CEV Devils advocate

[holmec]

>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. <<br /><br />The shuttle didn't have wings from the start. It was going to be a lifting body. That's why all the flight tests of lifting bodies. The Air Force wanted wings. <br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html<br /><br /> />The information the lifting body program generated contributed to the data base that led to development of the space shuttle program.<<br /><br />Ok you may say that was before the Shuttle Program. True, but this is the prelimary tests and thinking of the Shuttle Program before it started, ie the Shuttle Program is the brain child of the lifting body, so to speak. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

"The shuttle didn't have wings from the start. It was going to be a lifting body. That's why all the flight tests of lifting bodies. The Air Force wanted wings."<br /><br />Max Faget wanted wings, and that is what mattered at NASA. The original design was Faget's DC3.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm<br />

 

[holmec]

True true, but that was after the lifting bodies so your<br />"The original design was Faget's DC3. " is not correct. <br /><br />Besides, Faget's design is one of many. For me the origional design intention was the lifting body, mostly because they actually put them together and flew them.<br /><br />I must say I heard that the Air Force demanded a winged design like Faget's but I cannot prove it. I think it was when they were initially started the Shuttle Program talks because the Air Force was going to be a big player in it. So it was after Faget's design proposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

NASA was looking at lifting bodies before the shuttle program started and the lifting bodies that were flown were part of that research. There were competing proposals over what the shuttle would be. Faget created the DC3 as the baseline for the program. This was the start of the formal shuttle design process. After the Air Force was drug into the project they wanted a larger capacity, the ability to launch that capacity into a polar orbit, and a cross range capability of returning to Vandenberg after an abort from a polar orbit. They didn't care how this was accomplished, but the big delta wings were the only way of meeting the Air Force requirements.<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

My reading was that USAF was ticked that NASA got their Dyna-Soar, MOL, and Gemini B cancelled (along with all other USAF plans independent of NASA) that they got back by insisting on features, like a big cargo bay, lots of crossrange, etc that they knew would make the STS a behemoth. Interagency rivalry is all its about.

 

[holmec]

Wait a minute I think we might have some clarifiaction with the following article:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm<br /><br />"The Phase B designs were more refined but still used the same two-stage approach. At this point the controversy were over large cross-range winged designs, medium cross-range lifting body designs, and minimal cross-range stub-wing designs. NASA's Faget strongly pushed for the stub-wing design."<br /><br />This seems to be what were talking about. Apparently the stub-wings were Faget's goal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

NASA had nothing to do with the cancellation of Dynasoar. That was Robert McNamara's idea. Dynasoar wasn't the only DoD project he canceled, the man's nickname in the DoD was "Mac the knife" because of the large number of programs that got the knife when he was Secretary of Defense.<br /><br />The MOL and Gemini B were canceled because spy satellites had advanced to the point that a manned spy satellite, which is what MOL was, wasn't needed.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Yes, Faget wanted the smallest wings possible.<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

I think I've pieced this together:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm<br /><br />"1971 Apr 27 - Launch Vehicle: Shuttle.<br /><br /> * James C Fletcher sworn in as NASA Administrator Nation: USA. Program: Apollo.<br /><br /> James C. Fletcher was sworn in as NASA Administrator at a White House ceremony. Fletcher decided to push for Congressional approval of the stalled space shuttle program, but found that would only be forthcoming if the US Air Force agreed to participate. In order for that to happen, NASA would have to incorporate the USAF requirements for the shuttle that it had so far ignored (greater payload, higher cross-range). In another attempt to share the cost of the shuttle with other nations, previous NASA Administrator Thomas Paine had already tried to obtain international partners. But the only remnants of that effort were the Canadian robotic arm for the shuttle, and the European Space Agency Spacelab module. Neither represented a significant amount of the total program cost. "<br /><br />As you said Air Force requirements. High cross range was the issue, which inadvertandly rulled out the lifting bodies which were medium range.<br /><br />Thanks Dobbins <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The reason the AF was so picky about crossrange is they didn't want an aborted Shuttle flight with a highly classified KH-9 or KH-11 satellite landing anywhere other than Vandenberg. If anyone is wondering what happened to the KH-10, that was the MOL.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>The reason the AF was so picky about crossrange is they didn't want an aborted Shuttle flight with a highly classified KH-9 or KH-11 satellite landing anywhere other than Vandenberg.</i><p>That's one reason, but not the only one - there was a specific requirement for a one-orbit satellite deploy mission.</p>

 

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> If anyone is wondering what happened to the KH-10, that was the MOL.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yeah, code named DORIAN. My father designed the camera film system for it. The day after he finished it, they slapped a clearance on it so he even he couldn't touch it, and it disappeared from his lab at ITEK in the middle of the night. Odd behavior for a system that was supposedly 'cancelled'.<br /><br />BTW: One MOL did launch, disguised as a "mock-up" test launch to test 'upper stage acoustics' and the Gemini B rear hatch reentry seal..... along with three sub-satellites engaged in "Whispering Gallery" experiments.... more like they were the film reentry pods....

 

[spacefire]

I feel I should compare NASA to a bipolar woman:<br />oscillating between uttery unsafe and overly ambitious projects like the Crashuttle and dated designs like the CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

At least they aren't OCD over a lifting body design that has failed over and over.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

there's many lifting body designs... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

lifting bodies are not the best solution to all problems.<br /><br />They ceartanly have no advantage in lunar and mars travel.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

All Failures or paper airplanes. If you want a LB, go buy yourself a art program and make some pretty pictures. That is about all most of these spaceplane programs ever manage to produce.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

One did provide a cool opening sequence for the 6 Million Dollar Man TV show. The crash at the start was actual footage of a Lifting Body accident in 1967. Can't think of anything else they have managed to accomplish.<br /><br />

 

[rubicondsrv]

That crash shows one of the problems with lifting bodies, dangerously high landng speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

haha you two are totally disregarding the very successful M2F2, HL10 and X24 programs. so funny how people develop tunnel vision when they're dead against something just because it doesn't fit their views. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Did those LBs weight as much as a space capable version would? How would a LB cope if it had to land other than on a runway?

 

[gawin]

How does a capsul land in the event a shute failer???<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="orange">Corrected by replacing “&%$#@!” with “”<font color="white"><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Nacnud:<font color="white"> With the back up chutes. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Shuttle_Guy:<font color="white"> "How does a capsul land in the event a shute failer??? " <br /><br />How does a lifting body land if a "wing" fails? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Darkenfast:<font color="white"> "How does a capsul land in the event a shute failer???"<br /><br />Soyuz and Shenzhou use the same system. Both have two circular hatches, each of which opens on a trough that extends down the wall of the landing capsule. If you look at any of the pictures of the inside of one of these spacecraft, you can see the parachute containers between the heads of the couches (especially on Soyuz, which is extremely cramped). One is the primary chute, the other is a backup, in case the first one fails. The system got off to a bad start in the '60's, when (mostly due to rushed development) the first Soyuz crashed on landing, killing its occupant. It's worked well since. The impact on land is further attenuated by the use of solid fuel retro-rockets, which fire just before landing. <br /><br />Apollo used a slightly different approach, as will the CEV (presumably). Three parachutes were stored outside the pressure hull, around the docking tunnel. All three were deployed, the idea being that if one failed (which happened once), the landing would be slighty harder. If two had failed, it would probably not have been fatal. Impact attenuation on Apollo was accomplished by mounting all three couches in a shock-absorbing frame that could move quite a bit. <br /><br />There are also drogue chutes, which stabilize and decelerate a capsule as it descends (prior to getting low enough for the main chutes; about 3000m/10,000ft), and pilot chutes, which pull out the mains. <br /><br />Because the CEV will primarily come down on land, the plan is to use airbags or retro-rockets to cushion the touchdo</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>

 

[darkenfast]

&%$#@!"&%$#@!H&%$#@!o&%$#@!w&%$#@! &%$#@!d&%$#@!o&%$#@!e&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@! &%$#@!c&%$#@!a&%$#@!p&%$#@!s&%$#@!u&%$#@!l&%$#@! &%$#@!l&%$#@!a&%$#@!n&%$#@!d&%$#@! &%$#@!i&%$#@!n&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!e&%$#@!v&%$#@!e&%$#@!n&%$#@!t&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@! &%$#@!s&%$#@!h&%$#@!u&%$#@!t&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!f&%$#@!a&%$#@!i&%$#@!l&%$#@!e&%$#@!r&%$#@!?&%$#@!?&%$#@!?&%$#@!"&%$#@! &%$#@!&%$#@!<&%$#@!b&%$#@!r&%$#@!>&%$#@!&%$#@!<&%$#@!b&%$#@!r&%$#@!>&%$#@!S&%$#@!o&%$#@!y&%$#@!u&%$#@!z&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@!n&%$#@!d&%$#@! &%$#@!S&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@!n&%$#@!z&%$#@!h&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@! &%$#@!u&%$#@!s&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!s&%$#@!a&%$#@!m&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!s&%$#@!y&%$#@!s&%$#@!t&%$#@!e&%$#@!m&%$#@!.&%$#@! &%$#@! &%$#@!B&%$#@!o&%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@! &%$#@!h&%$#@!a&%$#@!v&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!w&%$#@!o&%$#@! &%$#@!c&%$#@!i&%$#@!r&%$#@!c&%$#@!u&%$#@!l&%$#@!a&%$#@!r&%$#@! &%$#@!h&%$#@!a&%$#@!t&%$#@!c&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@!s&%$#@!,&%$#@! &%$#@!e&%$#@!a&%$#@!c&%$#@!h&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!w&%$#@!h&%$#@!i&%$#@!c&%$#@!h&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!p&%$#@!e&%$#@!n&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!n&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!r&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@!g&%$#@!h&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!a&%$#@!t&%$#@! &%$#@!e&%$#@!x&%$#@!t&%$#@!e&%$#@!n&%$#@!d&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!d&%$#@!o&%$#@!w&%$#@!n&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!w&%$#@!a&%$#@!l&%$#@!l&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!l&%$#@!a&%$#@!n&%$#@!d&%$#@!i&%$#@!n&%$#@!g&%$#@! &%$#@!c&%$#@!a&%$#@!p&%$#@!s&%$#@!u&%$#@!l&%$#@!e&%$#@!.&%$#@! &%$#@! &%$#@!I&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!y&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@! &%$#@!l&%$#@!o&%$#@!o&%$#@!k&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@!t&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@!n&%$#@!y&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!p&%$#@!i&%$#@!c&%$#@!t&%$#@!u&%$#@!r&%$#@!e&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!i&%$#@!n&%$#@!s&%$#@!i&%$#@!d&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!n&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!f&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!e&%$#@

 

[mlorrey]

Quite so. And don't forget the X-37, based on the "HL-45", which while didn't make it to space, had several successful drop tests, and its parafoil landing system is certainly nice and cushy for a land landing, as good as any capsule and certainly far better than the 275 mph landing speed of the shuttle. SpaceDev is basing their own orbiter on the design, since its aerodynamics are so well understood.<br /><br />As far as landing capability is concerned, the Shuttle is no better than any LB, and in some ways worse, its a bad LB.