stutch,<br /><br />You make a lot of sense. Unfortunately it looks like we have a dog fight here with the participants' jaws locked on each others snouts, oblivious to their surroundings.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
The Airbreather, SSTO, Lifting body concept has been investigated at least as seriously as your giant capsules 
<br /><br />http://library-dspace.larc.nasa.gov/dspace/jsp/bitstream/2002/11004/1/NASA-aiaa-99-4948.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br /><br />http://library-dspace.larc.nasa.gov/dspace/jsp/bitstream/2002/11004/1/NASA-aiaa-99-4948.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>>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.<br /><br />(and we drift fully offtopic...) I have to disagree. 25 years is a LONG time. Mr. Bigelow is planning on having the first Nautilus stations flying within 5-8 years (giving it some slippage). After that, it just becomes an question of manufacturing new units, production-line style. And, of course, coming up with new add-on modules to make the Nautilus more useful - control blocks, aerobraking ballutes, nodes, greenhouses etc.<br /><br />It is completely conceivable in the next 25 years to have multiple orbital tourist hotels with 20-40 person occupancy, along with an array of corporate and govt. stations. The Nautilus modules appear ideal for generic housing, entertainment and research purposes, each will by their nature be outfitted onorbit. Cheap lift and water from an outside source (lunar, NEO comet) are the two enabling techs to make this practical. This can be in the form of one hotel/commercial research complex for the ultrarich (a slight progression from status quo) or something many thousands a year experience (w/ cheaper lift). Or, we fart around w/ the ISS, declining engineering interest and the governments of the world somehow keep space utilization from blossoming. The Bigelows and Musks are aiming to blow the whole thing open, someone eventually will succeed. I think the tipping point of public acceptance was SpaceShipOne's successful flights - the next real challenge is getting to-orbit human flight more affordable.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
one of the first problems some had with my earlier post was that you don't need a wing anything to go to the moon I already had said that for the moon and mars missions that a capsule system works great there is no reason to have anything else but for the system to replace the shuttle on the other hand is a different story.<br /><br />ONE: The craft that is going to Mars is not launching from earth, and if is NASA is full of bigger retards than i thought. The mars system is going to be launched in sections and be built in space. Best place to build this craft in my opinion is on the moon. <br /><br />Two: Going to the moon. How long should it take? If all we wanted to do was got to the moon we could be there in 2 years if we really wanted to. How do we do this:<br />Make a Lander that will fit in to the shuttle cargo bay. Take it up to the ISS and leave it there. <br />Retrofit a shuttle with the extra stuff it needs to orbit the moon. Different software and avi upgrades and relight systems for the shttles engines.<br />Start shooting fuel up to the ISS Enough to fill a standard shuttle tank. Yes I know the tank will have to be modified and that you would have to take in to account boil off.<br />Take you retrofit shuttle and tank and launch it empty except for crew that way it can keep its tank all the way up to ISS.<br /><br />Pick up the Lander, Refuel the tank go to the moon. Drop off pick up go home. <br /><br />If you real want to get heady with it start launching all the crap to make a base on the moon put a forklift in the Lander and go to town. When the shuttle gets there all the craps there start building. <br /><br />That just my opinion I could be wrong.<br />
FYI the guy that designed the engines for SpaceShipOne Just came up with an engine thats reffit time is only one week and the redisign is only 3 weeks.<br />That engine is going in to SpaceShipTwo<br /> <br />If NASA keeps going the way they are, Backwards, the private market is only place where we are going to see the type of systems that we all dream about.
> <i><font color="yellow">If NASA keeps going the way they are, Backwards</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think the return to the capsule should be viewed as "backwards" but rather "forwards" to where we once were. In other words, the shuttle, while a noble attempt, was a step backwards.<br /><br />The problem is that for 25 years NASA has been unable to admit that the shuttle was a flawed system and go back to the drawing board.</i>
the shuttle was a step forward in concept, and a foot in the arse in execution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
the concept is good i agree and i also belive that if we did that concept right and acualy fix the problems the current shuttle has then the multi role spacecraft would be complety prosible in cost and mission capiblity.<br /> <br />But, even with the ISS we didn't use every thing that we learned from Mir (or however you spell it). I think even if we went with a Shuttle II it would still have as many problems as the current shuttle. It would be better but it but some of the major things wouldn't be fixed.<br /><br />If you look at any modern day fighter you will see that muti role is cheaper and more cost effective. Then again something that soposed to hall cargo halls cargo or lots of people. Hopefuly some one will come up with the space C-130 that is as reliable and safe as the C-130. I've given up on getting that this time around but i'll still fight for it.
> <i><font color="yellow"> I've given up on getting that this time around but i'll still fight for it.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the big issue is whether a "customer" is willing to pay for down cargo capability. If someone is willing to pay the dollars, someone will probably come up with a solution. I think an unmanned lifting body solution launched on an expendible booster could be developed by a commercial company <i>if the dollars show up</i>. Maybe a cargo Kliper.<br /><br />A highly reusable medium lift vehicle (i.e., the next shuttle) might be a little harder to achieve. There is no shortage of ideas (e.g., Airship To Orbit), but I am not aware of any that are close (e.g., within 5-10 years) of being implemented.</i>
I think NASA should get out of the winged spacecraft business, and leave that to companies like Scaled for space tourism. That is where we need winged spacecraft.
The biggest problem with a capsul form of space craft will be public opinion. eaven if it is a far better means of doing what needs to be done. the general public wants to see what they asume to be a step forward not a step backwards. imnot saying capsuls are a step backwards but that will be the perception of the majority of the populus. if this perception is one of going backwards they will start to rais all kinds of flack and in turn congress will start to pull funding to keep thier voters happy.<br /><br />its sad but true that its not always the best technology that gets used but the most popular ones.<br /><br />gawin
gawin I understand what you say here but if safety is the main issue people will understand that the shuttle is like driving a Big Rig and the CEV is more like driving a Dodge Caravan...<br /><br />The Cargo CEV versions can be the new F-150 version...<br /><br />The days of cargo+crew is over for a rocket ship in the near future...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
>The biggest problem with a capsul form of space craft will be public opinion.<br /><br />I'm not sure - many people seem to understand how dangerous Shuttle is. Simple explanation brings most people to seeing capsules as safer, especially for interplanetary flights. The people that will try to get NASA funding cut don't care about wings VS capsules, they are usually Luddites of some form that don't want any spaceflight. The people that will push against a capsule are Shuttle loyalists with something to lose in the changeover. I support commercial sourcing for government lift, it works for the Air Force, why can't it work for NASA? The destination is important, not the boat you sail in...<br /><br />The physics really do push spacecraft toward certain shapes. Moving to iron from bronze was a big step "backwards" in that same viewpoint - bronze items lasted much longer and looked better, but iron was cheaper and faster to produce. I think the market, eventually, will develop craft that work, reliably, for Earth-LEO transport. In the long run, every design we discuss and many we can't even imagine (think WrightBros- />747) will all be built and fly. We just need the first, affordable craft now.<br /><br />Josh<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Continuing on the "public opinion regarding capsules as a step backwards" theme... I say hogwash!<br /><br />1. Only geeks like us <b>really</b> give a rat's posterior about the shape of a spacecraft. Hate to tell you, folks, but we're vastly outnumbered.<br /><br />2. If a CEV is developed with modules clearly paralleling that of Apollo, the first thing that will happen when it's completed is that the popular media will come up with detailed comparisons of it vs Apollo. When you compare the tech that will go into the CEV with that of Apollo, it will be obvious to essentially everyone with a pulse that the new craft is *not* a step backwards. <br /><br />3. There will be another set of articles in the popular media that compares the technology of the CEV with that of the shuttle orbiters. From that set of articles, the CEV will <b>still</b> come out looking hugely advanced, plus any halfway decent article will show just how incredibly overengineered the shuttles had to be just to be able to function, and how much that overengineering reduced their ability to perform.<br /><br />4. Most of all -- the CEV is going to be the most media-friendly craft designed to date. It's going to provide more real-time camera footage than has ever been the case. Joe Public likes to *see* what his money is being spent on, and the digital cameras available now are going to allow the CEV to provide this. He couldn't care less that the craft the camera is mounted on happens to be a capsule.
speaking of the perspective of the public, how is the CEV going to look next to the Kliper?<br />IMHO, pretty low tech! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
sure: by definition a capsule is more primitive than a lifting body <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"how is the CEV going to look next to the Kliper?"</font><br /><br />Well -- considering that if the Ruskies don't get somebody to pony up some cash... the Kliper will still be a mockup... the CEV should come off pretty well in the comparison. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"IMHO, pretty low tech! "</font><br /><br />Piffle. You expect us to take any post of yours seriously where you imply that you're humble? Pull the other one now.<br /><br />On a more serious note -- if we assume that the Kliper and the CEV are both working spacecraft in the 2011-2012 timeframe, then comparisons are going to depend on how the two are implemented. If the CEV concept goes forward as a capsule, the implemented craft is quite likely to be pretty close to the original design. You can't be quite as sure that the same will be true of the Kliper. Development may cause it to make compromises that impose shuttlesque problems to the end product. Also -- top-end Russian electronics tech is still a decade or more behind top-end U.S. tech. <br /><br />In the end -- everything is going to depend on how well the designs are implemented. The lifting-body Kliper still doesn't have the runway landing you prefer, and the winged Kliper will have a smaller relative payload/capability than a capsule-based CEV. If the landing accuracy of a modern capsule is as good as *I* think that it will be, the LB Kliper won't be providing anything that the capsule doesn't. Extra crossrange is only an advantage if you need it. If the re-entry burns are made such that the landing track requires little or no crossrange correction, then having the <i>ability</i> to make that type of correction is useless. The two are liable to have advantages and disadvantages. As with our continuing argument, the 'winner' will really depend on how you weight those.
keep in mind that the US does not have any experience with manned capsule 'landings'.<br />The Russians have plenty, and yet they are switching to a lifting body design. That ought to say something. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
A new use capsule will compare to Kliper exactly as Soyus now compares to the Shuttle. One flies reliably, one does not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
Lifting bodies look crap too compared to star trek. Even in star trek they use capsules. Check out The Motion Picture. Kirk and Scotty travel in a capsule and dock with the Enterprise. <br /><br />
Its kinda sad to see people argue about whether to use a lifting body or capsule, and whether real progress is being made.<br /><br />The most important thing is that the CEV on a stick will make a shift in NASA development. In the past when something new had to be designed somebody fetched a clean sheet of paper and started from point zero. Always going somewhere in heaps and bounds.]<br /><br /><br />Finally NASA will use an evolutionary design instead. Using off the shelf equipment and adjust this for its new role, cheaper, safer and fool proof. Its what NASA needs right now
time will tell. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
but which is which? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /><br />don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Russians, but they have proven that they can keep a station like Mir runing for 13 years, their spacecraft are reliable and a success abroad as well-the Shenzou is derived from the Soyuz, and now they're building a lifting body craft which is a clear advancement over the Soyuz, not a tremendous step forward, but at least one, IMHO, in the right direction! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram