What cancelled/proposed space project do you find most interesting?

[Pipcard]

Right now, it's the HOPE (H-II Orbiting Plane). It was originally envisioned during the bubble economy of the late 80s by the Japanese NASDA and NAL (now JAXA) as a manned space shuttle (images can be found in the JAXA digital archives); the plan was to gradually develop the technology. First, there was a capsule-shaped re-entry demonstrator (OREX), then a lifting-body re-entry vehicle (HYFLEX), then an automatic landing test (ALFLEX).

There were plans for an experimental unmanned version (HOPE-X), but it never launched, and the project was cancelled in 2003, probably due to economic/budgetary problems as well as delays. The shuttle was supposed to land at Christmas Island after re-entry, and there was a subscale version of HOPE-X for approach and landing tests (HSFD).

(I made this in Wings3D, with textures made in Inkscape + GIMP)

Edited August 3, 2014 by Pipcard

[Jouni]

Project Orion, obviously. Anything where you detonate a lot of nukes next to you is clearly a good idea.

[Sky_walker]

Venture Star

and from these less realistic... I guess moon bases planned between '50s and '80s.

[Nicholander]

Hmm... I actually can't decide that easily...

Orion: Basically the reasons Jouni stated above.

Energia: Essentially the many failed Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle's Soviet Cousin, and it actually flew, though just twice (Including Buran), unfortunately. And it's the 3rd largest launch vehicle EVER! 100 tons to LEO, and the Soviets/Russians canceled THAT!?!? It would've given them the position to send huge payload to anywhere in the solar system, 32 tons to the Moon, Mars, and Venus! (Wikipedia didn't say how much payload to Jupiter, but in comparison the Titan IIIE which launched Voyager on it's interplanetary slingshot-a-thon trajectory could only get 34 tons to LEO. And now NASA doesn't even fly Titans any more.

Hermes: The ESA's best attempt at there own manned spacecraft, which unfortunately was cancelled, like HOPE. Imagine what would've it'd been like if Hermes actually flew, and the Columbus space station too.

N1-L3: Not just the N1, but the whole Soviet Lunar program. The N1 would've allowed for many missions like Mars Sample Return that the US just seemed to not care about. (There cancelling the Saturn rocket family and all) The L3 (The Lunar bit, the N1 got it to orbit and the L3 went to The Moon and back) Lunar complex was also interesting, and I wonder why they didn't decide to scrap the N1 and launch it with 3 Proton launches as an Earth orbit rendezvous. One carrying the Soyuz, the other carrying the LK Lunar lander, and the last one carrying Block G, the stage which did the Trans-Lunar Injection burn. Maybe it was just that early docking systems (For both the US and the USSR) had terrible reliability.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Nicholander

[TeeGee]

Project Orion, obviously. Anything where you detonate a lot of nukes next to you is clearly a good idea.

Yup. We could have been to Jupiters moons by now.

[Sky_walker]

Yup. We could have been to Jupiters moons by now.

Or still fighting radiation from one failed launch....

[crazyewok]

Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module

Half the Gemini plans, if you had kept with it and upgraded over time you may have had a cheap manned unit like the soyuz still.

NERVA, more politicly correct than Orion and would of given a nice little engine to run around the solar system with.

Constelallation program, fact is if you start a program and more ton of money into you should bloody well Finnish it.

Project Olympus looked interesting

http://www.wired.com/2013/09/project-olympus-1962/

Think the lesson is dont let the monkeys in suits (politicians) interfere with scientific programs.

Edited August 3, 2014 by crazyewok

[Kryten]

Or still fighting radiation from one failed launch....

That wouldn't be an issue; because nobody would ever amass the funding required to build one in the first place.

[crazyewok]

That wouldn't be an issue; because nobody would ever amass the funding required to build one in the first place.

Cost was one of thing that wasn't considered a "issue" with it, cost was around the Apollo program. At least in the 60's. With nuclear nuclear non-proliferation it probably different today as weapons grades nuclear material a lot more expensive.

It was the politics and safety concerns that got it cancelled not the cost or science

Edit

This give the cost at near 500 million a year so even less.

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/big-engineering-36-oprion-project.html

Edited August 3, 2014 by crazyewok

[Kryten]

Cost was one of thing that wasn't considered a "issue" with it, cost was around the Apollo program.

The Apollo program that was cancelled because of it's cost? The most expensive space project ever by a huge margin?

[crazyewok]

The Apollo program that was cancelled because of it's cost? The most expensive space project ever by a huge margin?

But the Apollo program still went ahead. It was never cancelled before it actually got off the ground. Fact is Apollo did fly. It wanst so expensive it was beyond ever flying that's my point. Expensive as it was it was still affordable. USA could have afforded Apollo missions up today but Americans seem to prefer to spend money on bombs and 60 billion doller fighter plane programs that produce aircraft that burst into flames.

Anyway I re-edited my post as I got the figure wrong anyway it was quite abit less it seems.

Just to post again http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/big-engineering-36-oprion-project.html It gives the figure at a lot less.

Edited August 3, 2014 by crazyewok

[Kryten]

Just to post again http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/big-engineering-36-oprion-project.html It gives the figure at a lot less.

If that looks like a credible source to you, there is no hope.

[crazyewok]

If that looks like a credible source to you, there is no hope.

It backs up similar figures in the book Project Orion. Chapter a death of a project page 261

Gives the figure at 4.5 billion over 8/9 years.

What do you want me to do post photocopied copy righted material on the forum? I believe that is against the rules.

All I can do is post links to sights that say similar things.

But knowing you I could get the project leaders themselves to post here and say the same and it wont be good enough.

Edited August 3, 2014 by crazyewok

[Raptor831]

While you two are having fun, check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost

Frankly, Project Orion is the most kerbal rocket I can think of.

Anyway, back to the actual thread, I like the Constellation Mars mission. But that's probably because of this video, inspired by that plan:

Would have been amazing to see happen.

[Kryten]

While you two are having fun, check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost

That would work, if there was nothing in these crafts except fissile material. By that logic, Apollo would have cost $0.

[crazyewok]

Can we just discuss something else anyway?

[Raptor831]

That would work, if there was nothing in these crafts except fissile material. By that logic, Apollo would have cost $0.

Probably a bit easier to talk about the part that was relatively known (i.e. how to build an atomic bomb) than the unknown costs of building a ship to withstand said propulsion and/or the costs of fielding these crafts over some period of time.

And Apollo actually flew, so you can check the budget numbers. Which is a bit of apple and oranges when it comes to government-funded projects. Who knows what the cost might have been if Orion actually got approved.

[crazyewok]

Venture star is another one that should have gone through.

[TMS]

Project Daedalus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

Totally unrealistic in terms of the level of financing and co-operation it'd require, but I love that it's almost possible.

[Nuke]

i was quite fond of the dc-x vtvl ssto.

[Vanamonde]

Keep the discussion civil, please. There's no need to insult each other.

[TythosEternal]

The cancellation of the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) program still makes me cry a little bit inside every time I think of it.

Not only was it the first serious (more-than-imaging) exploration of Jupiter's moons, it was very ambitious. Why just explore Europa when you can take a look at Callisto and Ganymede, too? There were also a number of new technologies, such as a deep-space fission reactor plant, high-impulse Hall thrusters, ice-penetrating radar, and high-bandwidth interplanetary data transmission. Much of this was enabled by the unprecedented power availability provided by the power plant.

Despite all this, it was very do-able and had even started preliminary mission planning and acquisition contracts before it was cancelled. The rationale at the time was that manned space missions were more important (thanks, Constellation). Every NASA mission since then seems incredibly dull, unambitious, and risk-averse.

[goldenpeach]

the sea dragon.

Why?

For the simple reason it's the definition of kerbalness: the first stage stage has a thrust of 360 MN(that is, more than 10 Saturn V strapped together); all in one engine.

Also, it could lift 550 tons(metric) in a single launch and it would have a payload cost of $59 to $600 per kilogram(that's extremely cheap for today's standard).

[General Rarity]

China's 'Shuttle'

Shenzhou replaced it, from what i've read.

[xenomorph555]

I would have to say the cancelled Voskhod missions:

Live surgery in orbit, long van allen belt missions, artificial gravity experiments and FREAKIN JETBELTS!