CEV Devils advocate

[dobbins]

" it's a fork down a road we will be forced to retrace our steps."<br /><br />Retrace our steps? What in Hades do you think we have been doing for the last 33 years? Retracing the steps we took with Mercury, endlessly going in the same old circles over and over. And you want to do that for a couple of more decades?<br /><br />It's long past time to move on, we should have started a return to the Moon as the first step towards exploration of the inner solar system a decade ago instead of wasting time and money on the ISS. We should be there now instead of wondering if the Shuttle will fly next May.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

>Make no mistake, I'm not saying we should scrap the human program, I'm looking for a robust answer as to what humans can do.<br /><br />Humans can breed. That is the fundamental difference: we can create new societies, new populations in new places. Robots can't breed. Robots are tools, they do not create new societies, art or make discoveries without their masters at the controls. <br /><br />The perpetual pandering to science has kept us going in circles for 30 years. We should be colonizing (or developing towards) instead of researching. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"NASA has to show it will use a comercal CATS option and the only way a venture capitalist is going to investin making that happen is if he can see NASA spending the money and going rather than just saying they will."</font><br /><br />On that note -- /> Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstrations.<br /><br />Also, those who need a little more inspiration concerning US human space exploration should read this speech by Dr. Griffin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Good news <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, this plus the Americas Space Prize plus possible tourist flights almost looks like a market <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">- You fail to take into account that for the same money as a human mission you can place between 10 and 20 robots on the moon. A single robot may or may not be as capable as a human, but a flotilla of 10 or 20 can be. </font><br /><br />hmmmm... shades of dear ol' Gaetanamarano (did I spell that right?), and his notion of flooding the moon with legions of robot explorers. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Whatever happened to him anyway, one wonders?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

He is back, see the kliper thread.

 

[holmec]

>Nasa needs to do something to engross the publics attention and frankly this will not do the trick. <<br /><br />I hear you. The CEV, visually speaking, seems to be been there done that. We should make it look different from Apollo, otherwise people will think its Apollo all over again and there will be the question "Didn't we already do this?". But we know the CEV is very different from Apollo capsule in space, material, navigation, payload etc. But to communicate this to the public at large, it needs to look differnt from Apollo.<br /><br />We made Apollo look like it does to resemble the tip of a missle. The Russians didn't to this. So we don't have to make the CEV conical. What I think people would understand and be more familiar with is a spacecraft that resembles a cockpit of an airliner, or a minivan. In other words make the insides look like the shuttle cockpit (ie the seats look upwards a the launchpad, and the floor of the capsule is a floor and below it is the heat shield), and the exterior without wings. Give it a windshield upfront like th shuttle. It doesn't have to be big, just something people can idetify with.<br /><br />Just some suggestions. Maybe NASA needs an architect to give it the otward appearance the public can stand behind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Let the engineers decide on the engineering. PR can make the misson patches.

 

[holmec]

Sure but its PR that's going to pay the engineers. Don't forget the people!!! or you'll be sorry. <br /><br />Besides engineers are not architects. Engineers make things work, and are not concerened with how the public will react, and architect does.<br /><br />By the way is it an engineer that makes the asthetics of a plane? Maybe will it is, I just don't know. But whoever it is its a different function than trying to make the craft light enough. It has to be applealing to the eyes. And... I might add that airplane competitors make their planes look different from each other. So you can ID a Boeing from an Airbus. I guarantee you that the basic looks of the craft came before any engineering was performed. But its the engineering that can modify the looks somewhat to overcome some difficulty.<br /><br />It s a new era, we need a different looking CEV than Apollo. The Apollo capsule can remind Europeans of the Cold War and NASA might alianate them without meaning to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Using a less efficient design so it looks cool is just asking for a public relations nightmare. Should we do like a 1950s Auto designer and stick big tail fins, 500 pounds of chrome, and a hood ornament on the thing?<br /><br />

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">We made Apollo look like it does to resemble the tip of a missle. The Russians didn't to this.</font><br /><br />Oh yeah? Take another look.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/r/r7cut.gif<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/shrouds.gif<br /><br />So we put a payload shroud around the CEV and make it look all cool like. Maybe paint it purple. Or, we could just follow the auto industry trends (VW New Beetle, Ford Mustang, Ford GT, PT Cruiser, etc) and say the CEV is retro-chic.

 

[rocketman5000]

An engineer must consider what a customer wants. If there would be drastically more public support to make the thing look new, but not substantially change the functionality of the spacecraft it would be well worth it

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">and a hood ornament on the thing?</font>/i><br /><br />Well, maybe the hood ornament.</i>

 

[dobbins]

"An engineer must consider what a customer wants."<br /><br />I don't make the assumption that the American Public is a pack of idiots that are only impressed by gadgets and fluff. I consider that attitude to be elitist.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Using a less efficient design so it looks cool is just asking for a public relations nightmare<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's true. The current conical design is a less efficient design, hence NASA is already getting a public relations nightmare.<br /><br />If NASA went with a more efficient design, we'd have a Soyuz style headlamp shaped capsule.

 

[dobbins]

The Soyuz design introduces complexities with a shroud and the LES.<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

>Oh yeah? Take another look. <<br /><br />Yep I was right, the cone is above the Soyuz capsule, while the Apollo was the cone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I don't make the assumption that the American Public is a pack of idiots that are only impressed by gadgets and fluff. I consider that attitude to be elitist.<<br /><br />Hey I don't like it either, but there exists a whole industry on Marketing that brings home this fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Look, what if you made the Capusle more bulbous? Give it a curve or something, something small that says "This is a new space craft". Besides a curve on the sides of the capsule will probably make it more aerodynamically more effeciant, and may make the inside a couple of inches bigger.<br /><br />Personally I thought Gemini capsule was more appealing than the Apollo capsule.<br /><br />By the way, the solar panels on the service module helps...a lot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I find the idea that public opinion should govern the configuration of spacecraft quite bizzare. I can see it now....<br /><br />The public wants tracks on Mars rovers, they look much more effective than wheels!<br /><br />Spacecraft had better looked streamlined, they handle the solar wind better!<br /><br />And...... All real spacecraft have wings. Capsules are SOOO ulgy! <br /><br />What next? Public votes on warship designs for the navy on the basis of aesthetics, coolness, pugnacity? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

The Apollo capsule has sloping sides with angles precisely determined so that it can bank during reentry to provide lift and reduce the g forces from a direct lunar trajectory to something tolerable for humans. Nothing is done just for the hell of it! The Soyuz's curved sides give a little more interior volume--which is good 'cause the cosmonauts are crammed inside in what is practically a fetal position to begin with--but at the expense of angle of attack. The Soyuz cannot bank as much as the Apollo shape (since its curved sides would protrude into the reentry plasma) and would have to do a technically difficult "skip" reentry if returning on a free trajectory from the moon. I believe the Soviets tried the skip maneuver several times with unmanned capsules and lost them every time. I could be wrong though maybe some test were successes.<br /><br />Why change the Apollo shape at all? Do you drive a car with 3 or 5 wheels just because 4 is "old and boring"? Hundreds of millions of dollars went into designing the Apollo capsule to do the job of returning people from the moon. Why dump all that R&D just to look "cool"! Thats stupid. Life ain't a video game dude. Making a "cool" spaceship in the real world takes more than a couple of hours at a graphics work station--especially if you are asking people to risk their lives in the thing!

 

[carp]

"The Apollo capsule can remind Europeans of the Cold War"-----------------------Cold War? 60s?..Economic Boom,dolce vita,young Sophia Loren,Vespa e cappuccino,oscar at Fellini.....YES!!!!!!! CEV! CEV,CEV!!

 

[gawin]

"I find the idea that public opinion should govern the configuration of spacecraft quite bizzare. "<br /><br />Public opinion governs funding. If you try and tell the public that your going to spend billions of dollars to build a new capsule to do what you have already done in virtually the same manner as before they simply are not going to be willing to fund it. No funding = no craft at all. <br /><br />NASA needs to either make it look like a new design or at least educate the people as to how this is newer and better then before to convince them that spending this money is truly a step forward.<br /><br />I speak with many of my friends on this very subject. Those that follow the space program are all for it. Those that were either around in the 60's when it was done or those that don't follow it at all are very against the idea.<br /><br />One other thing NASA needs to do if they want public support IMHO is paint that darn orange tank on the models they show the public. As of rite now all the public can see is the same orange tank that caused one shuttle to be destroyed and cost billions to redesign only to have it fail again.<br /><br />Lastly they NEED to come up with a name that will catch the publics attention!!!! CEV is typical govt crap and that's what they will see. The single most talked about space launch this last year has been Deep Impact. It was a name that the average person can get a handel on. People also talk about Spirit and Opportunity but never mention Sojourner. People need to be able to associate with the name. Basically NASA needs a lesson in marketing. Even microsoft comes up with catchy names for their prototype software years before it becomes available.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">ASA is having second thoughts about the Apollo design. The 5.5 meter diameter is causing some concerns with weight for the volume vs a double conic shape similar to the Soyuz but larger. They also may back off from the LOX/Methane SM propulsion due to the technology not being ready for prime time.<br /><br /><font color="white">Really, wow. I though the ESAS had sorted all that out. What gives?</font></font>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">One other thing NASA needs to do if they want public support IMHO is paint that darn orange tank on the models they show the public. As of rite now all the public can see is the same orange tank that caused one shuttle to be destroyed and cost billions to redesign only to have it fail again. <br /><br /><font color="white">Put a couple of UV lamps under it as well, maybe some trick suspention <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Agree about the name though, CEV CLV HLV arn't great.</font></font>