I've read here before about the wonderfulness of capsules. So I did a
little thought experiment. You see, one thing I wondered was "What
would the seat layout be in a passenger space capsule?"

So what I did was look up the specs for a Boeing 727, which carries
about 150 passengers. Mentally, I ripped off the wings and asked
myself, "How do I turn this long skinny fuselage into a capsule?"

One way would be to calculate the square footage and build the capsule
around a circle with the same area.
Another was to simply bend the 153 ft. 2 in. fuselage into a ring, and
assume that the interior of that circle would be taken up by, mostly,
fuel and oxygen tankage.

I picked the second option. No real reason other than it made the
seat layout thing very easy: it's exactly the same, right down to the
location of the restrooms. The only thing that's different is that
the cockpit is on the nose of the capsule instead of the nose of the
passenger cabin. This gives us a capsule 48 ft. 9 in. in diameter,
which I went ahead and stretched to an even 50 ft. (thus making the
fuselage 157 ft. 2 in.). This diameter is considerably less than the
length of the plane (133 ft. 2 in. for the 727-100 and 153 ft. 2 in.
for the 727-200, or 157 ft. 2 in. for my stretched version), and
indeed the 50 ft. diameter is less that the 108 ft. wingspan of either
version.

So our "Capsule 727" takes up less space than the airplane version,and
since it launches vertically, it takes up less airspace, and maybe
even has less noise problems (even though the rocket blast is loud, it
is not trailed out so far horizontally).

Now one more thing bothers me: how do you LAND the damn thing?
Landing on rockets, Buck Rogers style, seems to be wasteful of fuel,
and parachutes... I'd rather not, thanks. But it has to have
SOMETHING to slow it down.

"But surely they've provided something to break your fall."
"Oh yes: the state of Nevada!"

I had similar ideas in regards to the Passenger version of the Heavy
Lift Launch Vehicle described in T.A. Heppenheimer's Colonies in Space.

I saw two passenger compartments back to back over a cargo or baggage
compartment over the fuel compartments. The Flight under control of the
Fly Back or Space Tug which might carry a few select passengers and a
little cargo.

I saw the HLLV passenger craft as One Way up to the space colonies
which would be broken up and recycled with shuttle drop tanks by the
colonies for construction material. With those wanting to return home
either having couches installed in a cabin the Flyback's cargo
compartment or returning shuttles which might carry up special cargo
and then have passenger cabins installed into the cargo compartment
with recycled flight couches and other salvaged equipment from the
HLLV.

Or as an additional option, One Shot Drop Ships manufactured in space
from recycled materials and local resources and then sent back to earth
to be scrapped at a boneyard and recycled or used for artificial reefs
like the log boats of the Missippie river of Tom Sawyer's day.

This is just an idea.

> From: Xenophile
> I've read here before about the wonderfulness of capsules. So I did a
> little thought experiment. You see, one thing I wondered was "What
> would the seat layout be in a passenger space capsule?"

Disneyland's *old* 'mission to mars' ride was actually based (vaguely) upon
the ROMBUS capsule design. That had several concentric rings. Other more
technical presentations showed a grid pattern.

> So our "Capsule 727" takes up less space than the airplane version,and
> since it launches vertically, it takes up less airspace, and maybe
> even has less noise problems (even though the rocket blast is loud, it
> is not trailed out so far horizontally).

Any reason you picked the 727? Most designers seem to be aiming more for a
DC-3.

> Now one more thing bothers me: how do you LAND the damn thing?

Parasails would work for smaller capsules, but rockets would still be
required for the final landing. And fuel usage has to be seen in context.
Capsule designs save heatshield weight at the expense of cross-range
(something that crippled the shuttle) and crew comfort; which translates to
a launch fuel saving that more than compensates for landing fuel. Besides,
fuel is cheap! ;)

John

> Any reason you picked the 727? Most designers seem to be aiming more
> for a DC-3.

I wanted 150 passengers, and the 727 fit the bill. I do suspect that
a DC-3 would come before that, though. A RLV for 25 passengers would
be such a leap beyond today, that I think I'd break out the champaign
if one launched. Hell, if one were announced.

>> Any reason you picked the 727? Most designers seem to be aiming
>>more for a DC-3.
Xenophile wrote:
> I wanted 150 passengers, and the 727 fit the bill. I do suspect
>thata DC-3 would come before that, though. A RLV for 25
>passengers would be such a leap beyond today, that I think I'd
>break out the champaign if one launched. Hell, if one were
>announced.

I might settle for a Curtiss Jenny. That's more like the X-Prize
hoppers.

My doubt about this "Capsule" is that it's getting too big.
I might say I had a transformative experience with the Shuttle
disasters (not to say "The Shuttle; The Disaster) and reading up on
the HL-20/42.
Could even a 25 person craft be made an assuredly safe, survivable &
forgiving crew launch/recovery vehicle? Is the technology anywhere
near evolved enough to even think about something with less than
both, suspenders and belt?
There's a lot to be said for the HL-20, if you believe that NASA
Langley and the rest did their work correctly: Zero-altitude/zero
airspeed up to hypersonic/sub-orbital escape, everything from rolling
down a runway centerline to dropping in under a parafoil with
airbags/floatation rafts and survival supplies for a really
drastically FUBAR misadventure. (The Russians started carrying a
pistol in the Soyuz, after one came down off-course in the Urals and
the crew had to retreat into the locked capsule for several hours
while wolves sniffed around it...)
I like the version of the Kliper that had the crew facing aft, and
the HL-20 allowed for no more than 1.5G on re-entry. How would this
727 donut fall in? (granted it could have very low aerodynamic
loading due to its size)

Back to the other, older part of this thread, Propulsion. The RLV
spaceplane.
A Mach 5.5 air-breathing capability goes a long way to getting a
plane out of the troposphere and on its way.
If it can take de-orbiting, how is the boost up to where the
tripropellant rockets take over going to over-heat it?
Add a horizontal track to get it up to mach .8 on the ground before
the jets fire up, and you've decreased the fuel in a SSTO by ~30%.
Add in air breathing hypersonic jets and maybe tripropellant rockets,
and you might have a useful payload mass fraction with attainable
technology. If the upper stage is a hypersonic skyhook (also very
nearly presently attainable technology) and you've (almost. by
cheating) got a plane that takes off & flies into space & back.