Yes there is a difference. Did the Space Shuttle become an aircraft on re-entry. In a technical and/or designation sense?

Hypothetically was/will the Starship Enterprise be an aircraft when entered into an atmosphere.

Is the difference about power using O2 from the atmosphere with fuel or not O2?

Watercraft- craft designed to operate in water.

Aircraft- craft designed to operate in air.

Spacecraft- craft designed to operate in space.

Putting the Queen Mary in orbit doesn't make it a spacecraft.

The space shuttle was designed for space. It only transits the aptmosphere to get from and to its working environment, unless you also believe it becomes an automobile when wheels touch runway.

It's a spacecraft.

I remember reading that, early on in the Shuttle program, NASA had a policy of being very careful to refer to the Shuttle Orbiter as a "spacecraft" rather than an "aircraft."

The reason was to avoid conflict with law(s) prohibiting "aircraft" from supersonic flight over land during reentry.

I don't think the technical distinctions are so cut and dried or based upon the method of propulsion. The X-15 was rocket powered, and an "aircraft." It also glided back to Earth.

A conventional glider has no power (except gravity via the tow) and is an "aircraft."

The shuttle was a bit of both + able to go into low earth orbit, and not spectacularly efficient at any of it.

The Space Shuttle was less of an aircraft during reentry, more of a falling brick.

What about the X-15? Little bit aircraft little bit spacey. It's flown in space, so it's both. Also the fastest airplane ever flown.

Well that was a misrepresentation of a title. Was hoping for grainy video of an F35 vs UFO.

quote:

Originally posted by Sock Eating Golden:
The Space Shuttle was less of an aircraft during reentry, more of a falling brick.

This, the Space Shuttle never flew, it was falling with style.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
Watercraft- craft designed to operate in water.

Aircraft- craft designed to operate in air.

Spacecraft- craft designed to operate in space.

Putting the Queen Mary in orbit doesn't make it a spacecraft.

But...but...but...

That is one old anime.

How would you classify the hover-carrier in Avengers ?

quote:

Originally posted by SBrooks:
How would you classify the hover-carrier in Avengers ?

No different than a helicopter with pontoons or other amphibious helicopters.

quote:

unless you also believe it becomes an automobile when wheels touch runway.

Beep beep!

I think part of this is because we are at the tricky point where almost all our spacecraft must be atmospheric. The only true manned space only craft we've made are LEM modules from the Apollo missions.

But I imagine if we ever start traveling through the stars we will have spacecraft that can only transit space, while we will have various other craft that are capable of atmospheric entry in addition to space flight. And we will most like develop a term to encompass those.

Sort of like how we have a term for land, or air vehicles that are capable of operations in water.

They (which are both air and space vehicles) are properly called aerospace craft/vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by PPGMD:
I think part of this is because we are at the tricky point where almost all our spacecraft must be atmospheric. The only true manned space only craft we've made are LEM modules from the Apollo missions.

But I imagine if we ever start traveling through the stars we will have spacecraft that can only transit space, while we will have various other craft that are capable of atmospheric entry in addition to space flight. And we will most like develop a term to encompass those.

Sort of like how we have a term for land, or air vehicles that are capable of operations in water.

Inter-atmospheric craft? To refer to a craft that can transit atmosphere but is designed to fly from planet to planet?

Intra-atmospheric craft? To refer to a craft that can transit vacuum but is really a shuttle from planetside to a spacebound craft?

I think it has to do with where they are designed to operate. ALL current spacecraft must transit the atmosphere (at least one way), so calling the ISS an 'aircraft' is just silly, IMO. Even the Apollo project's LEM (the only spacecraft flown that was designed to never operate in Earths atmosphere) had to transit the atmosphere on its way into orbit.

So, that makes the space shuttle a 'spacecraft' that had to be able to transit the atmosphere. Besides, it could not sustain flight in the air, unlike traditional gliders that can utilize updrafts to gain altitude. It was only capable of trading altitude for speed and distance. This is little different, in theory, from the Apollo (and other) capsules who used parachutes to make a controlled descent through the air to a landing site.

IMO, the type of propulsion is irrelevant. As stated, there were rocket planes that didn't use atmospheric oxygen (X-15, X-1, Me-163). These were all aircraft, though the X-15 was a hybrid, in that their pilots who flew high enough qualified as astronauts. Somebody could swap out the piston engine for a rocket motor on a Cessna 172, but that doesn't make it a 'spacecraft.'. .

As far as the Star Trek example, those are clearly spacecraft that can operate in atmospheres. Their entire reason for existing is for space flight (hence the very fragile designs, with engine nacelles and main saucer sections on those impossibly slender pylons).

Space Battleship Yamato, as the name implies, is a spaceship that can transit atmospheres.

None of the spacecraft listed above, with the exception of the X-15,'operate' in the air; they simply 'transit' the air. THIS is the key distinction, IMO. Just like a taxiing 747 isn't an automobile; it is an aircraft that only transits the ground to get to/from its true operating environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Even the Apollo project's LEM (the only spacecraft flown that was designed to never operate in Earths atmosphere) had to transit the atmosphere on its way into orbit.

I would argue that the LEM was cargo within another spacecraft.

quote:

Originally posted by PPGMD:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Even the Apollo project's LEM (the only spacecraft flown that was designed to never operate in Earths atmosphere) had to transit the atmosphere on its way into orbit.

I would argue that the LEM was cargo within another spacecraft.

During transit, yes. Once it separated from the CM, it flew to, landed on, and returned to orbit from the moon quite autonomously. It flew freely in space, and was unhindered by any compromises of having to transit atmospheres (no heat shield, parachutes, etc).

Apparently, space stations are somehow classified differently. That line I quoted about the LEM being the only spacecraft designed to operate solely in space doesn't take space stations into account. They can maneuver autonomously in space and aren't designed to transit the atmosphere. I don't know how NASA or other space agencies differentiate between 'spacecraft' and 'space stations.'. . I could argue that ISS is a more 'pure' example of a spacecraft than the space shuttle is. But, that is a different conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
During transit, yes. Once it separated from the CM, it flew to, landed on, and returned to orbit from the moon quite autonomously. It flew freely in space, and was unhindered by any compromises of having to transit atmospheres (no heat shield, parachutes, etc).

I meant during the launch it was cargo.

quote:

Apparently, space stations are somehow classified differently. That line I quoted about the LEM being the only spacecraft designed to operate solely in space doesn't take space stations into account. They can maneuver autonomously in space and aren't designed to transit the atmosphere. I don't know how NASA or other space agencies differentiate between 'spacecraft' and 'space stations.'. . I could argue that ISS is a more 'pure' example of a spacecraft than the space shuttle is. But, that is a different conversation.

Sort of like how a buoy or a floating drilling platform aren't considered to be watercraft. I think the most important aspect of being an XXXcraft is the ability to transit where it wants to go without an external craft providing thrust.

PPGMD has it right.

The LEM was just cargo on the way up. Just like any other things designed to operation only in space but get boosted through the atmosphere (satellites, probes, etc).