Spaceplanes feasibility

was Re: Future direction for Humanity? (was Don Davis article)
Apr 4, 2006 (Message #7515)
Don Davis wrote:
> Space planes are apparantly impossible to refine
to the point of becoming a practical method of getting
into space. Every new project to create a space plane
after the shuttle has died a miserable death with only
Buran actually being test flown, an ominous sign that
our abilities to invent as we need, as was factored
into Project Apollo, is in decline.

An useful spaceplane is entirely feasible now, and has been for a
while. Politics is what's crippling the design process.
Buran suffered from political decisions that it must look like the
American Shuttle. MAKS died because of political decisions that Buran
was the thing to fly.

In America, the HL-20/42 effort that followed the flights of the
Soviet BOR-4 research plane was axed by political decisions to return
to flying the money-sponge Shuttle following the Challenger
catastrophe, but it could have produced an entirely useful plane.
It wouldn't have been the "Shuttle-II" we all salivate for -a HTOHL
2STO plane like the earlier Shuttle concepts, but it would have been
safe, reliable, and certainly more affordable and probably more
capable than what we've got.
The ESA Hermes suffered by politics too, being demanded to accomodate
so many conflicting design requirements that it was growing into
a "mini-Shuttle" to do everything, instead of a reliable ground-orbit
shuttle like the meaning of the word: a vehicle that makes frequent
flights without lingering in LEO to do long-duration experiments.

I'm interested in SpaceDev's effort to fly a version of the HL-20. If
it's allowed to be what the HL-20 was designed for, it might work.

> Perhaps if the priority traditionally given to
military projects was given to a practical reusable
spaceplane with no regard to development costs it
could be done. The pathalogical draining of resources
into the means for warmaking makes doing any other
major project that much more difficult

I fear that "without regard to development costs" would cause it to
be another Space Shuttle: a beast designed by committee with so many
favorite projects thrown in to satisfy the political graft machine
that it sacrifices utility for complexity. Adding more cost to it so
that we can guarantee the politicians will want it to go forward so
they get jobs in their districts, without regard to the mission,
safety, and advancement by simple steps.

I agree with Zubrin's assessment: during the period from Mercury-
Apollo we designed basically everything we need to expand into space,
and did a lot. In the ~30 years following, we did nothing except go
around in circles in LEO and fly a government contractor jobs
program. The difference in the 2 eras is vision or lack of it. Design
hardware to do something and make something work by sticking to the
vision, or you can build things to satisfy short term political
objectives regardless of spending more money to do nothing but
perpetuate a bureaucracy's existence.

"Two Roads for NASA"
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/zubrinarch_102003.html

Following, I toss out some links to articles about various spaceplane
designs which have been studied. Some of them -notably the HL-20/42
and the Russian MAKS and possibly the earlier versions of Hermes-
appear hopeful, and could have produced good tools if they hadn't
been cut for short term politics and bureaucratic face-savings. None
of these needed groundbreaking technical discoveries (such as the
loaded X-33). Just refinements and new applications of what we
already know (possible exception with the supersonic lower stage of
the Uragan/Spiral).

Uragan "Spiral" aerospace fighter
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya3.htm

Note that the Uragan was a competitor to the USAF X-20 Dyna-Soar
orbital interceptor/bomber.
http://deepcold.com/
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

ESA Hermes
http://astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm

HL-20
www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HL-20.html
HL-42
www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm

Development process of the Spiral
www.astronautix.com/craft/mig10511.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm
http://www.a stronautix.com/craft/spiralos.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/spil5050.htm

Other USSR spaceplanes (usually relying on the AN-124 for HTO piggy-
back)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bizan.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/system49.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/maks.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm