This has been bugging me for a while, but seeing as it was on BBC news today I felt like I had to bring this up.
So NASA has made a new prototype rocket to replace the shuttle, and I was confused about this because it seems to me that you'd want something re-usable, like the space shuttle, instead of a rocket you can only use once. After a bit of searching it turns out that NASA did indeed design such a space craft in the 1980's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-30 which could take off and land on a runway, however the project was scrapped, probably due to money.
Also, it turns out that the British also had a simmilar design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL, perhaps even better, due to the fact that the engine could use oxygen in the atmosphere to power its engines, and thus needed less liquid oxygen on-board, and so weighed less. This was also scrapped.
The designers of HOTOL have since formed their own company and refined the design,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon
So my question is this, what is the flaw in these designs? As far as I can tell, they're cheaper in fuel costs, and lighter, allowing you transport more equipment, they all take off and land on runways, and their re-usable, meaning you dont have to build a new one every time you want to send someone into space. So why have NASA not spent their money on something like this?
So NASA has made a new prototype rocket to replace the shuttle, and I was confused about this because it seems to me that you'd want something re-usable, like the space shuttle, instead of a rocket you can only use once. After a bit of searching it turns out that NASA did indeed design such a space craft in the 1980's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-30 which could take off and land on a runway, however the project was scrapped, probably due to money.
Also, it turns out that the British also had a simmilar design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL, perhaps even better, due to the fact that the engine could use oxygen in the atmosphere to power its engines, and thus needed less liquid oxygen on-board, and so weighed less. This was also scrapped.
The designers of HOTOL have since formed their own company and refined the design,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon
So my question is this, what is the flaw in these designs? As far as I can tell, they're cheaper in fuel costs, and lighter, allowing you transport more equipment, they all take off and land on runways, and their re-usable, meaning you dont have to build a new one every time you want to send someone into space. So why have NASA not spent their money on something like this?