Has NASA decided on a capsule for "CEV"?

[magick58]

I know I'm going to get flak for this but other than an escape pod capsules should go the way of the dodo. It's OLD!!!! Kill it all ready. Yes it's been proven time and time again but if it ends up that way, my faith or what little I have left in NASA is done. <br />I agree that for the ships going to the moon or mars yes there is no need for them to have wings however the CEV system should just be an expansion of the shuttle. Take what we have learned for that system and go further with it.<br />I've looked at some of the design pics and all I can see is us going backwards. One design showed a booster system just like the shuttles but in place of the obiter was a rocket. UM..... Does any one else take issue with this other than me and my friends?!?!?!? <br />I've done allot of research and the block to having a craft that can have atmospheric flight and reach LEO and the ISS is the cost of lifting power. Let the EPA eat cake Put Nuc rocket engines in there and get rid of the oxidizer that would already increase the safely of the system and cut the fuel weight in half.<br /><br />That just my opinion I could be wrong.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

What we have learned from the shuttle is gigantic, incredibly complex and fragile spacecraft aren't a good idea. And wings aren't so helpful. And capsules have already gone to the Moon, which means they can do it again. And you can't use wings on the moon. <br />enough reasons?

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"....capsules should go the way of the dodo. It's OLD!!!!"<br /><br />So by that argument the wheel, which is even OLDER, should also go the way of the Dodo? Deciding whether something should still be used simply on its age is fatuous.<br /><br />Capsules are demonstrated to be effective, efficient and safe. No other design matches it for the proposed missions.

 

[spacefire]

do you have a better alternative for the wheel?<br /><br />No? Thought so.<br /><br /><br />Well, I have a better alternative for a capsule: it's called a lifting body. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

But is it better!

 

[spacefire]

sure, it's got crossrange, it can land horizontally on a runway...it won't crush you on impact...sure it's better! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I have a better alternative for a capsule: it's called a lifting body<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />the word "Better" implies an axis of measurement. Along which axis/axes of measurement is "your alternative" better ?

 

[najab]

><i>....it can land horizontally on a runway....</i><p>As I have pointed out every time you raise this argument, horizontal landing is a drawback. A capsule can land on a runway, a winged/lifting body vehicle can't land in a field.</p>

 

[spacefire]

please define 'landing' for a capsule. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">the word "Better" implies an axis of measurement. Along which axis/axes of measurement is "your alternative" better ? </font><br />reusability, practicality, performance <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

The process by which it becomes non-airbourne.

 

[spacefire]

then-you'd be able to call a lot of processes landings, some without any control over the outcome! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I see skydivers regularly hit very small targets with great accuracy. I don't see why a computer or man-controlled chute could not do the same for a capsule. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

There is no real reason why you can't make a capsule re-usable. Practicality- no mass wasted on the lifting body and it can land almost anywhere whilst the shuttle only has 3 places (that i know of- please enlighten me if otherwise) that it can land. Larger windows for an emergency landing.<br />Performance- I really don't see how a lifting body could be described as having better performance.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"then-you'd be able to call a lot of processes landings, some without any control over the outcome!"</font><br /><br />So add "safely" to the definition you nit picking nit... picker!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"In either case, you will be disappointed if you are expecting a winged space plane. The OSP is dead, period." <br /><br />Indeed, I am disappointed by that. I think they should use the X-37 as the basis for the next crew transport. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Keep in mind that the X-37, as was designed, has no room for astronauts. It was an un-manned orbital vehicle.<br /><br />The other major problem no one has addressed with lifting body and/or wing vehicles, is the issue of TPS (thermal protection system). We have not make any major breakthrough in this technology area and any lifting body and/or wing vehicle will be subject to the same reentry issue like the shuttle orbiter does today.<br /><br />A capsule has advantage in that it has less TPS acreage and the TPS does not require to be reusable. Its geometry is relatively simple and can be bolted on/off in relative large pieces, whereas wing and/or lifting body would require lots of individual pieces much like the shuttle orbiter with complex design, installation and refurbishment (labor intensive) cost.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>please define 'landing' for a capsule. <br /><br />The process by which it becomes non-airbourne. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm... so if the capsule 'touch down' on water, can we still call it <font color="yellow">land</font>ng ??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[larper]

Now, you know that I am not a lifting body fan. But, just because I favor a vertical landing, either by capsule or DC-X type, does not mean that the heat shield can't be tiles. The Shuttles TPS does work, it just needs to be protected during launch.<br /><br />If a reusable TPS can be proven to be safe and cheap, no reason to not use it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

according to ya'alls logic, we should be riding bikes instead of driving cars <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Smart cars vs limo would be a better analogy.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I see skydivers regularly hit very small targets with great accuracy. I don't see why a computer or man-controlled chute could not do the same for a capsule</font><br />because the spacecraft equivalent of a parachute as used today (not back in the second world war) is a paraglider, which requires some forward movement. A capsule is way too draggy for a paraglider configuration, though it was investigated for a tilted gemini capsule-but the additional weight of landing skids nullified its possible advantages .<br />thus, your capsule will have to land under round parachutes which are not very steerable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"A capsule is way too draggy for a paraglider configuration..."</font><br /><br />Are you sure that a capsule/chute combination cannot be engineered where the aerodynamics allows for a great degree of accurancy in the landing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[botch]

Accuracy isn't a problem with capsules, even those from the appollo missions, just think of the accuracy with modern technology. <br />And so what if they end up a few hundred miles off target? The shuttle has just landed on the wrong side of the CONTINENT and I don't see people starting an argument about that. <br /><br />(Edit: that reply was directed towards spacefire)

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>according to ya'alls logic, we should be riding bikes instead of driving cars <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No, according to your logic, we should all be driving in amphibious, flying, 4 wheel drive, backhoes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I bow to your bs'ing skills <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>