Has NASA decided on a capsule for "CEV"?

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Are you sure that a capsule/chute combination cannot be engineered where the aerodynamics allows for a great degree of accurancy in the landing?</font><br /><br />Human risk adversity will dictate that the capsule can only land in very remote, deserted area. Even Edwards might be considered too populated to shoot a landing there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

Did you know, and I BS you not, they actually wanted to land an Apollo mission on the White House lawn!?

 

[spacefire]

different times... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

You can't write off a particular design just because its "the old boring way to do things". NASA wants to go to the Moon, nowhere does it say that we need the equivalent of a space faring Corvette to do this. Who gives a crap if capsules can't land on a runway, what does that have to do with getting to the Moon. Wings are useless when it comes to space exploration. All they do is add some comfort on re entry. Sure if you're trying to build a passenger ferry for some spaceline, wings are needed. But for what NASA is doing, we don't need to land on a runway, the astronauts can deal with a few more G's than they would if the craft had wings. <br /><br />The only reason the shuttle had wings was because NASA envisioned a spacecraft that was like a Boeing 747, it would land, taxi up to a hangar and be ready to go again. Do we really need this for a Moon mission? As of now, it doesn't look like we will be flying a Moon mission once a week. Capsules are capable of pinpoint landings. And what about steerable chutes? The parafoil type parachutes that you see on some ultralights are steerable, or what about the regallo wing concept that was to be used on Gemini? How soon you forget that Big Gemini and Blue Gemini would have landed on skids. But you guys claim capsules don't really land. <br /><br />And don't think I hate all winged spacecraft. I am all for wings on spacecraft that will carry civilian passengers to space stations. There we will need the luxery of landing at spaceports and having a quick turnaround. For passenger spacelines to work, they have to operate like aircraft. <br />However, for what NASA is planning to do, we do not need these things. The old splashdown is fine.

 

[john_316]

Capsules are good for you and good for me....<br /><br />They will make a good happy space family....<br /><br />Capsules will not be a step back in frugality....<br /><br /><br />Capsules will make it routine again to be in space and not as many delays like shuttle gave us....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[spacefire]

capsules have a size limit-approximately the lateral dimensions of the booster. This means that they are limited to delivering a small number of people into LEO. Thus they are not suitable for large scale space operations. Sticking to capsules means mankind will never truly conquer space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

Hey, you know what? The CEV isn't supposed to deliver large numbers of people to space.

 

[spacefire]

sure. VSE is just a rehash of the Apollo days and a way to get more votes. My feeling is that it's going to change drastically and/or fade away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

wasn't a paraglider an option for the original Gemini program?

 

[j05h]

>capsules have a size limit-approximately the lateral dimensions of the booster. This means that they are limited to delivering a small number of people into LEO. Thus they are not suitable for large scale space operations. Sticking to capsules means mankind will never truly conquer space.<br /><br />That is not correct. There are plenty of ways to have a capsule that holds many people. I've got sketches I worked out a while ago that use a 5m diameter capsule that can hold 8 or 14 people +cargo. Yes, it's launched by a heavy rocket, with a hammerhead fairing, it's not fancy but would work. There is no need (no destination) for hundreds to fly at a time now. We need the miners and builders and very rich tourists first, then the Liberty Cruise Spaceways can join. First steps first. 10 or so people with the right equipment can create wonders in space.<br /><br />Space can definitely be colonized and developed with many architectures, pick one. The real stipulation is that it has to make money. This is not NASA's job, but industry and entrepreneur. NASA seems, thankfully, to be going back to what they do best: exploration. <br /><br />A lack of imagination means mankind will never truly conquer space.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I'd like to see what the height/diameter ratio of your capsule is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

yes, read one of my previous posts in this nice trhead. it wasn't implemented for obvious reasons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

5x5m with a low center of gravity. Much more spacious than Soyuz, with the crew at the top of the craft and passengers lower. It's for a work of fiction, uses transparational heat shields and a ballute for stability on reentry.<br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

by scaling up the apollo command module to your dimensions, you'd be able to carry 7-8 people in this capsule which indeed fits atop a delta rocket. that's the absolute limi in the number of occupants , since the Apollo command module lacked any propulsion and consumables.<br />plus the poor &%$#@!s will be stacked like sardines <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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">"according to ya'alls logic, we should be riding bikes instead of driving cars"</font><br /><br />Let's build on this. Whether a car or a bike is the better mode of transport depends on what kind of trip you're talking about.<br /><br />- If the intent is to move one person 100 meters from their current location, then a bicycle is obviously a better choice than a car.<br /><br />- If the intent is to carry four people 300 miles from their current location, along with 100 pounds of luggage, then a car is obviously a better choice than a bicycle.<br /><br />A lifting-body shape isn't intrinsically <b>better</b> than a capsule shape. Nor is the reverse true. They each have advantages and disadvantages, and the decision between the two should be made based on what they are being designed to do. The mission of the VSE is such that several of the capsule characteristics are advantages.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"This means that they are limited to delivering a small number of people into LEO. Thus they are not suitable for large scale space operations. "</font><br /><br />Big-Gemini's re-entry capsule had the same maximum diameter as Apollo (3.91 m) but could hold 12 people. The Delta-IV and Atlas-V boosters have 5m payload fairings. If you were to boost the max diameter of the capsule by 32%, the interior volume increases by 240% (13-5 m3 - /> 32.7 m3). If you then take into account that the avionics, electronics (and their power requirements) are the same between the smaller and larger capsules, and the fact that Big-G was designed with 60's tech... it becomes clear to pretty much anyone that you can take a pretty flipping big number of people to and from orbit in a capsule.<br /><br />Mind you -- it's going to be a fair chunk of decades before anyone gives a rat's ass. Right now there's only one reason why anyone wants a spacecraft that can handle <b>six</b> people. By the time we're interested in getting 20+ people into space, lifting-bodies will probably be considered 'quaint'.

 

[spacefire]

I'll have to disagree with you, because unless something totally new is developed, our next generation launchers (or next-next gen) are going to be lifting body SSTO ramjets, cheaper and with payloads comparable to today's EELVs.<br />question for you: was the Big Gemini supposed to fly atop a Titan IV? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

Titan IIIC.

 

[j05h]

Yes, they are packed tight into the main capsule, but it comes with an equal sized Hab module stacked on top of it - plenty of space for hanging out in during flight. And the hab gets left behind at the station it docks to, increasing useful volume onorbit with each flight. I call the architecture "Mahayana", the 3-man capsule is "Hinayana", Great Vessel and Little Vessel from Buddhism. The unmanned, one-rack capsule is called Dharma.<br /><br />My design incorporated hard Soyuz-evolved seats, but after seeing the t/space CXV mockup pictures, I have to admit that those webbing seats make that type of large capsule even more practical.<br /><br />For the next 10-20 years, can you think of an orbital application that would require flights with more than 14 people onboard? I think that above that number the flight operator is going to start running into insurance issues. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

thanks NajaB.<br /><br />I believe space tourism is going to be the motivation to build spacecraft able to fly more than 20 people to LEO, in comfortable conditions, and I belive it will happen in the next 25 years. we've all been waiting for this "second space age" for decades, but I think things are finally moving in that direction. <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">"our next generation launchers (or next-next gen) are going to be lifting body SSTO ramjets, cheaper and with payloads comparable to today's EELVs. "</font><br /><br />Well I must admit that your 'disagreements' with me are getting somewhat less... um... emphatic. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />However, a "lifting-body SSTO ramjet" has much in common with a duck-billed platypus -- too many different types of parts in one animal. Normally a ramjet/scramjet launch vehicle is going to launch horizontally. However, lifting bodies aren't designed for horizontal launches -- they simply have to be going too fast to generate enough lift to 'fly'. Lifting bodies generally don't 'fly' as such -- like Buzz Lightyear, they simply 'fall... with style'. Normally, when you look at launching lifting bodies, you do so vertically. However, jets, whether conventional, ram, or scram... don't have the thrust for vertical launches.<br /><br />Also, while a portion of the logic for using ramjets/scramjets to assist in accelerating spacecraft to orbit is because of the savings in oxidizer -- they all assume a horizontal flight <i>and</i> that the craft being accelerated is getting a lot of 'lift' from the atmosphere. LB's only have 'a lot of lift' when compared to capsules. In horizontal flight, much of the thrust of the ramjets will be dedicated to keeping the LB from falling... rather than to making it go faster.<br /><br />So... you can have a TSTO system, where a flyback, winged first stage, with ramjets/scramjets has a piggybacked lifting-body second-stage, or you can have an SSTO ramjet-assisted winged craft that launches horizontally, or you can have an SSTO lifting-body that launches vertically and uses rockets alone, but a SSTO/ramjet/lifting body just doesn't add up.

 

[spacefire]

That's how it's been investigated. Lifting body, with the scramjet on the underside. Please look it up. <br /><br />And lift generated at high speeds(scramjet operation) will help and lessen the thrust requirements of the scramjet. <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">"I believe space tourism is going to be the motivation to build spacecraft able to fly more than 20 people to LEO, in comfortable conditions, and I belive it will happen in the next 25 years. "</font><br /><br />I have a lot of trouble seeing that in the timeframe you indicate. The initial problem with putting that many tourists into LEO is... what are they doing there? Are we talking get to LEO, spend a few orbits in their seats sipping Tang & Vodka screwdrivers and looking out the windows, then coming back to earth? Why? This would be at least an order of magnitude greater expense than an extended suborbital flight with very little extra in the way of benefits to the passengers.<br /><br />If you expect the spacecraft to be dropping these people off at a space station, then we have other problems. Where exactly is a space station coming from that can handle 20 people for one. Except of course that 20 is too low, the station will also need crew to maintain it, plus crew to provide for passenger comfort. Call it a station for 25 to 30 people -- probably towards the upper end. Unless <b>revolutionary</b> technologies are developed to recycle air/water/food, logistics for a station holding that many people are going to be an absolute nightmare. Water purification and O2->CO2->O2 tech might well be advanced enough to reduce those particular problems. However, unless we develop the Star Trek food replicator in the next 25 years, food is a major problem. Farms are a great way to 'close the cycle', but the amount of space required to close the loop for 30 people is staggeringly beyond what is conceivable in that timeframe.<br /><br />I can envision a 20-person suborbital tourist craft in that timeframe. Orbital tourism of that size by then is simply not within the bounds of reason.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"That's how it's been investigated."</font><br /><br />There are also people investigating building flying saucers using Bose-Enstein condensates. I believe you've seen the link. Doesn't mean that makes any sense either. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

So you would like an up dated Spiral launch system?