Just quit your repeating of the same old tired lines that are not even close to the truth.

“Of course, now that the Shuttle program is ending, we’ll have a chance to reset the clock and try again. So far the proposals by SNC (Dream Chaser) and Orbital Sciences blended lifting body look like what NASA should done back in the 1970′s – I hope they end make it.”

If you look at this article:

http://www.universetoday.com/81819/numerous-companies-propose-possible-space-taxi/

To me it looked like, the airforce gets the orbital space plane, NASA gets dream chaser and commercial gets the two capsules.

“What was certainly missing from the Shuttle concept was a constant evolution based on lessons learned.”

I think in large measure that was because it was too big, and therefore too expensive, to tinker any of the major elements elements of the system once they were developed.

In addition, crew safety and having shuttle on the critical path for national payloads made the program very risk adverse in a way that an unmanned X-plane would not have been.

“Of course, now that the Shuttle program is ending, we’ll have a chance to reset the clock and try again. So far the proposals by SNC (Dream Chaser) and Orbital Sciences blended lifting body look like what NASA should done back in the 1970′s – I hope they end make it.”

I was thinking the same thing about X-37. The next step would be to add a reusable/flyback first stage and start evolving from there.

“Agreed, I would have prefered the HL20 and the HL42 with a manned flyback booster, if it would have been cost effective or unmanned if the technology would have been there in the 70′s.”

What was certainly missing from the Shuttle concept was a constant evolution based on lessons learned. If you look at any successful transportation vehicle, most likely it evolved from numerous previous versions. The Shuttle was a giant step up, but was never evolved past that point.

If they had separated the crew and cargo aspects of the Shuttle, then maybe we would have evolved the crew portion to something more robust and capable. That probably would have cut back on the construction shack benefits that the Shuttle has provided, but overall we would have avoided the dead-end design we have today.

Of course, now that the Shuttle program is ending, we’ll have a chance to reset the clock and try again. So far the proposals by SNC (Dream Chaser) and Orbital Sciences blended lifting body look like what NASA should done back in the 1970’s – I hope they end make it.

“I agree with your points and would suggest another:

No one had any experience with an operational RLV and yet they tried to make a leap directly from expendables to an RLV in one step. NASA should have cut its teeth and made its mistakes with a smaller RLV – one that could have been modified faster and cheaper – before building an operational vehicle.”

Agreed, I would have prefered the HL20 and the HL42 with a manned flyback booster, if it would have been cost effective or unmanned if the technology would have been there in the 70’s. The manned flyback booster would have been more palpable to NASA as their astronauts prefer having their hand on the stick.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6567709.stm

It didn’t include anything on GCR but focused on solar.

To the contrary, you have misrepresented my argument by accusing me of conflating GCR and solar radiation when it was your post that failed the make the distinction in the first place. Nothing in my post was either false or misleading and I am not responsible for you reading things into my remarks.

I did not say they were the same thing, only that the same composite materials that adequately protect against solar radiation also do not increase the backscatter radiation from GCR impact.

The simple fact of the matter is that we do not have the technology for electromagnetic shielding against GCR and the mass requirements for physical shielding are cost prohibitive. I think the best we can do is ensure ALARA levels of exposure with the systems we have available and accept the risks we cannot mitigate. Otherwise, no one is going anywhere for a long time to come.

Greyroger/Gary Church misconceptions

1. HLV’s are needed
2. NASA can get more money from the DOD. (NASA’s budget has nothing to do the DOD’s. Reducing the DOD’s is not going to increase NASA’s)
3. Exploration is not going to happen via several hundred metric tons vehicles powered by nuclear power