SPACEFLIGHT REVOLUTION

Reviewed 2/20/2003

SPACEFLIGHT REVOLUTION David Ashford London: Imperial College Press, 2002				Rating: 5.0 High
ISBN 1-86094-325-X	182pp.	SC/BWI	$34.00

Questionable Statements

On page 25, Ashford says, "Two more projects came close to flying. The X-33 was an experimental sub-orbital spaceplane..." I would not describe the X-33 as being close to flying. But it is indisputable that hardware for it had been built.

He mentions four main space science disciplines for the ISS on page 36: astronomy, atmospheric science, Earth science, and microgravity. He omits the study of human physiological responses to weightlessness, which I would argue deserves to be included.

In discussing the high operational cost of the Space Shuttle on page 41, he never mentions the "standing army" required to launch it.

On page 48, comparing the total costs of the Sänger spaceplane design and a 747, he says the twelve flights per year for the spaceplane "compares with more than one million flights per year for a successful airliner design." Yes; but how many flights per vehicle? I assume just one Sänger spaceplane vs. hundreds of airliners of any given type. Therefore this is misleading.

Explaining why a demonstrator or prototype vehicle costs much less than a fully certified one to develop, he glosses over the matter of certification cost.

Comparing horizontal and vertical takeoff & landing, he says on page 128: "Moreover, the safety challenges with vertical landing using rockets are severe. Engine failure leads to potential loss of control {as} well as loss of lift." (Typo fixed; see below.) "Massive redundancy in engines, flight control systems, and propellant supply would be needed, probably backed up by emergency parachutes. The resulting certification cost is likely to be far greater than for a spaceplane that lands using wings to counter gravity." I question the language of this paragraph. Without dissecting it word by word, let me just say I think he "massively" overstates the design challenges of VTOVL spacecraft.

Errata:

Page 52:	"It can be adapted for used as a small space station, carrying a crew of three."
	S/B "adapted for use as" or "used as".

Page 59:	"Factories in orbit will provide near vacuum, near zero gravity, and low-cost power."
	Hyphens omitted; S/B "near-vacuum, near-zero gravity".

Page 59:	"Perhaps costume jewellery will be the first commercially significant product to be made in space."
	I assume "jewellery" is the British spelling.

Page 110:	The vertical axis of the graph is labeled "Development Cost, $m (2000)".
	I think this should be "$M".

Page 128:	Engine failure leads to potential loss of control and well as loss of lift."
	S/B "as well as".