Apollo Vs CEV?

[cdr6]

What with all the hyperbole about the CEV and it's design would we be better off cost/time wise just restarting Apollo?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

No, not really. The only useful part now would be the basic shape of the CM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[jurgens]

nope.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">nope. </font><br /><br />Why not? Apollo CM had everything you needed, which is really just two things. <br /><br />1. Pressurized docking that could handle significant thrust. <br /><br />2. Survive highspeed re-entry.<br /><br />What else do you need? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Chalk and Cheese should Lockheed Martin's design win...given it's a lifting body design.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Chalk and Cheese...</font><br /><br />I'm going to show my ignorance here, but what does that mean? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Sorry...as in they are different animals (the LockMart CEV and Apollo)

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What else do you need?</font>/i><br /><br />A cold war, a presidential commitment, a space race, and a giant budget.</i>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">A cold war, a presidential commitment, a space race, and a giant budget.</font><br /><br />The word I believe you're looking for is "funding". I'm talking about technical requiremnts, not funding requiremnts. Besides, today's Apollo wouldn't need a huge budget, the expensive stuff has already been paid for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Sorry...as in they are different animals (the LockMart CEV and Apollo) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The equivalent expression I'm familiar with is "apples and oranges" (as in, "like comparing apples to oranges"). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Apollo wouldn't need a huge budget, the expensive stuff has already been paid for.</font>/i><br /><br />Jeffery Bell made a pretty decent argument that the CEV approach being promoted by NASA is pretty much the same as the Apollo approach. The table about a quarter way into the article comparing the names of the Apollo effort and Constellation effort summarizes it nicely.<br /><br />Having said that (1) I think starting Apollo would be too expensive, (2) Apollo was not a good model, and (3) the shuttle is not a good model.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(1) Restarting Apollo Too Expensive</font>/b><br /><br />There are no blueprints for the Saturn rocket (one frequently reads that the blueprints were destroyed as part of the shuttle deal), the human expertise is pretty much gone, and the manufacturing capability is gone.<br /><br />Even extending the EELVs or building a shuttle-derived system (for which there are blueprints, expertise, and manufacturing capability) will be a very expensive and time consuming process.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(2) Apollo Approach Is Too Expensive</font>/b><br /><br />Even before Apollo 11 launched, NASA's budget was being cut back. Even with the blueprints in hand, expertise in place, and manufacturing capability in place the Apollo program was considered too expensive. Part of the argument as to why it is was so expensive was that virtually all of the very large system was thrown away each time.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(3) Shuttle Approach Is Too Expensive</font>/b><br /><br />Whereas all of each Apollo launch was used only once, the shuttle system reuses most of its components (orbiter & SRB), only the external tank is used only once. However, as history has shown, it is still very expensive to launch.<br /><br />Today the primary argument for the high cost of the shuttle</b></b></b></i>

 

[gofer]

Those are good points. I've read in a The Space Review article that one launch of the Saturn V cost about $2.4 billion in the 2004 dollars! Can you imagin today's NASA bearing these costs? Add the costs of restoring the tooling, the engineering knowledge, adjusting to the modern technological processes, etc... and also the Engines! The F-1, (man those were Great engines!, simple (/edit relatively low chamber pressure=simple turbopump, the whole thing just a bucket with some plumbing piping really), reliable (2,000 secs of firings / 20 restarts on the test stand!**), relatively inexpensive, high thrust, moderate ISP, kerosene, perfect for the first stage...), and also the J-2... Unfortunatly making high thrust liquid engines seems all but a lost art nowdays. Anyway I agree not much would fit todays budgets and demands of finer architecture. The CM, many LM sub-systems, basic capsule shapes, the moon rover, etc... could be very useful though. <br /><br />[edit] ** this test was done on one qualification F-1 production copy as I recall

 

[gofer]

And also of course we want do develop some sort of self sustaining competitive market that has its own reasons for private citizens to go into and stay in space, rather than do a hurry up single-minded "must land on the moon this decade" government only program. (that's my personal view of the VSE goals, anyway)

 

[najab]

><i>...one frequently reads that the blueprints were destroyed as part of the shuttle deal...</i><p>One also frequently reads that Elvis is alive and that the Moon is made of green cheese.</p>

 

[nacnud]

I thought is was wensleydale? (Wallace and Grommit)

 

[drwayne]

To amplify on what najaB stated - the blueprints are NOT gone. That is an urban legend.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">To amplify on what najaB stated - the blueprints are NOT gone. That is an urban legend.</font>/i><br /><br />That is good to hear. I phrased it the way I did because I had my doubts about at least the reasoning behind the lack of blueprints (i.e., part of a shuttle deal). It didn't make much sense to me, but I have heard/read this many times.<br /><br />I think there would be historical value to digitize as much of this as possible and put it online. I have started using archive.org for various research issues, and I think a government version (i.e., one that preserves more data than archive.org does) would be incredibly valuable to future historians, newgroupies, etc.</i>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I thought is was wensleydale? (Wallace and Grommit)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />WALLACE: Camembert?<br />Gromit shakes his head<br />WALLACE: Stilton!<br />Gromit shakes his head again<br />WALLACE: I dunno -- it's like no cheese I've ever tasted.<br /><br />So it's not Wensleydale, although that's Wallace's favorite. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I think you guys got me wrong. I'm not saying to start rebuilding 40 year old capsules as the best way to go, I'm saying that it would work, but I don't think it's the best option. <br /><br />I saw this thread as a "Could we?", rather than a "Should we?" thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"But a lot of the companies that made the stuff are gone"<br /><br />And the people. And the memories. Not everything gets captured on blueprints.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cdr6]

I was refering to just utilizing the Command & Service Modules. Sadly the Saturn V has gone the way of the Dodo. <br /><br />"Glass Cockpit" mods are done as a matter of course in the commercial aerospace industry as are modular up grades. The whole airmachine is not reinvented as a result. (Even back circa 1986 NASA-Ames did such a mod on their DC-8.) While at the sametime they also operated both a UH-1H helicopter, and a Cessna 402 with what could be considered a partial "Glass Cockpit"/instrument panel modifications. Inthe case of the 402 this included early voice recoginition coupled with a "touch screen" CRT. (In both examples, half of the panel remained as a standard panel for the "safety" pilot use.)<br /><br />I don't believe the Apollo cm/sm hardware was "sole source procrument". However, some of the manufacturers most likely have gone, but suitable substitutes could most likely be found. <br /><br />The missions for the CEV and Apollo/Apollo Applications are very much alike. (Earth orbit /ISS and return to the moon are made to fit...why reinvent the wheel?) To go to Mars, is another animal altogether, and CEV in what ever form, is just not up to the task.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"What with all the hyperbole about the CEV and it's design would we be better off cost/time wise just restarting Apollo?"<br /><br /><br /><br />First off you are right to compare the Apollo to the CEV. Some people don't seem to grasp the current CEV requirements are designed for lunar missions not LEO missions. For example, there is no requirement for the CEV to be able to dock with the ISS!<br /><br />There is something however I think you need to know when comparing the Apollo to the CEV. The Apollo, to achieve it's lunar mission, was designed around the capabilities of the Saturn V launch vehicle and the mission architecture choice of single-launch low-lunar-orbit-rendevous.<br /><br />Since NASA no longer has the Saturn V, the CEV is designed around the limitation of the EELV instead. CEV mission architecture, mutiple launch earth orbit rendevous, is also designed around the limitations of the EELV. Plus NASA decided it needed a roomier 4 man design than the cramped 3 man Apollo.<br /><br />You also must understand that the Apollo design was frozen around 1962 and it had to in order to meet the crash program goal of landing a man on the moon within ten years. There were better ideas and methods already around, although some not developed into flying hardware, at the time of the first moon landings. Nowadays without the pressure of a crash program NASA has the leisure of trying to do things right at the start intead of trying to do things fast and cutting corners.<br /><br />The mantra of Apollo was fast-faster-fastest, beat those commies to the Moon! The new CEV goal is economy, safety, and sustainability, or steady as she goes.

 

[drwayne]

It is interesting that Apollo did not get to learn as much from Mercury as Gemini did, because Gemini was later in the development timeline.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cdr6]

True enough the Apollo was designed around SA 5, however. There were mods and proposals in the works for it to do many other programs/missions. <br /><br />I think that we are lookling at it sort of "defacto" as a support vehicle/ escape system for ISS. Since nothing is else is in the works at present. <br /><br />In the late eightys a larger Apollo (the 5% Apollo) capsule was under consideration for that era's return to the moon effort AWST ran series of articles on the effort. <br /><br />Not to long after the loss of Columbia the astronaut office took a look at reopening the production of Apollo, for use on the Delta series "heavy" lifter. It would be interesting to read their report/conclusions. I believe research team was headed by John Young...<br /><br />Yes the base design was frozen early on, but the design did go through several major upgrades (or blocks) before Apollo/Skylab splashed down with the design's last flight. <br /><br />Apollo is a very flexable machine, its flight charastics and problems/limitations are well known. I think it would make a good starting point for future vehicles. <br /><br />I don't think the CEV mission is best served by a clean sheet approach. Why reinvent the wheel every 20 years? It works, it's utilitarian, it is a known commodity, and it will not cost as much as a new machine...(the design is already man rated) (Your not a hand-wringer and neither am I.) <br /><br />I mean we are just talking basic transportation here...so lets just build the thing and get on with it. We've got bigger fish to fry, namely the Moon and Mars.

 

[mattblack]

The aerodynamic shape and basic center-of-gravity of the Apollo CM is still useful. People are nostalgic for the basic design because they imagine a slightly scaled-up version to accomodate 5 or 6 Astronauts. If you couple this with more modern composite and other materials, along with lightweight, compact computers; you'd have a very attractive and capable vehicle. If you combined this with a Service Module that was a short "Block 1" for LEO missions fuelled by hypergolics, then you'd have a ship that could be used for crew transport to I.S.S. or as an I.S.S. lifeboat.<br /><br />With a longer, Block 2 Service Module, fuelled by LOX/CH4, you'd have an excellent Lunar mission vehicle. But also, using LOX and Methane puts the vehicle on the path for Mars ISRU, particularly if you've got a heavy enough launcher (SDV?) to have a large "monolithic" all-in-one Ascent/Descent ship weighing perhaps 40 tons. Such a vehicle could take a 4-6 person crew from and to an Earth Return Vehicle in Martian orbit, or from the Earth to the Moon directly; heat shielded CM included. But only with a true HLV and not a namby-pamby 20-ton EELV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>