Why so many spacecraft america?

[SargeRho]

Hence why I said "won't do any manned orbital flights". Also I edited my post with the specs and progress I found about the project so far.

[Winter Man]

What has Virgin Galactic got to do with Britain?

They're a subsidiary of Virgin Group, which is a British company. Sure, they operate in America, mainly because there isn't a decent desert with an ocean to the west in Europe. You're right about Branson though, he's renounced British citizenship because he lives 40 or so weeks of the year on his private island.

The IXV isn't French and is not comparable to the X-37.

Yeah you're right, it's nothing like the X-37, that was a typo. I meant the X-38, the lifting body experiment the Dream Chaser was developed from.

[Idobox]

ESA doesn't have any projects for manned or reusable spacecraft at this point, nor are they in competition with DreamChaser. Actually, they are even investing in DreamChaser themselves, which means that they might, in the future, either purchase DreamChaser flights from Sierra Nevada. There is even the possibility that they might launch their own DreamChaser vehicle on Ariane...

That's something I don't understand. Europe owns the satellite launch market, has a very safe heavy rocket, the best launch site in the world, a good cargo ship, they even launch Soyuz rockets. With the obsession of independence from the US that fueled the whole European space industry, why haven't we developed our own human rated ship 10 or 20 years ago?

Kliper and CSTS were promising, as well as the crewed version of ATV, but all were scrapped.

[Nibb31]

That's something I don't understand. Europe owns the satellite launch market, has a very safe heavy rocket, the best launch site in the world, a good cargo ship, they even launch Soyuz rockets. With the obsession of independence from the US that fueled the whole European space industry, why haven't we developed our own human rated ship 10 or 20 years ago?

Kliper and CSTS were promising, as well as the crewed version of ATV, but all were scrapped.

Because the push for a European space program is mostly about maintaining an industrial capability, keeping EADS and Thales-Alenia busy. It's more about engineering than about lofty goals of man in space and the final frontier...

ESA runs on a minimal budget, and every major investment requires the agreement for every participating government, and each government really only looks at the cost/benefit budget for their own country. ESA's situation is even worse than NASA and its reliance on Congress in that respect. Most manned spacecraft initiatives emerged from CNES (France's space authority, which is a large contributor of ESA) but were shot down by other national authorities, presumably because they were worried that their own country wouldn't benefit as much from it than the others.

ESA also has a long history of cooperation with Russia and the USA, so the need for a domestic spacecraft has never really emerged.

I would really love to see ESA buy a DreamChaser vehicle or two and stick them on top of Ariane V like a new Hermes. After all, DreamChaser shares a lot of heritage from the X-38/CRV program, in which ESA had a strong participation.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Nibb31

[jwenting]

They're a subsidiary of Virgin Group, which is a British company. Sure, they operate in America, mainly because there isn't a decent desert with an ocean to the west in Europe. You're right about Branson though, he's renounced British citizenship because he lives 40 or so weeks of the year on his private island.

Actually, because he'd be taxed into bankruptcy by the UK government if he stayed in Britain... Buying a private island was cheaper than paying his tax bills for a few years.

[Winter Man]

Actually, because he'd be taxed into bankruptcy by the UK government if he stayed in Britain... Buying a private island was cheaper than paying his tax bills for a few years.

You can't tax someone into bankruptcy in the UK, there's no property tax.

[jwenting]

You can't tax someone into bankruptcy in the UK, there's no property tax.

you can however tax him into oblivion by counting his property as generating virtual revenue and taxing it that way under income tax.

Same in several other countries, the idea that "if you had rented it out it would have generated XXX in income therefore you have to pay income tax over XXX in income you could have had.

[Red Iron Crown]

you can however tax him into oblivion by counting his property as generating virtual revenue and taxing it that way under income tax.

Same in several other countries, the idea that "if you had rented it out it would have generated XXX in income therefore you have to pay income tax over XXX in income you could have had.

That's crazy, and only a small step from "if you had a better job you would have made more money, so we're charging you based on what we think you should have made".

[Guest]

Yeah, but that's how it works. Sometimes, especially if you're rich, the tax system does that sort of thing to you. Most European countries practice "wealth redistribution" - steal from the rich and give to the poor, until they're all "equal" (i.e. rather poor, but able to pay taxes). That's why the rich all have accounts in Switzerland or Canary Islands - places with a reputation of not doing that.

[SargeRho]

Wealth redistribution is a good thing, but I don't think that's the point of this thread.

[jwenting]

That's crazy, and only a small step from "if you had a better job you would have made more money, so we're charging you based on what we think you should have made".

it's exactly how it works. I've a 150K Euro house, so I'm assumed to get something like 500 Euro a month in rent from that, even though I live in it myself. And I have to pay income tax over that assumed income.

That's why so many more wealthy people have their houses owned by a company they set up in their own name, from which they then rent the house at a nominal fee.

[Nibb31]

it's exactly how it works. I've a 150K Euro house, so I'm assumed to get something like 500 Euro a month in rent from that, even though I live in it myself. And I have to pay income tax over that assumed income.

That's why so many more wealthy people have their houses owned by a company they set up in their own name, from which they then rent the house at a nominal fee.

What a load of uninformed rubbish. If this thread hadn't already veered way off topic already, I'd ask you if you've ever actually been outside of your country.

[rdfox]

To get back on topic, the original question is like asking, "Why so many different kinds of cars? I mean, a Rolls-Royce, a Ferrari, a Ford Fiesta, and a Kenworth will all get you where you need to go, so why should all four exist? Just build one of them." Nobody would consider that a logical statement--all four vehicles have very different purposes. The Fiesta is Cheap Basic Transportation; the Ferrari is a race-bred speed machine; the Rolls is hyper-luxury that's almost more about making a statement than about transportation; the Kenworth is a heavy-haul semi tractor designed to lug cargo from point A to point B. None is all that good at the other's job--the Fiesta is slow and about as luxurious as a park bench; the Ferrari guzzles fuel and, while comfortable, isn't exactly poshness; the Rolls costs more than any of the others; and the Kenworth is large, unmaneuverable (relatively speaking), incredibly fuel-hungry, and only moderately comfortable.

The whole reason for having different spacecraft is to have vehicles tailored for different purposes. The US actually did try to build one spacecraft that could do everything--and ended up with something that was horrendously expensive and, while it could sort of do everything, it didn't do anything particularly WELL; that was the Space Shuttle. (Another example would be in the 60s, when Robert S. Macnamara tried to make the F-111 the Everyplane for Every Purpose, "like a car that can take Dad to work, pick up the groceries with Mom, carry the kids to school, and mix cement on weekends, except in May when it would be busy practicing for the Indy 500," to quote Michael Collins. The result was a number of very good single-purpose airplane designs were cancelled to fund the F-111, which ended up being a money pit that was really only of any value in the penetration bomber role and as an electronic-warfare platform.)

We learned from those mistakes, and now, we design our vehicles to do one primary job well, as epitomized by the early motto of the F-15 program, "Not a pound for air to ground!" We may add in the ability to do other things, too--the F-15E Strike Eagle is one of the best air-to-ground aircraft out there--but that's going to be bonus capability added on top of the original purpose, which is NOT to be compromised. Is it inefficient? Maybe, to some degree, but at the same time, to go back to my original analogy, try hitching a 10-ton trailer loaded with 20 tons of freight to your Festiva and see how well you can move it...

[ScallopPotato]

To get back on topic, the original question is like asking, "Why so many different kinds of cars? I mean, a Rolls-Royce, a Ferrari, a Ford Fiesta, and a Kenworth will all get you where you need to go, so why should all four exist? Just build one of them." Nobody would consider that a logical statement--all four vehicles have very different purposes. The Fiesta is Cheap Basic Transportation; the Ferrari is a race-bred speed machine; the Rolls is hyper-luxury that's almost more about making a statement than about transportation; the Kenworth is a heavy-haul semi tractor designed to lug cargo from point A to point B. None is all that good at the other's job--the Fiesta is slow and about as luxurious as a park bench; the Ferrari guzzles fuel and, while comfortable, isn't exactly poshness; the Rolls costs more than any of the others; and the Kenworth is large, unmaneuverable (relatively speaking), incredibly fuel-hungry, and only moderately comfortable.

The whole reason for having different spacecraft is to have vehicles tailored for different purposes. The US actually did try to build one spacecraft that could do everything--and ended up with something that was horrendously expensive and, while it could sort of do everything, it didn't do anything particularly WELL; that was the Space Shuttle. (Another example would be in the 60s, when Robert S. Macnamara tried to make the F-111 the Everyplane for Every Purpose, "like a car that can take Dad to work, pick up the groceries with Mom, carry the kids to school, and mix cement on weekends, except in May when it would be busy practicing for the Indy 500," to quote Michael Collins. The result was a number of very good single-purpose airplane designs were cancelled to fund the F-111, which ended up being a money pit that was really only of any value in the penetration bomber role and as an electronic-warfare platform.)

We learned from those mistakes, and now, we design our vehicles to do one primary job well, as epitomized by the early motto of the F-15 program, "Not a pound for air to ground!" We may add in the ability to do other things, too--the F-15E Strike Eagle is one of the best air-to-ground aircraft out there--but that's going to be bonus capability added on top of the original purpose, which is NOT to be compromised. Is it inefficient? Maybe, to some degree, but at the same time, to go back to my original analogy, try hitching a 10-ton trailer loaded with 20 tons of freight to your Festiva and see how well you can move it...

Yeah, but doesn't the DragonRider, Dream Chaser, and CST-100 spacecraft all fit into the same role (deliver crew to LEO)?

[Nibb31]

They do, but they are in competition. Only two, or maybe only one, will come out of the downselect. The whole idea of competition as a way to reduce cost can be seen as ideological though. It can also be seen as wasteful, and it will likely end up either as a monopoly or a oligopoly which hardly benefits the common good in the end.

[magnemoe]

Russia has not seen any progress in space systems since they created Progress back in the 1970s... So much for the innovation power of centralised control.

And THAT was merely a Soyuz with the life support systems removed...

As I understand they are working on an Soyuz replacement, or more accurate an Soyuz 2.0, problem seems to be lack of funding an no pressing need as they have Soyuz and progress.

The US could have let NASA develop the shuttle replacement however they prefer to buy the service as its multiple companies working on this.

[xenomorph555]

As I understand they are working on an Soyuz replacement, or more accurate an Soyuz 2.0, problem seems to be lack of funding an no pressing need as they have Soyuz and progress.

The US could have let NASA develop the shuttle replacement however they prefer to buy the service as its multiple companies working on this.

Russia have been working on a soyuz replacement since it came out, none of them have succeeded (TKS got close though, too bad it was cool), I see no reason why the ppts (terrible name russia) will succeed. The R-7 replacement (angara) will probably succeed, unfortunately they all look ugly compared to the R-7.

[Idobox]

Russia have been working on a soyuz replacement since it came out, none of them have succeeded (TKS got close though, too bad it was cool), I see no reason why the ppts (terrible name russia) will succeed. The R-7 replacement (angara) will probably succeed, unfortunately they all look ugly compared to the R-7.

For a very long time, Russia had the only cheap way to put people in space. Now they see China, SpaceX, Boeing, Armadillo and others having or developing serious competitors, and loosing that market would be a big downer for national pride, and would probably severely damage one of the most prestigious and strategic industries in Russia.

They really want to stay ahead of the curve, and they definitely have the skills to develop a serious spaceship.

[Kryten]

The R-7 replacement (angara) will probably succeed, unfortunately they all look ugly compared to the R-7.

Angara is a replacement for the converted ICBM launchers, Zenit, and Proton, but not R-7. Proton causes politicial problems with khazakstan, zenit causes politicial problems with ukraine, converted ICBMs will run out, but there are no issues with Soyuz and so no reason to replace it. The russians don't like to fix what isn't broken.

[Guest]

Russia have been working on a soyuz replacement since it came out, none of them have succeeded (TKS got close though, too bad it was cool), I see no reason why the ppts (terrible name russia) will succeed. The R-7 replacement (angara) will probably succeed, unfortunately they all look ugly compared to the R-7.

TKS wasn't a Soyuz replacement, what gave you that idea? It was a completely different spacecraft, much more akin to the ATV, but manned. It wasn't just a station ferry, but a big, high capacity resupply vehicle. Just look at it's size, TKS was about the size of Zarya, while the Soyuz is about the size of Pirs. The Soyuz replacement is the PPTS, and it seems like it's still a long way off. Angara is an attempt at making an all-Russian launcher that would not require keeping good relations with Kazakhstan and Ukraine (the recent events in Crimea probably put a definite end of any Zenit-based proposal considered by Roskosmos). Not to mention Proton uses very toxic hypergolics, which are expensive to handle and problematic during a failure. Angara could replace the Soyuz, because it can be configured to similar lifting capacity, but I think it's unlikely to put the old R-7 out of play.

[problemecium]

What I've read is that the Skylon is designed to be able to carry passengers, it just won't actually do so in the first version (instead using a retrofitted probe core thingy).