By all accounts, the CEV, which is basically a capsule isn't much in the way of revolutionary. I suppose Nasa has basically decided that they are no longer interested in the whole idea of "Inexpensive routine access to orbit." Like they talked about the Shuttle, before it became apparent that it was nothing of the sort.

It has always seemed logical to me that the best way to achieve this dream would be with a horizontal take-off "space plane." Given the history of sub-orbital systems like the x-15, it doesn't seem *that* out there.

Usually what I hear is "that is unproven technology which does not exist."

Okay: So we would need to create new, innovative, untried and downright futuristic things that had not been done before. Remind me, NASA, Why do you exist?

From all the calculations and research I have done, and I have actually done a fair amount, it seems like a good portion of the systems needed have been tested on such things as the XB-70, SR-71, Shuttle, X-43 and such.

What seems possible would be a craft slightly heavier than the current orbiter (dry weight) and with a comparable crew capacity, though no large cargo area. Possibly a small bay for in-orbit repair supplies and so on. The craft would be larger than the shuttle, due to fuel requirements and weight would be reduced with a largely composite construction and techniques used on the 787 and some of the aircraft Burt Rutan has built.

It would take off using gas turbine engines, which at high enough speed would begin to shut down as air is directed around the turbines and into a chamber behind which initially acts as a sort of afterburner but eventually a full-fledged ramjet/scramjet. Upon reaching a high altitude and speed, rocket engines or even oxygen injection into the ramajet core would take over and finally some thrusters would achieve the proper orbit insertion.

The idea has been around for a long time and has the following obvious advantages:

1. More efficient take off than vertical launches. Uses aerodynamics to get past the most dense part of the atmosphere, where large amounts of fuel are used in rockets.

2. Saves dramatically by using more efficient jet engines. Reduces oxidizer needs.

3. Better launch windows and conditions - A spaceplane could cruise in "Aircraft mode" to the operated part of the globe for the most efficient orbital launch.

4. Safer landings - Natively lands like the shuttle, but with engines already avaliable and larger control surfaces, it would be more controllable and a band landing could be aborted.

5. Possibility of no need for large use-once components.



So could someone just explain why nasa is so deadset on using an apollo-esq capsule and won't consider ssto or spaceplane designs?

I know they're not tried and true, but these are the guys who went from the sub-orbital redstone rocket to haveing men walking on the surface of the moon in 8 years.