Has NASA decided on a capsule for "CEV"?

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...now they're building a lifting body craft which is a clear advancement over the Soyuz..."</font><br /><br />And if they were to build a clean-sheet design capsule -- that too would be a clear advancement over a design that is 40+ years old. It would be pretty sad if they were unable to design a new craft that had obvious advantages to Soyuz.<br /><br />The Russians have a reliable and sustainable manned spacecraft. They can afford to experiment with a design that <b>looks</b> like it will work... on paper. If Kliper ends up being a dud -- they will still have Soyuz. They'll have the luxury of being able to go back to the Soyuz and can likely even make some improvements in that based on tech that gets developed during the Kliper R&D. NASA doesn't have the time or the money to play around right now.<br /><br />Tell you what -- you generally reject my capsule arguments out of hand. I'll play dirty this time... I'll pit your two heartfelt passions against each other. While the shuttle program is running, do you <b>really</b> think that NASA will have enough money to spend the proper amount developing a lifting-body vehicle? I <i>think</i> that you have agreed in the past that capsules (despite their myriad other failings) should be relatively cheap for NASA to build and operate. Would a lifting-body craft not work better as a successor to a capsule-CEV, when NASA actually has the budget to do it without making compromise after compromise that would likely make such a craft as much of a not-quite-right craft as the orbiters?

 

[spacefire]

First of all, I don't have faith in NASA to do the right thing. What I think should be done and what the agency will do seldom coincide. One such happy time was the SLI, who showed some promising, fully reusable designs.<br />I agree that we don't have the luxury of a proven astronaut delivery system, however, neither is the investment into a lifting body shape such a great risk since so much data has been gathered over the years.<br />A primitive lifting body, such as that proposed by LM for the CEV, deployed by an expendable launcher, while still a pretty technologically unimaginative solution, should provide data and confidence to build more advanced designs later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"A primitive lifting body..."</font><br /><br />??? I thought only capsules were primitive. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[tomnackid]

"First of all, I don't have faith in NASA to do the right thing."<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Hmmm, lets see:<br /><br />China: has launched ONE astronaut with Soviet derived technology.<br /><br />Russia: can barely squeeze three men in pressure suits into a Soyuze and launch them into LEO (after a lot of financial help from NASA). Unmanned science missions? Don't make me laugh.<br /><br />Rutan and Branson: will send millionaires on very expensive roller coaster rides sometime in the near future, maybe.<br /><br />NASA: 7-10 men and 65,500 pounds to LEO in one shot. 32,000 pounds returned to a runway landing. Two words; Odyssey, Spirit. Not to mention Hubble, Voyagers 1 & 2, Pioneer, Viking, Mariner. Oh, a moon landing as well.<br /><br />Come on NASA bashers. Yes NASA should be criticized. Yes it should be held accountable. Yes private industry should be encouraged to stop feeding at the public trough and develop their own space capability. But lets have some perspective! <br /><br />Lately self serving politicians and complainatarians -- oops I mean "libertarians" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> find it convenient and useful to portray NASA as a bunch a bumbling idiots, but remember, they fail big because they attempt more than anyone else out there. Have we become so afraid of failure that we are unwilling to even make an effort anymore? <br /><br />Is the shuttle everything we hoped it could be? Of course not. Is space flight cheap and routine yet? No--but it isn't for anyone. It would probably cost Russia a hell of a lot more to put 7 men and 65,500 pounds into orbit using multiple Soyuze launches than it does to launch one shuttle--and would probably bee more dangerous too. Return capability? How many Soyuze reentry capsules would it take to return 32,000 pounds? And of course it have to be in chunks small enough to pass through the hatch.

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"Tell you what -- you generally reject my capsule arguments out of hand. I'll play dirty this time... I'll pit your two heartfelt passions against each other. While the shuttle program is running, do you really think that NASA will have enough money to spend the proper amount developing a lifting-body vehicle? I think that you have agreed in the past that capsules (despite their myriad other failings) should be relatively cheap for NASA to build and operate."</font><br /><br />So, what you're saying is that NASA should develop a cheaper, inferior replacement for the shuttle so it can afford to keep the shuttle flying while it develops a less worthy successor? That makes no sense!

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"So what you're saying is that NASA should develop a cheaper, inferior replacement for the shuttle so it can afford to keep the shuttle flying "</font><br /><br />Um... no. Nor can I really see exactly what orifice you pulled that particular interpretation from. I'll break out and expand on what I said to make it easier for you.<br /><br />- NASA will begin developing the CEV while the shuttle is flying (i.e. presumably for the next 4.5 years or so)<br />- While the shuttle orbiters are flying, money will be tight tight tight because the STS eats up a tremendous slice of NASA's budget.<br />- A development program that requires less money will be less likely to have to make compromises on the design due to budgetary pressures.<br />- A capsule-based CEV should cost considerably less to develop than a lifting-body based one.<br />- At some point in the future, <b>after</b> the shuttle has been retired, NASA will be developing a new spacecraft.<br />- The CEV program will (hopefully) require much less in the way of operational costs, and leave a larger budgetary window to develop this next-generation craft.<br />- This next generation craft could, and likely should be a lifting-body craft whose design could make use of the increased bucks available.<br /><br />Hopefully that makes it more clear to you what my argument to spacefire was.<br /><br />Just to clear up a couple of other misconceptions you seem to have:<br /><br />- The CEV is not a 'replacement' for the shuttle. It has an entirely different mission than the shuttle does. Calling it an 'inferior replacement' is akin to calling a Porche 911 an 'inferior replacement' to a 5-ton dump truck.<br /><br />- The CEV development won't alter NASA's ability to 'afford' to fly the shuttle. The shuttle may stop flying before 2010 due to safety issues, however, so far as money goes, when it gets tight, the budget that is likely to suffer cuts is that of the CEV... which is the point I was making.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I thought only capsules were primitive</font><br /><br />ok, my definition of primitive is based on two aspects: the control surfaces (the bigger the better) and the ability to land horizontally on a runway, or lackthereof<br />HL42 is an example of an advanced lifting body design, so was the X33 or a scramjet SSTO. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"my definition of ..."</font><br /><br />Yes, spacefire. We've all seen your dictionary. It has very short and uninformed entries for just about everything it contains:<br /><br /><b>Capsule</b> (kap-sul) n. - Primitive spacecraft. Sux.<br /><b>Lifting Body</b> (lihft-ing bah-dee) n. - Perfect spacecraft. NASA should build only lifting-bodies. See HL-42.<br /><b>Shuttle</b> (shuh-tuhl) n. - Waste of money. NASA should cancel it now and build a lifting body.<br /><b>Zebra</b> (zee-bruh) n. - Striped horselike animal. Sux though 'cause it's not a lifting body.

 

[dwightlooi]

NASA's budget ($15 billion/yr) is miniscule alongside the US Defence budget ($400 billion/yr) or the US government budget ($2400 billion/yr). I think congress should grant NASA an additional $2 billion a year between now and 2010 for DEV development. Or, at the very least, allow NASA to "borrow" an additional $2billion to pe repaid from NASA's budget in the future probably over 15 years or some other relatiely long timeline.

 

[spacefire]

you got it! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>