Which spacecraft do you most want to see work?

[Drunkrobot]

Ever since Vanguard TV3 fell flat on its face, then exploded, the chance of failure was a very real aspect of any space mission. We have to accept that some fantastic ideas will remain just that-ideas. But then there is that spacecraft, that one you heard was going to happen a few years from now. You read about it, you developed an interest in it, you memorised every detail of it, all its facts and promises, and you fell in love with it. You mostly continue your life as normal, but every so often, you quietly hope that some engineering bug or short-sighted politician doesn't come along and kill it.

Mine is Skylon. What's not to love about it? It's a plane, which is cool, but it's also a rocket, which is even cooler. It dares to think big-it promises to make the impossible routine, and bring humanity half-way to the rest of the universe. It might actually work-much of it has either already been done by any space program worth its salt, or has been shown to work by Reaction Engines. But also, and this important for me-I'm 16, Skylon starts working at around 2020, so we both begin our working lives at around the same time. I want to work in the space industry, and I'm British-I may end up working on something Skylon makes possible. My life could really be greatly effected by how Skylon works... or how it doesn't work.

Anyway, enough about my hopes and dreams, which spacecraft on the drawing board do you most want to see succeed, and what makes it hold such a special place in your heart?

[Canopus]

Exploration gateway platform and the reusable lunar lander:

[Spaceisbeautifulul]

The mars one ship carrying the crew.

It'd be sad to find out that the first landing on Mars will be canceled/exploded.

[brooksy125]

Skylon, it could pave the way for many deep space manned missions.

[Themohawkninja]

I would also have to say Skylon... unless we aren't keeping ourselves within the realm of reality, than I would have to say a Battlestar.

[OtherDalfite]

The mars one ship carrying the crew.

It'd be sad to find out that the first landing on Mars will be canceled/exploded.

You realise Mars One isn't going to happen, right?

Aside from that. I would love to see Skylon get working, as it seems to be the most solid of the current space missions. It's orbital construction yard could be fantastic. That, or SpaceX's plans.

[Temstar]

I'm in the view that the key to cheap access to space lies not in cutting edge technology and reusable SSTO but rather mass production. And I'm not talking about the logical extreme of the Big Dumb Booster that is the Sea Dragon .

No no, I'm talking about MASS mass production. Building common components in the hundreds of thousand or millions per year and then assembling them into rockets. Obviously you can't possibly expect to sell million of individual rockets per year, hence OTRAG:

So the idea was to develop a very simple Common Rocket Propulsion Unit which could be bundled in different quantities to produce any sized booster you want. The CRPU would be so simple as to be built out of ordinary steel, pressure feed so no expensive turbopumps, ablatively cooled engine rather than the more elaborate regeneratively cooling, no gimbling (steering the whole rocket will be done via varying the thrust of CRPUs on different sides of the booster) and flat bulkheads rather than the complex domed bulkheads of bigger rockets. Since each individual CRPU is simple and a single complete rocket will require a large number of them, the CRPU factors will be expected to mass produce a huge number of CRPU per year. Mass production of simple machines on this scale has been proven to drive down cost and increase reliability (eg, Merlin engine production during WW2) so OTRAG rockets are projected to reduce launch vehicle cost by a factor of ten compared to conventional rockets. The unit cost of CRPUs will be so cheap that recovering them for reuse will be pointless as the cost of recovery and refurbishment will be greater than just building a new CRPU.

The idea was so revolutionary that OTRAG (which was a German company) managed to get Wernher von Braun interested and he became their scientific adviser. Von Braun however came to the company with a warning that rocketry is inherently a political process and he did not believe Germany provided a stable enough political environment for rocket development.

Technical wise the project proved to be quite workable and OTRAG managed 14 suborbital launches with a four CRPU sounding rocket design. But the politics got in the way. The USSR and France were not interested in Germany achieving an indigenous long-range rocket activity. American rocket makers were not interested in having a low-cost competitor. A propaganda campaign began, alleging OTRAG was a cover for German and South African nuclear cruise missile development. Crude Soviet-source disinformation was eagerly picked up and given credibility by the American mainstream media. The government of the Congo (were OTRAG's testing facility was located) was pressured by the Russians to withdraw permission to use the site. OTRAG left the country in April 1979. OTRAG moved their testing to Libya but in 1983 the Libyan Government unlawfully confiscated all of OTRAG's rocket manufacturing and test equipment in the country for their own end and never returned them despite personal promises by Gaddafi. The company gave up and shutdown after those two set backs.

[Spaceisbeautifulul]

Actually I changed my mind.

I'd love to see tonight's Sapphire rocket launch work out.

[nettcod]

The SpaceX reusable Falcon 9 and Dragonrider.

[Themohawkninja]

The SpaceX reusable Falcon 9 and Dragonrider.

Since you mentioned the Grasshopper, can somebody explain to me how the heck that thing is useful? I get that it is meant to be a reusable first stage, but it seems like there is so much fuel being wasted for the landing that could be used to launch heavier vehicles.

P.S. That sig made me brush my computer screen for a few seconds until I realized it wasn't real... grr...

[jwenting]

VentureStar. X33 was killed by the Space Shuttle lobby who saw it as a danger to their jobs, when 90%+ complete. The concept is sound, when operational can provide a stable, cheap, quick turnaround SSTO for access to LEO for both manned an unmanned missions, launching satellites and crews as needed.

We need that to drive the early stages of building larger ships and stations for exploiting the asteroid belt, and eventual L5 space stations (which are the logical points for orbital factories).

[M83]

Mine has to be NASA's Space Launch System. I feel like that there is a lot riding on this if the U.S. wants to keep pace with countries such as China, though I do worry about the 2016 election and the possibility of a Republican candidate following the cycle of canning the previous president's plan that started with Clinton. I'll be very upset if political agendas squash the SLS, I just want it to work so bad.

[Voyager55]

I think that to achieve something you need to set more demanding goals,like the Moon landings they gave themselves what? Like 8 years to do it.Now we have people saying stuff like,"We can make it to makes by 2035"! That's like an overweight person saying I will give myself 5 years to lose 50 pounds at,he will probably give up in a few months but if he is determined and says,"I will lose 50 pounds in 3 months he's more likely to do it.That's what won America the space race.Setting lazy dates 20 years in the future gets us nowhere if we're not motivated.(Back to topic) I want to see Orion and the SLS working.

[cpt_nosh]

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home

Enough said.

[Nibb31]

Since you mentioned the Grasshopper, can somebody explain to me how the heck that thing is useful? I get that it is meant to be a reusable first stage, but it seems like there is so much fuel being wasted for the landing that could be used to launch heavier vehicles.

Grasshopper is not the F9R first stage, it's a test bed to develop hovering and landing techniques for the F9R. Yes, the reusable first stage carries a rather large payload penalty, because of the extra fuel, the flight profile, and the mass of the landing gear and attitude control equipment. However, it has the potential to drastically reduce the cost of getting to orbit. So instead of building an entire new rocket to launch 10 tons to LEO, SpaceX would only have to charge for fuel and maintenance for 8 tons to LEO.

Space will always be expensive, because when you launch a satellite to orbit, the cost of the launcher is only a small part of the total cost, but it has the potential of reducing launch costs by 20%.

Back on topic, I'd like to see the Nautilus X, although the DSH would be second best. It's about time we built a space-only spacecraft.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Nibb31

[Canopus]

This. I just want this.

[Scotius]

Anything that SpaceX launches. These guys really make it work. They pick the goal, and realise it in new, ingenious ways. Without politicking, changing their minds every year or giving up after something fails. If they keep up the pace, first man on Mars will step out of Dragon Rider capsule.

[Canopus]

If they keep up the pace, first man on Mars will step out of Dragon Rider capsule.

I hope not because that means no return for him.

[Holo]

I hope not because that means no return for him.

...and a month later, step into an ascent craft to dock with the orbiting mothership.

[Canopus]

...and a month later, step into an ascent craft to dock with the orbiting mothership.

If you a separate ascent craft. Unlike whats Mars one wants to do.

[Nibb31]

If you can land a man-rated crew ascent vehicle on the surface, why would you want to bring a Dragon along for the ride?

[nothke]

Since you mentioned the Grasshopper, can somebody explain to me how the heck that thing is useful? I get that it is meant to be a reusable first stage, but it seems like there is so much fuel being wasted for the landing that could be used to launch heavier vehicles.

You have to understand that FUEL IS CHEAP... ..comparing to the cost of constructing a new rocket with it's engines and turbopumps. If you can save all that and return to the pad/runway, you've got a major cost reduction, and also, obviously the turnaround time.

One of big difficulties of the Space Shuttle was that the external tank was not reusable, so it had to be manufactured each time, while the SRBs were used up to about 10 times (some parts of it much more), heck even SRB recovery was expensive because they had to call the navy each launch to recover them, which is why SpaceX is flying everything back to the pad.

Edited June 23, 2013 by nothke