CEV Devils advocate

JonClarke · Dec 8, 2005

So we should give the public what they want? What if they want something with wings? That lands on a runway? That is reusable? Should NASA give it to them? Technical decisions must be made by technical people. the public can chose the names. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

dobbins · Dec 8, 2005

The public didn't get bent out of shape over Gemini looking like a larger version of Mercury. The only complaints I've heard regarding the shape are from a hand full of hard core space plane junkies and the usual suspects who hate anything that has a man in it and who would quickly find a different excuse to oppose it if it had a different shape.

starfhury · Dec 8, 2005

I thought our chemical rockets were powerful enough to handle this situation. Already it sounds like this program is following the same path as those before it. I can't say I'm surprised. I think we need to break with tradition and start looking at designing better more powerful engines. But I don't see any money or research going into this most critical area. Is it any wonder why every proposal is running into problems? We plain need better rocket motors. Better rocket motors will alleviate a lot of the current issues we are facing. Perhaps developing the aerospike engine might give us that extra margin we need to build the kind of systems we need with out always being obsessed with weight penality. The current program has little if any provisio to develop better systems at all. I think this is one of the biggest downside to the CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/051019_ipd.html

digitalman2 · Dec 9, 2005

I wonder if the problem might have more to do with reentry than launch?

mattblack · Dec 9, 2005

>>The public didn't get bent out of shape over Gemini looking like a larger version of Mercury. The only complaints I've heard regarding the shape are from a hand full of hard core space plane junkies and the usual suspects who hate anything that has a man in it and who would quickly find a different excuse to oppose it if it had a different shape.<< YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mlorrey · Dec 9, 2005

Dobbins sayeth: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"An engineer must consider what a customer wants." 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. <hr /></blockquote> Then why do you always assume that other peoples information, ideas, and opinions are idiotic? That is the impression people get here by your posts. Which is the real Dobbins?

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

??????? I make a statement that people aren't idiots and you make an accusation that I'm calling people and their ideas idiotic??? Where on Earth did you get that one from?

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

Dude the cold war was for 1945 to 1987. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>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? < What do you think we did with the shuttle? The Air Force demanded that the Shuttle orbiter have wings. Part of their position is that it look like a plane (ie Air Frocey) rather than something else (Naval). Remember at that time people were hungry for Start Trek, which Star Fleet had a bit of a Naval architeture in its ranks. So yes we have used looks for other than engineering reasons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>NASA 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.< Thanks Shuttle_guy. We shall see the outcome when its done. "When will it be done?" the pope. "When it is done!" Micheal Angelo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

mlorrey · Dec 9, 2005

Because, Dobbins, your statement about yourself does not jive with your behavior on these message boards. You regularly denigrate, criticize, put down, mock, scorn, and attack others or their ideas here. So, unless you think all space enthusiasts are idiots while the rest of the human race is peachy keen, /*ad hominem deleted)*/ I don't know how that was an ad hominem, but the point is that he doesn't practice what he preaches.

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

Oh yeah Dobbins. Good link. It will be good to have more efficient engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>What next? Public votes on warship designs for the navy on the basis of aesthetics, coolness, pugnacity? < It is a bizarre realm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>The public didn't get bent out of shape over Gemini looking like a larger version of Mercury. The only complaints I've heard regarding the shape are from a hand full of hard core space plane junkies and the usual suspects who hate anything that has a man in it and who would quickly find a different excuse to oppose it if it had a different shape. < Don't forget that the origional 7 astronauts demanded a window, much to the dismay of the engineers. This was for their image as test pilots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>So we should give the public what they want? What if they want something with wings? That lands on a runway? That is reusable? Should NASA give it to them? < Perhaps not. But make it palatable to the public. I heard a lot of moans and groans even on this forum when the new plan to the moon came out. It took myself a few days to warm up to it because it looked so much like Apollo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>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. < They did at the beginning, then opted to not have paint later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 9, 2005

>The question is 'why do we have to go back to the moon with this program now?' There really is no urgency to do it.< I beg the differ. You want to go now before the earlier guys who did it before die or get altimers. You need thier knowhow. That way you won't be retracing steps. We left the moon at the time when we were starting to explore it geologically and there is a lot of work to be done. Lots of questions to answer, lots of resources to use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

"Don't forget that the origional 7 astronauts demanded a window, much to the dismay of the engineers. This was for their image as test pilots." The original 7 Astronauts were Engineers. Scott Carpenter, BS Aeronautical Engineering Gordon Cooper, BS Aeronautical Engineering John Glenn, BS Engineering Gus Grissom, BS Mechanical Engineering Wally Schirra, BS Engineering Alan Shepard, BS Engineering Deke Slayton, BS Aeronautical Engineering The periscope was inadequate for flying the capsule. Pointing out things like that is part of a test pilot's job.

dobbins · Dec 9, 2005

"What do you think we did with the shuttle? The Air Force demanded that the Shuttle orbiter have wings." No the shuttle design had wings from the start. The Air Force wanted a larger payload and a cross range capability that would allow for a return to Vandenberg AFB after a single polar orbit in abort mode. Both of these requirements resulted in larger wings.

mlorrey · Dec 9, 2005

How would a periscope have any LESS field of view than a small porthole on one side of the craft? It wasn't like they were bringing it in for a landing anywhere, and the window was useless for rendezvous and docking work. The objection to the periscope was that they were all aviators, not submariners.

Swampcat · Dec 9, 2005

"This was for their image as test pilots." Just curious...do you have some proof of that statement. Could it be that they wanted to be able to see what was outside the capsule? Windows certainly weren't put there because they are cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

drwayne · Dec 9, 2005

"How would a periscope have any LESS field of view than a small porthole on one side of the craft?" Optically, a periscope used in that way probably would have a significantly smaller field of view that a window. Depending on the freedom to move the periscope, it might have a large field of regard however. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

JonClarke · Dec 9, 2005

"Perhaps not. But make it palatable to the public. I heard a lot of moans and groans even on this forum when the new plan to the moon came out. It took myself a few days to warm up to it because it looked so much like Apollo" That is why NASA has PR officers, to tell the public what they want. They did a good job in selling the shuttle, they can do a good job selling the CEV. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

viper101 · Dec 9, 2005

"I beg the differ. You want to go now before the earlier guys who did it before die or get altimers. You need thier knowhow. That way you won't be retracing steps. We left the moon at the time when we were starting to explore it geologically and there is a lot of work to be done. Lots of questions to answer, lots of resources to use." -Holmec, do you think there will be many of the old-crew participating? We are talking 40 years ago already.

CEV Devils advocate

JonClarke

Guest

dobbins

Guest

starfhury

Guest

dobbins

Guest

digitalman2

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

dobbins

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

dobbins

Guest

dobbins

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

drwayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

viper101

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page