Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
I would think that in this thread, we are talking a payload equivalent to a CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"That is why crewmen of Souyz are strapped to seatliners (as S_G already pointed out) and use sticks instead of hands or legs"</font><br /><br />So, you won't break a neck nor any limb ... but you get impaled by a stick? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
The Chinese use "sticks" too.<br /><br />I suspect "Mcs_Seattle" forgot how smart people working on spacecraft interiors have to be.<br /><br />If it works and everybody uses it, its definitely not silly.<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>
The control panels on the Soyuz (and its offspring, the Shenzhou), are where they are because there is no place else to put them. The landing capsule is extremely small on Soyuz, and the actions taken by the cosmonauts during launch so minimal that the stick was an acceptable compromise. On American spacecraft, the main controls are reachable during boost and re-entry. One of the advantages of the Apollo/CEV layout is the crew position during all the various operations, with the possible uncomfortable exception of the TLI burn, when they will hang in their straps for a bit (hopefully low-G).
The russian design for the Sirius and Neptune Control signal panels inside the Soyuz DV descent vehicle where dictated by the position of the center hatch, and the placement of the parachute comparments. As you said, the DV is too smal to allow much re-location of panels relating to the cosmonauts Kazbek seats.<br />Apollo had a more flat design, but I always thought that the astronauts could strike their faceplates against the panels (they lie down with the Main Control Panel in front of them); but surely they are very tightly strapped to the seats. I dont know what is the clearance between the astronaut´s faceplate and the panel surface in centimeters. (?)<br />Virgil Grisson´s faceplate was punctured during his Gemini mission, not against the panel, but, I guess, against the main hatch´s doorway.
Is this really a 5 meter design? <br /><br />I for some reason believe it looks smaller than a 5 meter design. Perhaps the volume lighting to me doesnt help matters...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
And, uh, what about Doc Horowitz and Michael Coats? They are both former Shuttle Astronauts who are now in high positions in the Constellation program.<br /><br />I keep saying it, for the "benefit" and education of those pseudo-engineers: Form follows function! You are NOT going to fly the Shuttle or a "Shuttle II" to the Moon and back! I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with the concepts previously advanced, but that is reality! Stop going on and on about "going back to '60's Apollo"! This is NOT your father's Apollo! Why does the F-22 still look like a previous fighter aircraft? Because FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION! Unless somebody was drunk when they formed the CEV mockup's heatshield, that IS a design change from Gemini and Apollo. Obviously, it will be used with an offset CG to obtain lifting trajectories by rolling the Command Module to change the velocity vector.<br /><br />This is the form, people. Get behind it, or we may not have ANY manned space program at all! And if manned space is killed, I gar-on-tee within two Congressional election cycles, there won't be a robotic program either!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!
CEV design: Packaging the interior layout for a cone appears more difficult than doing so for a cylinder. An early guess as to the differences coming from the contractors would be a forward bay, crew stations, aft bay arrangement vs. crew stations and control panels far up front with all extra space below crew couches. The Andrews' design seems to reflect option 1, and apparently came from the fertile minds of gamers.
What about 100% "glass cockpit" - touch screen controls. PDA like touchscreen controls on the "joystick".<br /><br />"Voice prompting/recogition"! Virtual Reality type interfaces<br /><br />We have the technology. Its been available off the shelf since the 1990's and can only get better.<br /><br />I can envision the pilot & commander in their launch positions with the copckpit displays displayed into the face plates of the suit helmets or directly into their retinas. One hand affixed to a joystick, the other in a virtual reality control glove. Mix in voice recognition hard/soft ware with an expert system computer setup, and the only thing they'll need to get up for, is to visit the head.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">keep it simple, stupid</font>/safety_wrapper>
Please read Mike Griffin's comments on this very thing. The physics of comming back from the moon haven't changed in the time from Apollo till now. Gee, 2 + 2 still equals 4, even bow as well as in the 1960's! Do you know ANYTHING about such physics? From your comments, I think NOT! So why not just listen to those that do, and possibly learn something, instead of confirming your own ignorance! <br /><br />It would indeed be possible, and in the much further out future hopefully it will be to have several different types of vehicles for space work. <br /><br />One, a possible space plane to go from Earth to LEO, and another a spherical type of ship to go from LEO to a lunar orbit, and finally a lunar lander type of craft.<br /><br />However, to design and make such a system at this time would require a NASA budget of at the very least 2X, abd nore probably 3X NASA's current budget! With all of the other considerations of the federal budget the only budget that NASA has any chance at all of defending is a static budget (hopefully, allowing for inflation) and THIS program is the only one that even has a hope of leaving LEO in this generation!! There will, I am sure, even be those who will question even keeping NASA's budget at its current level, allowing for inflation, there always are those that would stop ALL human space developement.<br /><br />So, NASA IS NOT going to get the funding to get out of Earth orbit with any kind of vehcle to the moon, unless it is done in the same manner as the Apollo project. This IS what such a great rocket scientist as Wherner Von Braun knew, and Mike Griffin seems to come from the same mold! <br /><br />So all of these negative and duseless comments from such as yourself, spacefire, and gaetanomarano. are of no help at all, and are completely useless as this is being dictated by the NASA budget, which is controlled by congress and not you or I can do anything about that!<br /><br />The main reason that the CEV looks like an Apollo caps
<i>The main reason that the CEV looks like an Apollo capsule is that the return velocity for a single vehicle going out to the moon is some 25,000 mph, instead of the 17,500 mph of the orbital velocity that the space shuttle is designed for, ANY space plane design would simply burn up or be torn apart at this velocity. So the best shape for such a vehicle is the cone shape of Apollo, with a proven heat shield!</i><br /><br />Then why did Lockheed Martin feel that a lifting body design was a better approach? While not a "space plane", it is at least a design that provides greater maneuverability and crossrange and lower g-loads. The only reason that a capsule is being chosen over a lifting body is because NASA is being forced to do things on the cheap, as usual. As with the space shuttle and even Apollo before that, compromises are being made to save money. A good way to describe NASA's current decision making process would be to say, "We choose a capsule not because it is hard, but because it is easy!" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
<i>Why does the F-22 still look like a previous fighter aircraft?</i><br /><br />Actually, it really doesn't. The emphasis on low observable design has really changed how modern military aircraft look.
Velocity isn't the only consideration. We are dealing with energy levels and velocity is only part of an energy level. If a .22 caliber bullet and a .45 caliber bullet are going at the same velocity the .45 will do more damage to the target because it has a higher energy level. It isn't just the larger size of the bullet that causes it to do more damage, it's the greater mass. If you have two bullets of the same size going at the same speed and one is made of lead and the other is made of depleted uranium (DU) then the DU bullet will have a greater mass and a greater energy level so it will do more damage.<br /><br />This is because any object with mass has inertia. It requires more energy to get it up to a given speed, and once it is going that speed that same amount of energy has to be dissipated to stop it. This is just as true of a space ship as it is of a bullet. If two space ships have different masses then the more massive one will require more energy to reach a given speed and more energy will have to be dissipated to stop it. If you have two space ships in LEO going at the same speed but with different masses, then the one with the larger mass will have to dissipate more energy on reentry. It will have to have a getter thermal protection system to deal with the increased energy level.<br /><br />If you add wings to a space ship, then you are adding mass. It makes it harder to get it up to orbital speed and it also makes it harder to dissipate the energy it has on reentry. If you change the shape from a capsule to a lifting body you have to either give up volume for the crew or you have to increase the mass to retain the same volume for the crew. You either wind up with a more cramped space ship or one that has to dissipate more energy on reentry.<br /><br />Much of this energy is dissipated by creating a shock wave that carries the energy away from the space ship so that the thermal system doesn't have to deal with it. A round capsule shape is more efficient at d
"Then why did Lockheed Martin feel that a lifting body design was a better approach?"<br /><br />Reason #2.<br /><br />If you owned a car dealership and you had a customer that had bought half a dozen mini-vans in a row, and he kept buying the darn things even though every one was a lemon that never ran, then what is the first thing you are going to show him when he walks into your show room? <br /><br />Another mini-van!<br /><br />
Dobbins, Thank you for such a great post! <br /><br />I love learning information about space flight from reading the boards on space.com but recently many of the threads have just become slaging matches.<br /><br />For the first time in months I learnt something new about capsules Vs Lifting bodys!<br />
> <i><font color="yellow">Increased profits through a more expensive design.</font>/i><br /><br />Beyond profits, there may be human nature: engineers, like many on these forums, like to develop cool new stuff. Unfortunately, we engineers/scientists are generally overly optimistic regarding the technical difficulties, our abilities, or both.<br /><br />If I was on a Boeing or Lockheed team, I would prefer to push the edge with something new rather than use a basic design my father may have worked on. It is just human nature.</i>
Why, oh why, is it so terribly HARD to get it through some peoples minds that NASA does NOT, NOT, NOT, control its own budget????<br /><br />There have even been some on these boards (not many thank goodness) that believe that the American taxpayers dollars are being wasted by ANY kind of manned space program!<br /><br />So, even if the only consideration of Mike Griffin and NASA was the budget, it would STILL be the overriding consideration!! NASA can't go with an experimental design at this time (no matter how "Cool" it looks), they have to go with a tried and true design to go back to the moon. And, guess what, the design that got us there in the 1970's is still the best for that purpose!! <br /><br />Besides, many of the changes that are going to upgrade that design would not be readily apparent anyway. Changes in the computer power and programming really don't show up in the mold line. So NO, this craft is not going to be just an Apollo. For one rather simple, but somewhat important thing, this craft is some three times large than the Apollo!<br /><br />
"Why, oh why, is it so terribly HARD to get it through some peoples minds that NASA does NOT, NOT, NOT, control its own budget????"<br /><br />It's the Apollo syndrome. In the 1960s NASA was given whatever it took to achieve JFK's goal of landing an astronaut on the Moon before the end of the decade. Some people just can't get it through their heads that the Apollo level of funding was the result of unique circumstances that don't exist today and are very unlikely to happen again.<br /><br />In the 1960s beating the Russians to the Moon was considered to be vitally important, but even this wouldn't have been enough to sustain the budget levels that NASA was getting. As early as FY 1963 Congress approved less money for the space program than NASA asked for, and more cuts would have been likely if it weren't for what happened on November 22nd, 1963. The near deification of JFK after his assassination gave Lyndon Johnson and James Webb a potent weapon that warded off budget cuts to NASA, "fulfilling the vision of our martyred President". Neither was the least bit shy about using this weapon in the budget battle.<br /><br />In the short term NASA is more likely to have it's budget decreased than to get an increase. In the longer term it might be possible to get some modest increases, but there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell of ever seeing the "whatever it takes" level of funding that NASA had 40 years ago. Any proposals that don't recognize that fact are just as much pie in the sky dreaming as warp drive starships.<br /><br />
"What about 100% "glass cockpit" - touch screen controls. PDA like touchscreen controls on the "joystick". <br /><br />"Voice prompting/recogition"! Virtual Reality type interfaces <br /><br />We have the technology. Its been available off the shelf since the 1990's and can only get better. <br /><br />I can envision the pilot & commander in their launch positions with the copckpit displays displayed into the face plates of the suit helmets or directly into their retinas. One hand affixed to a joystick, the other in a virtual reality control glove. Mix in voice recognition hard/soft ware with an expert system computer setup, and the only thing they'll need to get up for, is to visit the head. "<br />~kane007<br /><br />While the individual components of the system has been around since the 90's it has never to my knowledge been integrated into one system. I think the devil is in the details for a systems such as what you describe. Also the computing power required might well outweigh the advantages.