Tell me: Your favorite spacecraft!

[MC.STEEL]

Well ive very much liked the TITAN, PROTON series of rockets and the energia-buran,with its side boosters configured in an x shape and the nosecones sink in the main body giving it a nice and sleek finish.

Edited January 12, 2014 by MC.STEEL

[hugix]

Gemini. It was a spacecraft built for astronauts by astronauts. It was small and cramped but it did perfectly what it was designed for. Besides that. It just looks lovely.

[Tech Support]

The Indian PSLV, because its Indian and the Saturn V because it is just awesome

[Piwa]

N-1, Vostok, Saturn V Skylab, Ariane 5, Space Shuttle P.S. New space craft "Orion" looks awfully like NASA took his uncomprehending ...

[Firov]

As for the Skylon, while I really do hope it flies one day (soon), at this point it really is just a paper SSTO. Existing only in the imaginations of it's designers. Just like the Venture Star, it has incredible promise, but so many things could go wrong that will scuttle it's development. Even simple politics could completely derail it's development, as they did with the Venture Star, which was a lot further along when it was cancelled than Skylon is now.

At present, it's hopelessly underfunded and lacks large scale political support. Those two factors alone are not a good base on which to create a viable SSTO. Like I said, when it comes to Skylon I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

Anyway, on subject, my favorite spacecraft would probably be the Space Shuttle due to it's incredible versatility and complexity. It was massively expensive, and arguably unnecessary, but none of that detracts from the incredible technical achievement that was the Space Shuttle. After that, probably Deep Space One. Yes, it's just an unmanned probe, but still, it was a technology demonstrator for a lot of unproven technologies that paved the way for several current deep space probes such as Dawn. Furthermore, beyond completing it's scheduled surveillance of an asteroid and technology testing, it went on during it's extended mission to fly through comet Borrelly's tail and take detailed pictures of it's core, despite the fact that it was never designed for that kind of mission and had no debris shield. Then it's mission was extended yet again to gather more data on it's experimental systems. Overall, an impressive little probe.

[CleverClothe]

Skylon is still vaporware and powerpoint slides.

Skylon isn't vaporware by any stretch of the word. Even assuming that you can apply that term to something outside the computer industry.

OT: My answer would be Dragon for flying/flown craft. What can I say, I like the new hotness.

If you include proposed/prototype craft, then I would say the Venture Star (X-33).

[AeroEngy]

Hey guys!

This time, I wanna know: WHAT is your FAVORITE SPACECRAFT and WHY?

Please note that this covers anything that goes up into space; it can be any space station, debris- even a favorite piece of space trash you've heard about! I just want to know what you Kerbonauts think.

I'm torn between two crafts myself. One would have to be the U.S. Space Shuttle, as it was the most versatile crew-carrying space vehicle ever designed, and it served us well for 30 years.

The other thing would have to be any one of the SuitSats! In case you don't know, they are basically old space suits that are filled with garbage from the ISS, and usually a transmitter, and are jettisoned from the station as a sort of $5,000,000 garbage bag. Plus, they look creepy as all heck as they float away.

Since you were mentioned debris. This is my favorite piece or should I say was. I was working on a project related to space debris back in 2007 and using the following as an example of the potential hazards ... then it exploded pretty much proving my point.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1854804.htm?space

[Nibb31]

Skylon isn't vaporware by any stretch of the word. Even assuming that you can apply that term to something outside the computer industry.

I don't see why I couldn't. Flight hardware is a term, so flight vaporware can be.

Quote from wikipedia: "Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released nor officially cancelled. Vaporware is also a term sometimes used to describe events that are announced or predicted, never officially cancelled, but never intended to happen. The term also generally applies to a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking. The word has been applied to a growing range of products including consumer, automobiles, and some stock trading practices."

You might only have heard about it last year, but Skylon is not something new. It has been on the drawing board for 30 years already. It started as the BAe HOTOL project that was cancelled. The 4 guys behind HOTOL quitted BAe and founded REL and have been working on it for decades without the funding to build anything. Recently, they got until now is some science grants and ESA funds for feasability studies and some lab bench tests, which is great, but unless they get several billion euros from ESA to build a prototype, or unless EADS or BAE buys them up, then it simply won't happen.

[Deathsoul097]

You understand the SABRE engines have recently been tested and confirmed as a success by ESA, right? In other words, REL has a working prototype of the SABRE.

(AFAIK)

[Kryten]

You understand the SABRE engines have recently been tested and confirmed as a success by ESA, right? In other words, REL has a working prototype of the SABRE.

REL has a proof-of-concept prototype of the intake pre-cooler, and that's as far as they've got. They haven't produced a working engine of any kind, never mind a full-scale SABRE.

[Nibb31]

In other words, REL has a working prototype of the SABRE.

No they don't. And there is more to a commercially operational reusable SSTO spacecraft than an experimental precooler proof-of-concept on a lab bench.

It's a good start (after 30 years), but they still need to build a prototype of the SABRE itself, then a flight-rated engine, then an actual hypersonic airframe, then an actual space-worthy flight demonstrator with TPS. None of those technologies exist other than on paper.

Then they can start working on reliability, serviceability, industrialization, and work out the economics of building a fleet and finding people willing to buy and operate them.

The reason nobody is massively investing in Skylon is that, even if it does work, there is simply no market for the launch capability of a fleet of ~30 reusable SSTO spaceplanes. There is no demand for putting hundreds of 10 ton satellites into LEO every year.

They claim that Skylon development will cost $6 billion (which is wildly underestimated) and that each unit will cost around $300 million. That means that if they want to recoup development costs, they will have to sell at least 20 of them, and more like 40 if you include the actual manufacturing cost per unit. Each Skylon is supposed to be rated for 200 flights and a 15 ton payload to LEO. That's a minimum market of 40x200 = 8000 launches. Over 20 years, that's 400 launches to LEO per year. It's crazy.

For an operator, the launch cost will be $300 million for the purchase of the Skylon for 200 launches = $1.5 million for the hardware. Let's add (an optimistic) $0.5 million to cover operations, fuel, maintenance, crew, etc... so that it makes a nice round $2 million figure. There simply is no demand for such a flight rate, even at that cost.

Some people say it will open new markets by reducing costs. Ok. Let's imagine that space tourism actually takes off. With a 15 ton manned payload module, you should be able to fit something like 10 paying passengers with 2 crew members = $150 000 per ticket for transportation to orbit. You need to add the cost of a space hotel and actual entertainment, plus a decent profit margin, which will likely put the price around $250000. Virgin Galactic only estimates the market to a few hundred people per year ready to pay that price for their service, so good luck finding the 4000 customers per year needed to cover your 400 flights.

These are overly optimistic back of the envelope figures based on unrealistic development costs and 20 years of operation, and considering it actually performs 100% as planned. The actual development cost of the program would undoubtedly be closer to $30 billion (like the A380 or the Boeing 787) than to the $6 billion figure. Also, it is unlikely that an operator would want to wait 20 years for an actual ROI. And finally, it might end up with a payload capacity of only 7 or 10 tons to LEO rather than the expected 15.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Nibb31

[Deathsoul097]

Hmm. I stand corrected. Oh well, at least they've got the precooler. Lol.

[wasmic]

I'd say that my favorite spacecraft is the Dream Chaser by Sierra Nevada Corporation. It's just plain beautiful. It's a reusable crew transport glider spaceplane.

I'm not sure about my favorite rocket, it could be Saturn V, the Atlas D, the Soyuz, or the Space Launch System. Or the Ares I.

Edited January 14, 2014 by wasmic

[KOCOUR]

Soyuz! enough said!

[1greywind]

Chelomey's TKS. Sadly, it was newer flown maned. Very thought-out design: nearly all modules of Ãϯà space station and Russian ISS segment are based on TKS systems.

[czokletmuss]

Soyuz. Most reliable spacecraft ever built, in service since 1967. Decades of improvements, sexy look, rendez-vous with ISS in record time. Without it today we would be stuck on Earth (Shenzhou won't be built without Soyuz probably). IMHO so far we didn't have a better spacecraft (with the exception of Apollo CSM) - STS was badly designed, Buran didn't get a chance, Shenzhou is mostly a copy and it's still some time left before we see what Orion or Dragon can do.

[Javster]

Very tricky choice. I like the Shuttle, but I quite like the Apollo stuff too...

[CleverClothe]

You might only have heard about it last year, but Skylon is not something new. It has been on the drawing board for 30 years already. It started as the BAe HOTOL project that was cancelled. The 4 guys behind HOTOL quitted BAe and founded REL and have been working on it for decades without the funding to build anything. Recently, they got until now is some science grants and ESA funds for feasability studies and some lab bench tests, which is great, but unless they get several billion euros from ESA to build a prototype, or unless EADS or BAE buys them up, then it simply won't happen.

Per the quoted definition, Skylon can not be considered vaporware. Vaporware is a very specific term.

I get that some people have a malicious attitude toward Skylon, just don't abuse language because of it.

[Kinglet]

The venture star.

[Deathsoul097]

Which one? The American one that never happened, or the Avatar that never happened?