gemini fan, so the possibilities that you provide are most appealing...
Archibald
Banned
Excellent then !
At the very beginning DynaSoar was to have three phases, each belonging to a different Titan.
Low suborbital on Titan I.
High surborbital on Titan II
Orbital warfare on a new launcher.
Saturn I, the SLS (a modular all solid rocket) Titan III, and many others were reviewed.
Except that, under pressure of the Air Force (which wanted its cherished spaceplane to beat the pants of NASA Mercury) Boeing wiped out all the suborbital flight tests. this happened in 1961, and was called "Streamline".
Streamline essentially killed DynaSoar since it erased any chance of making it a successor of the X-15 - read, a suborbital X-plane !!
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm
The way I see things, Lovett became secretary of the Air Force, and downscale DynaSoar to the X-20 status (long before OTL, and only for suborbital research)
What launcher for DynaSoar then ? Well, why not former Titan I missiles that were withdrawn from USAF inventory since Titan II and Minuteman were so much better ?
That is not a spaceplane. That is a go-really-high plane. It is not even going to try to possibly eventually maybe go into orbit. It simply can't go fast enough. As jkay said, the true measure of a spacecraft is how fast it can go, and SpaceshipTwo simply can't go very fast (comparatively speaking!)
Not that I am saying suborbital flight isn't impressive. But it just isn't what we're talking about (orbital spaceplanes).
If you do try make sure you update this with DLL http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/beta/Gemini_Titan.dll copy it into the modules subdirectory underneath your orbiter folder. (mmm I just really get the zip file updated.)
The things you will be able to do with this are
1) Launch and orbit with the Gemini
2) Launch, chase down, and dock with the agena and use the Agena. I even have the docking bar that they used to sight with. However you will have to use Orbiter's displays (called MFDs) to stand in to get data like range rate and the like.
3) Renter and steer the craft using the historical lifting re-entry techniques.
4) If you have a joystick you can set it up so that the joystick is controlling the attitude and the keyboard the translation thruster. While Gemini had a translation joystick (up/down, left/right, fwd/rev) it was a housing for six push buttons.
So while the keyboard is no joystick it is accurate as far how it worked for translation. Plus I seize control of the joystick and replicate the various attitude. Plus I have a function 8-ball. The only two parts of the control panel that works are attitude mode switch (center console) and the 8-ball.
5) The moments of inertia, mass, and fuel are all historically accurate. So it handles fairly close to the real thing. One thing I caution is that historical spacecraft tend to run out of fuel quickly if you go way off the flight margin. Luckily for beginners the semi-realistic delta-glider is included which handles accurately for a spacecraft but has a lot more delta-vee then what is normally possible. (It does this by having a high ISP rating for it's fuel and engines).
Finally if you can program in C++ Orbiter allows you to make your own vessels. Even if you can't program there are add-ons that allow you to make a basic spacecraft with just text configuration files.
As you can tell I am a real fan of the program.
To keep this marginally on-topic you can use this to see if you are in the ball park. For example if you want to try a Dynasoar with a Titan-I you can get the right add-ons, try it, and see what happens. I myself developed a basic X-20 addon using the Titan IIIc here http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/mscorbaddon/x20_titan3c_20.zip Again you will need to use Orbiter 2006 not 2010.