CEV Mockup

[tomnackid]

<br />From the diagrams it looks like the capsule will have an asymmetric heat shield. Is this design finalized? Maybe that will placate the lifting body nuts a little bit! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Personally I like space planes. I wanna see a spacecraft that can come back from orbit and make a pinpoint landing on a common, run of the mill runway. But, I am not about to hold up space development while all of the kinks get worked out of spaceplanes and RLVs. What if Columbus decided he wasn't going to cross the Atlantic until steam ships were available? What if the American pioneers decided to halt the westward expansion until the railroads and highways were completed (OK, the native American probably would have gotten behind that one!). You get the idea. All the research NASA has done on spaceplanes is still there--they didn't burn the shuttle blueprints or wipe all the wind tunnel data from the computers. Once private industry sees that there can be money to be made in space that info. will be there for them to build whatever transportation systems they see fit. As far as basic science and exploration goes a tractor trailer makes a poor exploration vehicle--especially where there are no roads. Better to use an SUV. Thats what a capsule is.

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />This and the Andrews idea both seem to have the same, interesting, RCS thruster layout in place of external Quads. Does anybody have any coment on that? Good idea? Why?<br /></font><br />Maybe better aerodynamics during reentry?

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>But, I am not about to hold up space development while all of the kinks get worked out of spaceplanes and RLVs.</i><br /><br />What are the odds that we already have "space planes" operating out of Groom Lake, or the Dugway Proving Grounds, or some atoll out in the Pacific?

 

[nacnud]

About this big ---><---

 

[vt_hokie]

Forget about orbital vehicles then...what about some yet to be revealed hypersonic aircraft?

 

[darkenfast]

Couple of coments:<br /><br />1. I find it interesting to note the reactions to the SpaceDev hybrid motor/HL-20. The people who regulary bash CEV and NASA are gushing over it. And, here we have people calling this mockup: "crapollo". It will be fun seeing which one actually flys.<br /><br />2. I've been enjoying drawing possible layouts for the CEV. I may have to toss them; it's developing a little different. On the mockup, it appears that the forebody (the area around the docking tunnel) is a lot smaller than I thought would be neccessary to fit the landing system. It also looks like the angle of the sidewall changes as it nears the "tip" of the cone. The area around the base of the spacecraft (between the pressure hull and the exterior wall) is also smaller than I thought it would need to be. Finally, there appears to be a deck between the cabin area and the base (heatshield). What's going to go there? I'm curious as to how this will develop as they build this thing.

 

[larper]

A hypersonic, non-orbital aircraft is the perfect vehicle for not going to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

We should be so lucky to see the need to <i>mass-produce</i> CEV because it's becomes as popular and versatile as the venerable T-Ford! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[gaetanomarano]

if you still live 450 years!

 

[dobbins]

Please, don't feed the trolls.<br /><br />

 

[ace5]

very nice said, clarke.<br />The stick works for 30 years.<br />Apollo conical design worked. It is not silly as well.<br /><br />Hopefully the CEV will be flying on schedule.

 

[space_dreamer]

A hypersonic, non-orbital aircraft is the perfect vehicle for not going to the moon.<br /><br />- Dude, that line me Laugh!<br /><br />But seriously <br /><br />I really really like the way NASA is going with the CEV (and the SDHLV)<br /><br />The CEV is simple but capable, cheap to develop but much safer than STS. It will get us back to the moon. But most importantly it won’t stifle privately developed spaceships.<br /><br />NASA is finally on the right course, after 35years of mistakes!<br />

 

[mcs_seattle]

Post deleted by mcs_seattle

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>A hypersonic, non-orbital aircraft is the perfect vehicle for not going to the moon.</i><br /><br />Hahaha...yeah, but if we have "black" programs like the ones that have been rumored, then we may have more experience in hypersonic flight than people realize. That experience could be applied to a wide range of applications if the veil could be lifted. It's ridiculous that such secrecy still exists, when it doesn't benefit anyone except for those who take taxpayer dollars and spend them without accountability. Keeping a hypersonic aircraft classified sure isn't going to help stop some crazy fanatic from blowing himself up on a bus. That's the nature of our enemy, and it's time to put an end to the cold war mentality that still pervades throughout the aerospace industry.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I have seen reports that NASA is aiming for a first maned flight in June, 2011.</font>/i><br /><br />Its the "Griffin Way". He builds in error into his schedule and costs, so they ran the numbers and came out with a launch of 2011, added some slippage into the schedule, then announced 2012 as first announced launch.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Forget about orbital vehicles then...what about some yet to be revealed hypersonic aircraft?</font>/i><br /><br />A very high probability.<br /><br />I remember a former NSA program manager telling me that they liked to stay 10 years ahead of what was known in the unclassified community. I always wonder how much I was working on (unclassified work) was already solved, but no one could tell me.<br /><br />It is probably a safe bet to assume there are aircraft flying today that we won't know about until 2015.</i>

 

[dobbins]

Griffin learned it from Scotty<br /><br />Kirk --"How long to re-fit?"<br />Scotty--"Eight weeks. But you don't have eight weeks, so I'll do it for you in two."<br />Kirk--"Do you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?"<br />Scotty--"How else to maintain my reputation as a miracle worker?"<br />Kirk--"Your reputation is safe with me."<br />Star Trek III: The Search For Spock<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>It is probably a safe bet to assume there are aircraft flying today that we won't know about until 2015.</i><br /><br />Well, that sure sucks! I've been waiting to see what this supposed "Aurora" really is since the early 90's! Heck, the Blackbird was revealed after only a couple of years. The "Have Blue" prototype first flew in, what, 1979? And the F-117 was public knowledge within a decade. You can even see one up close at the Air Force Museum in Ohio! It seems that the timescale for revealing these things has increased greatly since the days of Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich... <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[mikejz]

To be honest, I feel the economic benefits to the American public is far greater than the national security intrests of keeping a project black.

 

[spacefire]

I do not think there are any 'black' hypersonic or orbit achieving manned aircraft. Because, if they were developed by any branch of the government....they'd end up costing too damn much and thus they wouldn't be built.<br />I think we're starting to see the collapse of big bureaucracies which have become way too cumbersome and self-protecting to yield anything of value at reasonable price. <br />That is why NASA and the big corporations can only produce a clone of the Apollo program 30 years after we went to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">if they were developed by any branch of the government....they'd end up costing too damn much and thus they wouldn't be built.</font>/i><br /><br />It is quite possible that they could have built such a vehicle and mothballed it. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was probably a lot technology that was eventually sidelined. Even today, the F-22, which was initially conceived during the Soviet era, is fighting off critics that say it is no longer needed.<br /><br />My guess is that they do not have anything that goes orbital, but they probably have (or at least had) something that flies pretty darned fast. There was a lot of speculation that when the DOD retired the SR-71s they were already flying a replacement (lots of odd tid bits can be found at the Federation of American Scientists, link). I particularly liked the description for the "flaming, hypersonic pumpkin seed" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (link)</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>However, it may be the perfect vehicle for a booster stage of a TSTO system.</i><br /><br />Which is exactly what some people surmise that the XB-70 sized aircraft might be. It wouldn't be hypersonic, but like the Valkyrie it's probably capable of ~Mach 3. <br /><br />Another possibility is that it carries a manned hypersonic aircraft or an unmanned high speed drone. But an SR-71 crew was killed in a D-21 drone separation gone awry, and I would think that vehicle separation at Mach 3 would be very risky.

 

[drwayne]

1/2 the crew died - the both landed safely in the water - but one of the crew allegedly opened his visor, and was drowned.<br /><br />There were a number of successful launches of Tagboard - but you are right, deploying at those high speeds (and altitudes) can in fact be quite tricky.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, it may be the perfect vehicle for a booster stage of a TSTO system. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Fine by me. As long as the orbital stage has no wings and lands vertically (powered or parachute). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I would think it would be easy to recover an SR-71 or B-70 or whatever payload. I can't imagine it could weigh 1,000 pounds, with the recovery system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>