Has NASA decided on a capsule for "CEV"?

[vt_hokie]

Does the recent NASA report showing a capsule on top of the "SRB stick" indicate that they are making that design a requirement, effectively killing Lockheed's lifting body proposal? Or are the two competing CEV teams (Boeing/Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin) still free to come up with their own designs for the actual vehicle?

 

[dwightlooi]

There is no NASA released picture of a SRB based launch vehicle with a capsule on it. That picture is conjured up and released by ATK Thiokol -- the maker of the SRB. I'll say it is not up to them to decide what NASA will eventually go with.

 

[yg1968]

This article seems to suggest that NASA has decided on a capsule. It relies on sources with detailed knowledge of the NASA study results <br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050803_shuttle-derived_cev.html<br />

 

[dwightlooi]

I do not think NASA has decide on either the Boeing-NG or LM entry. In either case, you will be disappointed if you are expecting a winged space plane. The OSP is dead, period.<br /><br />However, the Boeing entry is a simple conical capsule with a stern-first re-entry attitude (ala apollo capsules). The LM design is a lifting body with a belly first re-entry attitude. The LM design has much better post re-entry maneuverability, but is probably also has a higher vehicle cost and complexity. Neither while glide to a landing. Both will use a parachute and airbags for final touch down.

 

[erauskydiver]

I like the LM configuration. The wing stubs push all of the equipment to the outer regions of the vehicle, making a lot of room for the crew to use. For that reason alone, I like having the wing stubs. <br /><br />If the stubs were just empty airframe, I'd be against the design. <br /><br />I also dont think this configuration falls into the category of lifting body, capsule, or winged spacraft. It's in a class all of its own. It's a space stubsule.

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"In either case, you will be disappointed if you are expecting a winged space plane. The OSP is dead, period."</font><br /><br />Indeed, I am disappointed by that. I think they should use the X-37 as the basis for the next crew transport. <br /><br />As Jon Stewart said last night on The Daily Show, going back to capsules is one giant leap backwards for mankind!

 

[erauskydiver]

Nah, the X-37 configuration wouldnt be suitable. Wings will eventually have a place in spaceflight, but not at the moment. Right now, stubs are the way to go.

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"Wings will eventually have a place in spaceflight, but not at the moment. Right now, stubs are the way to go."</font><br /><br />Why? The main advantage of capsules is that they're simple and cheap. But it's hard to get excited about taking the cheap route! I'd like to see the United States do something ambitious for a change. As a kid, I grew up with the promises of things like NASP, then VentureStar, and so on. I find it very discouraging that at the beginning of this new century, not only are we failing to develop new technologies, but we're not even making the most of existing technology! We can certainly do better than a rehashed Apollo command module. <br /><br />And for those who say that private ventures can do better, I disagree. Profit driven ventures will make the most of existing technologies, but will not make the long term investments required to push the boundaries further. It's one of the failures, or at least limitations, of capitalism. When the payoff is so far in the future, perhaps generations away, the investment will not be made. It's why my parents and grandparents witnessed the birth of supersonic commercial air travel, and all I have to look forward to is Airbus' new cattle herder or Boeing's boring "7E7"...basically a 757 that gets a few more miles per gallon, so to speak! It's time to stop stagnating. It's time to stop being afraid of "unproven technology", and start making it "proven"!

 

[erauskydiver]

You have to design the vehicle to support the mission, not the other way around. Right now, the focus is getting to the moon and mars. That primarily involves taking stuff up into space, and then going farther out from there. Wings only really support bringing heavy stuff back down, and often. Will there be a requirement for that? Perhaps in the future. But right now we are focused on getting there. I'd personally rather wait until a real clear need is there. I think the LM concept fits our current need perfectly. It' lowers g-forces on astronauts that have been in zero-g for a while, and the stubs act as a home for major systems and subsystems, so they arent dead weight while the craft is in space.

 

[viper101]

Jon Stewart was talking space capsules on TDS? Damn - I have to start watching that show again!<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"We can certainly do better than a rehashed Apollo command module. <br />...<br /> all I have to look forward to is Airbus' new cattle herder or Boeing's boring "7E7"...basically a 757 that gets a few more miles per gallon, so to speak!"</font><br /><br />This is very amusing (to me, anyway). I read your first post (before your edit to add the second paragraph) and I was about to use the Boeing 707 and 787/7E7 as comparisons for the Apollo CM vs. a capsule designed today. Once I got the specs for the two and hit 'Reply' you'd added the second paragraph. <br /><br />If you truly don't see the difference between an aircraft designed in the late 1950's and one designed using modern tech, then I seriously doubt that anything I say can change your mind. Is the 787 a <b>revolutionary</b> difference over the 707? Nope. Better fuel economy, twice the range, 10% faster cruising speed, 58% more passengers. So it does all the same things that the 707 did, just more of it, faster, and cheaper.<br /><br />Um... waitaminute. Isn't that sort of what we <b>want</b> out of the CEV? It needs to perform essentially the same mission as the Apollo CEV, but more passengers, faster recovery/turnaround, and more sustainable (i.e. cheaper). In fact, for the VSE, we'd really like the <b>transport mechanism</b> to be as cheap as possible. That's because the *important* part of the next missions to the moon involve building up an infrastructure there. The less money spent on developing and operating the flipping taxi cab, the more that can be spend on the infrastructure and the more flights that NASA has the bucks to fly.<br /><br />So go wild -- explain to us what exactly needs to be different? What 'unproven technology' do you see that NASA should be using to get men to the moon in a fashion that will

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, the way I see it, Bush's "Apollo II" sacrifices a lot of worthwhile programs just so that we can plant some more flags on the moon. No more "SLI", no development of reusable launch vehicles that will really open up space travel, no pursuit of innovative technologies such as scramjets or maglev assisted launch, and major cutbacks in programs that offer real scientific breakthroughs...projects along the lines of Hubble, NGST, and unmanned interplanetary probes. All of that gone, just so we can put some more footprints on the lunar surface!<br /><br />The only good thing that might come out of Bush's quest to write his name in history as being another JFK (which he certainly is not) is the inline heavy lift launch vehicle, assuming that it ever materializes. I'll be surprised if the political will and funding is there to support it, though. Most likely, it'll be abandoned halfway through development, like so many previous projects and like the current administration would like to do with ISS. <br /><br />Oh, and evolutionary improvements are great, but that's perhaps where the private sector is most capable. NASA should be doing things that are revolutionary.

 

[cdr6]

Vt-hokie- You speak directly to the heart and sole of what NASA is about.<br /><br />There is clearly a mandate for a two spacecraft mission here, one for orbit and one for deep space.<br /><br />However, NASA and the government are under extreme pressure at the present to do something to restore their image/public 's perception of both. A capsule ala Apollo is well understood in all aspects so developement cost is going to be minimal, as is the developement of the booster to get it into space. The theroy seems to be for now What do we have that works? Apollo fits the bill almost exactly, NASA's decision to go that route was undoubtly influnced by the Astronaut Office's recommendation of about 2 years ago. (headed up by John Young) Low risk and high success is the watch word, now lets see if they can pull it off...

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Does the recent NASA report showing a capsule on top of the "SRB stick" indicate that they are making that design a requirement</font>/i><br /><br />The more interesting aspect of this question, IMHO, is how much detail NASA dictates and how much detail the contractors determine on their own.<br /><br />Pre-Griffin there was a lot of talk about NASA stepping back and defining broad goals and letting the business community come up with various views on how to achieve those goals. For example, NASA gave out about a dozen contracts to develop concepts for overall mission architectures and individual pieces.<br /><br />Under the Griffin administrator, it seems like a lot of this is being taken in house.</i>

 

[dwightlooi]

To NASA's credit, I think there is more focus now. For two decades, NASA has done countless studies and initiatives but nothing new actually flew. Either because the goals were unrealistic -- such as is the case with the Venture Star -- or because the lack a the desrie, will and funding to fly something while the Shuttle is still flying -- such as is the case with SLI.<br /><br />Could the Venture Star have worked? The Answer is a big fat NO. To achieve single stage to orbit flight, even with the linear aerospike engines, will require a fuel fraction of over 92%. Even then, there will be no payload capacity at all unless you can get it to 94 or 95%. You can build the thing out of the newest composites and it wouldn't happen. And that thing is supposed to be robust enough for re-entry and reuse? And to make it cheaper and less maintenance intensive as a reusable vehicle, they wanted to use metallic heat shields? Get real, it is NOT going to happen. The Venture star may work if it is used as a two stage to orbit vehicle. Perhaps with six shuttle derived 2 segment SRBs up its tail pipe to give it a shove off the pad and lighting the aerospike midair. But if it does work, it will probably be more expensive than the shuttle and similarly fragile.<br /><br />The SLI plans are quite amorphous. There are space planes atop rocket ideas being investigated. Three new engines being developed. But NASA never really knew what they want. If the idea is to make an affordable, small transport to orbit, this sounds exactly like the current CEV plans. If it is to build a new shuttle replacement, it is ill defined and researching the wrong bag of technologies.<br /><br />My guess is that the CEV will be a fly wedge design -- ala clipper -- rather than an apollo style capsule. Not because it is cooler, but because it is less complicated. No separate command and service modules, no orbital detachments, etc. You fly it up, you fly it down. It is semi-steerable after re-entry so you can more acc

 

[wvbraun]

"Under the Griffin administrator, it seems like a lot of this is being taken in house."<br /><br />That's not necessarily a bad thing as long as people like Griffin call the shots at NASA...

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As a kid, I grew up with the promises of things like NASP, then VentureStar, and so on.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is the key difference. There are a lot of us on here that, as kids, grew up with both Apollo and Shuttle. Shuttle was supposed to be everything that the CEV is being sold as. <br /><br />Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

from another thread<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=297991&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"You have to design the vehicle to support the mission, not the other way around."<br /><br />This is the key point. I don't always agree with Mr Zubrin, but his 'Apollo-mode' versus 'Shuttle-mode' argument was spot on.<br /><br />The A380 and the B787 will both be successful because they are designed to fulfil, as economically and efficiently as possible, an apparent need. Neither Airbus nor Boeing said: 'Let's build this new plane and then let's see if there's a market for it.'<br /><br />Granted they're not revolutionary. But then, most revolutions fail, whereas evolution seems to be quite successful.<br /><br />I sometimes think that this desire for an OSP derives its emotional well-spring from science-fiction. That's how they do it in the movies! Unfortunately, this is one area where it's definitely more fiction than science.

 

[frodo1008]

Actually, I think you will still get your wish, just not with NASA. While mrmorris and I are sometimes debaters here on other threads, I have to completely agree with him in this instance. What NASA needs is something safe, reliable, quick, and inexpensive! So I suspect the capsule design is going to be chosen.<br /><br />However, when I say you are going to get your wish what I am referring to is Burt Rutan's next spaceship. His design will either be winged or lifting body, and that is a certainty! He and Virgin Galactic intend to have a White Knight 2 (much larger than WK1) carry a Spaceshiptwo up to an altitude of at least 30.000 feet, then SS2 is to carry some 9 passengers (and I presume at least one experienced pilot) up to a sub orbital flight. This craft will then land like the WK2 on a regular runway, so it is obviously going to have to be at least a lifting body type of design. <br /><br />Eventually I would say that the next goal of Rutan & company would be to steadily increase the carrying capacity and velocity of these craft till such craft become the first true hyper velocity craft capable of going halfway around the world in an hour or two at most! <br /><br />Both SS2 and other future craft have to be lifting bodies in the long run. This is because in the pure private business of space tourism you are NOT looking for astronauts, you are going to be taking just regular people (rich people at first) into the space environment. And such passengers are going to want to enjoy their experience, so for the first time passenger comfort is going to be a requirement! And this also means a lifting body type of space craft. To provide the room, and windows, don't forget you are going to need relatively large windows, after all, non-astronaut people are going to DEMAND a good view! Capsules are not commensurate with such requirements, only plane-like craft can provide these passenger oriented amenities!<br /><br />Of course, eventually Rutan & company

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"However, when I say you are going to get your wish what I am referring to is Burt Rutan's next spaceship. His design will either be winged or lifting body, and that is a certainty!"</font><br /><br />Indeed, but that is a suborbital toy. I'm interested in crew transport to/from ISS and LEO in general. Rutan's Mach 3.5 amusement park ride is of no practical value in that regard.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Indeed, but that is a suborbital toy. I'm interested in crew transport to/from ISS and LEO in general. Rutan's Mach 3.5 amusement park ride is of no practical value in that regard.<br /><br /><font color="white">No value? Where else do you think the funding for an orbital craft will come from? The sucess of a suborbital tourist flights is vital if funding from goverment or existing private ventures falls through.</font></font>

 

[spacefire]

there is absolutely no reason to use a lifting body shape for a suborbital craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Indeed, for all we know Rutan is going to use a scaled up version of spaceshipone, which was winged. <br /><br />True, but I think we were really comparing using a capsule intead of either a winged or a lifting body shape. A capsule is NOT what Burt Rutan is going to use! He is a great aircraft and spacecraft designer on the splitting edge of technology, he is NOT going to use a 40 year old desgin!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No value? Where else do you think the funding for an orbital craft will come from? The sucess of a suborbital tourist flights is vital if funding from goverment or existing private ventures falls through.</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is critical. Suborbital flights for various services (tourists, short zero-G experiments, etc.) provide the financial means to continue development and infrastructure build-out for more advanced capability.<br /><br />For example, White Knight Two is being developed for SpaceShipTwo and the suborbital tourist market, but WK2 is also being positioned as the launch platform for the orbital t/Space CXV.</i>