Congress's Crew Transfer Vehicle

[holmec]

I believe that a while back, Congress required NASA to create a Crew Transfer Vehicle. NASA came up with a lifting body design and Congress shot it down requiring something simpler. As I recall, it was supposed to have been a lifeboat or an escape capsule for the ISS. What came of this requirement? Will it be met? Is TSpace's CXV the one? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

post shuttle ideas/projects<br /><br />HL-20<br /><br />NASP [updated!]<br /><br />Venturestar<br /><br />Orbital Space Plane<br /><br />Crew Rescue Vehicle (X-38)<br /><br />google them or check the index at http://www.astronautix.com

 

[willpittenger]

If you want a complete list, I would include the X-30. No, it was never intended to be an operational vehicle even though artist drawings had it with payload doors on the dorsal surface. However, if built and the technology proved a success, it could have resulted in a successful follow on. In fact, my own thread on the Challenger Class shuttle system included the X-30 as a basic starting point. The system evolved from there, but the X-30 was where I started. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Ah, yes. The NASP, the National AeroSpace Plane. A single stage to orbit, horizontal takeoff and horizontal landing space plane. How could I forget?

 

[docm]

And when that dream is realized you can bet your bippy it'll be the private space guys that do it and not NASA. SS2, Silver Dart and Dream Chaser are just the first steps. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A single stage to orbit, horizontal takeoff and horizontal landing space plane.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Don't count the concept out yet. Might take a century or two to become a reality and successful, but unless space elevators beat the concept to the punch, it might happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

1207:<br />Inexplicably, NASA and the industry spent a gazillion dollars on a SSTO...<br /><br />Me:<br />Hardly. That was one of the problems and still is. I call it the cost barrier. NASA budgets are simply not adequate for development of such advanced technologies without a paradigm shift in how projects are conducted. That shift may or may not occur with private enterprise, only time will tell. But NASA gets nowhere near a gazillion dollars for anything.<br /><br />NASA annual budget today is about $17 billion, and about half of that is for human spaceflight, much of which is ISS/STS operations.<br /><br />As for the technical ability to do SSTO? Apparently thats still beyond us as you pointed out. However, when the resurgent SSTO effort began, evidently NASA believed they could do it because the original SSTO demonstrator was the Delta Clipper which was originally funded by SDIO and later turned over to NASA when SDIO lost interest.<br /><br />1207:<br />The Single stick CEV and the Heavy lift launcher which is essentially a Shuttle C will work fine. I wonder how much they will cost given historical NASA launch costs.<br /><br />Me:<br />Again correct, but relying on expendable or even partially expendable launchers will not ever lead to a robust anyman in space capability. SpaceX and Kistler type efforts may eventually get us there but I'm thinking something more innovative such as that which Rutan/Scaled Composites, Bigelow, and Richard Branson are doing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"As for the technical ability to do SSTO? Apparently thats still beyond us as you pointed out."<br /><br />Beyond us only if we limit ourselves to rocket engine technology that was cutting edge back in 1962. I bet a mixed mode rocket that used chemical propulsion for takeoff and nuclear thermal propulsion for most of the delta V would make SSTO possible. It isn't technology which stops from us realizing SSTO so much as it is politics.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Inexplicably, NASA and the industry spent a gazillion dollars on a SSTO CRV that should never have gotten past the napkin stage.</font>/i><br /><br />If you are referring the X-33, the technology demonstrator for what would become the Venturestar, I believe NASA spent the equivalent of about 3 months of shuttle operations on its development before shutting it down.<br /><br />When put in that perspective, it doesn't seem to be a whole lot.</i>

 

[spacester]

All of the corrections to 1207's comment are duly noted as technically correct, but the fact remains that a whole lot of cash went down the drain in the vain pursuit of SSTO via the X-33 program. All of you guys have worked with the rocket equation enough to know what I mean. <br /><br />It was and remains inexplicable to me that such an unrealistic goal was pursued by so many people for so long. The only explanation is found in the phrase "Corporate Welfare". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">the vain pursuit of SSTO via the X-33 program. All of you guys have worked with the rocket equation enough to know what I mean.</font>/i><br /><br />The biggest problem I had with the X-33 was that it was billed as "the replacement" for the shuttle. It should have been billed and funded under an advanced technology development and maturation program.<br /><br />The development of the linear aerospike engine was interesting and full of potential to "change the equation", if you will, of rocket launches. Instead of supporting multiple engines and nozzles optimized at different altitudes, there would have been one engine that was optimal at all altitudes.<br /><br />My guess is that people did run the equations, and that SSTO was shown to be feasible, but there was a lot of R&D that needed to be done first. Sadly, America's premier space program does not have a significantly funded (and significantly protected) program with sufficient patience to develop advanced space technologies.<br /><br />(By the way, I don't deny the "Corporate Welfare" claim, I just want to point out that just because one effort failed we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the approach is impossible.)</i>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Single stage to orbit is actually fairly easy, the Zenit first stage itself could be used as a SSTO rocket.<br /><br />It's single stage to orbit to ground with an actual payload that is the problem.

 

[bpfeifer]

There is a great book with the title, Single Stage To Orbit. It's part of the NASA history series. I highly recomment reading it. <br /><br />Essentially, SSTO is doable when you include a whole lot of "if's" in your statement. Some of these are: If you can build super lightweight propellent and oxidizer tanks. If you build super lightweight composit fairings and body structures. If you can make the aerospike engine work reliably and at the advertized thrust and isp levels.<br /><br />Possible? Yes.<br />Feasible? Maybe not today.<br /><br />The interesting thing is that all of the technologies needed for SSTO also improve more conventional systems. So it's worth pursuing these technologies today for the sake of coventional rocket systems. When we have them all, that's when you throw together your SSTO vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The biggest problem I had with the X-33 was that it was billed as "the replacement" for the shuttle. It should have been billed and funded under an advanced technology development and maturation program.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Incorrect. The Wikipedia article for the X-33 states:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The X-33 was a subscale technology demonstrator for the VentureStar, a next-generation, commercially operated reusable launch vehicle.</font><br /><br />The replacement you mentioned was VentureStar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Incorrect. The Wikipedia article for the X-33 states:</font>/i><br /><br />I am familiar with the X-33 and Venturestar relationship. The problem is that X-33 and Venturestar was joined at the hip from day one. VP Al Gore announced Lockheed winning the big award in a big press conference. It was sold as a single program.<br /><br />IMHO, NASA should have X programs to test and mature new technologies independent of larger programs. Any given X program should be relatively small and short in duration with a specific focus on testing/maturing only a very limited number of technologies.<br /><br />A good example of this approach is the X-43A.</i>