If it even needs stating....

[spacefire]

Page 14 of AW&ST, Boeing-Northrop ad with the Moon in the foreground and Mars in the background.<br />Caption: "We're not just repeating the past.We're charting the future."<br />Even the potential CEV developers feel that their efforts lack vision! They feel need to reassure everyone that this will ultimately lead to a new frontier (Mars in the distance), but first we gotta go to the Moon cause NASA cannot afford to pay us for anything more ambitious...but maybe in a few years...or decades...or maybe it will all be cancelled but we still get paid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Yeah, CNN just had a story on its web site detailing why the CEV is more than just a spruced up Apollo capsule. But I think that'll be a tough sell. The CEV is quite frankly neither very exciting nor groundbreaking. And the VSE plan is really nothing more than "Apollo 2.0" with some incremental, evolutionary enhancements. It's hardly a vision worthy of the 21st century, imo.

 

[nacnud]

Fine, what would you do with the same money?

 

[tomnackid]

OK, so go back to bed. Stick your head under the covers and and just lie their moaning. You don't have to agree with VSE, but to try and torpedo it out of spite and then turn around and say "See I told you it would never work." isn't really an answer either.<br /><br />What if Louis and Clark told President Jefferson that exploring the new western territories with canoes and pack mules was too "old fashioned" and "lacked vision"? Your idea is to dump a system that we spent millions developing and KNOW FOR A FACT works just because it might not look cool to a bunch of video game lame-o's? Or do you think that putting 12 men on the moon (surface area about equal to North America) pretty much told us everything we need to know about the moon and manned space exploration? If so, then why even bother doing anything? Just sit home and draw cool fancy spaceships on your computer. Its a lot cheaper than the real thing.

 

[tomnackid]

"And the VSE plan is really nothing more than "Apollo 2.0" with some incremental, evolutionary enhancements"<br />------------------------------------------------------------<br />Yeah, nothing more than sending men 1/4 million miles across open space to the surface of another world. Hardly worth doing I guess. <br /><br />Who gives a flying *&%$# what the dammed spaceship LOOKS like!!!!!! You people remind of those kids who buy bolt on spoilers to stick on their econo-boxes and then think they are race car drivers.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Fine, what would you do with the same money? </i><br /><br />Have one hell of a party! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Seriously, I would revive SLI and increase funding for unmanned exploration. As for the immediate need for a shuttle replacement, that's a tough one. I'd like to see a "VentureStar" type of vehicle (TSTO rather than SSTO, most likely), but for the near term, a small X-38/CRV class vehicle could be developed quickly and cheaply for ISS support. As for what to use to launch it, I still tend to favor man rating the Delta IV over using an SRB. I don't know if I can get comfortable with the solids for manned use. But either way, it's risky business. No rocket is going to be "safe" compared to, say, flying on a 737. <br /><br />I would like to see humans move beyond LEO, certainly. But if we can't afford to do it right, then why do it at all? I have seen no compelling justification for the expensive lunar excursions planned currently, and they come at a heavy cost to other worthwhile programs. I think we need to get smarter about spaceflight, and spend our limited resources developing systems that will make access to space affordable and routine compared to legacy systems like the STS-derived VSE hardware.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Yeah, nothing more than sending men 1/4 million miles across open space to the surface of another world. Hardly worth doing I guess.</i><br /><br />Again, I have seen no compelling reason for spending the bulk of NASA's spaceflight budget on sending a few peope to the moon for weeklong excursions. Will there be some scientific knowledge gained? Probably. Will it be worth the cost? I doubt it. I think humanity has benefited far more from projects like Hubble than it will benefit from expensive flag and footprints feel good missions to the moon.

 

[nacnud]

So you want to go to the Moon etc but just not yet? You want NASA to find cheaper, faster, better ways first?

 

[vt_hokie]

Pick two out of the three! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />So, you're happy giving up on advanced concepts and instead pouring billions into a shuttle contractor porkbarrel project that will ensure we don't advance beyond our current level of technology for at least another generation?

 

[j05h]

> Fine, what would you do with the same money?<br /><br />I'll take that up. for the estimated $5G of CEV development, I would allocate something like this:<br /><br />$1G for 1000 tons of water delivered to LEO, in indefinite storage. <br /><br />$1G in open research funds for advancing spaceflight tech, both Earth-LEO and deepspace.<br /><br />$1G for Soyuz flights - that's 25 flight-seats to LEO and 6months storage at current prices.<br /><br />$1G standing offer for 25 flight-seats via American providers.<br /><br />$1G directed into the lunar lander immediately. Insist on water-based propulsion (H2O, methane or H & LoX split) and power (Solar Dynamic). Ideally the lander could be flown/assembled from 20-40ton chunks - I found the SpaceHab and Draper trade studies very interesting. The lander should be reusable and aerobrake back to LEO. <br /><br />This setup would provide places for US and international aerospace companies, both large and small. It would encourage innovation, whoever can get that water up there fastest, cheapest makes a lot of money. Same goes with the 25 American flights. It provides assured access (Soyuz isn't going away) and the standing offer that enables American investment sans giggling. It provides much needed mid-long term research directed toward making the goals cheaper. "NASA's goal shouldn't be going to Mars, but making it cheap enough that National Geographic can." <br /><br />What I just outlined would provide NASA 50 astronaut flights to LEO, early development funding for the lunar lander and 1000 tons of water ready for use/fuel. It would also jump-start US access and the commercial innovation we always discuss. No performance-no pay and no more cost-plus. <br /><br />The standing price for a 6 month LEO up-and-down flight is $44 million. That is a fact. If CEV costs anywhere near STS in operational terms, it will be still-born. <br /><br />We already have the capability (to LEO) that CEV replicates. If the lunar transport (or part of) is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I'm fed up of technological development, SLI, X-30, X-33 X-34 X-37 X-38 X-40A X-43A where is the operational vehicles from these programs? (darkstar doesn't count).<br /><br />They know enough to go back to the Moon already. Lets go.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>They know enough to go back to the Moon already. Lets go.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, the only ones going will be the dozen or so elite NASA astronauts who get to fly on the CEV in a given year. Spending billions on 1970's-era hardware will ensure that flight rates remain low, costs remain high, and only a handful of humans ever get to venture into space. That's hardly the way to open up human exploration of the solar system.

 

[nacnud]

Interesting ideas, I actualy agree that NASA should be helping private companies develop space capablities, however I don't think the capacity is there just yet. Let NASA get a working Earth moon system in place as well as a price for cargo delivery that is attractive to private companies to bid for.<br /><br />I don't think the US congress would be totaly happy relying indefinatly on the Soyuz <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dragon04]

I'd be for exchanging 5 years of the CEV timetable for a mission to Enceladus, myself. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

"Unfortunately, the only ones going will be the dozen or so elite NASA astronauts who get to fly on the CEV in a given year."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />So you are saying that since you don't get to fly to Endor in the Millennium Falcon just screw it all? How many people get to fly in an F-15? Or ride on a nuclear sub? Sorry that space isn't your playground yet--hey, it might never be in our lifetimes. Tough #$%&. Leonarda da Vinci and Geroge Cayley never go to see powered flight. Robert Goddard never go to see men in space. That's life. You got to start somewhere. The human race has barely even scratched the surface when it comes to spaeflight--hell, were still learning things about how to design ships and we've had them for about 6000 years! <br /><br />I would rather see some "elite astronauts" going to the moon and mars in my name then torpedo the whole manned space program out of spite! And I never expected NASA to open the doors to public spaceflight--that's not their job. Whine to private industry about why they have dropped the ball.

 

[vt_hokie]

The point is that we will not be able to do any human exploration on any meaningful scale beyond LEO, much less contemplate exploitation of resources, until we advance technology beyond its present state. By pouring the bulk of NASA's limited resources into building, operating, and maintaining legacy systems, we will ensure that we never do advance our level of spaceflight technology.

 

[frodo1008]

If the CEV gets killed the main reason will not be merit. It will be the politics of blowing holes in the middle of deserts in the Middle East, just like the follow on plans for Apollo were killed by the governments blowing holes in the middle of rice paddies in Southeast Asia (Viet Nahm). If this kills government spending on manned space, and you then have to count on pure private spending. We just might get back to LEO (by we I mean the US, Russian, ESA, and China will still go on) in the next two decades. The moon by 2050, and Mars?<br /><br />Try to get this through your little snide, sarcastic mind, THE PURE PRIVATE EFFORTS REQUIRE DIRECT PROFITS!!! There is no idealism, there is no investing beyond immediate returns! <br /><br />The current leader in this area is Burt Rutan, he is far more realistic than the rah! rah! supporting people on this forum are! He knows that it will be 2008 before Virgin Galactic can offer trips to sub orbital space. And that is if everything goes perfectly (and a fellow by the name of Murphy will see to it that it doesn't, just ask Elon Musk). It is going to take several years of reliable flight, with no accidents to build up enough confidence in investors that they will even start to fund the far more expensive orbital efforts. Also, unless you are going to use a heat shield (which required a capsule type of vehicle) or a delicate and difficult to maintain TPS system like the shuttles, you are just going to burn up in your efforts to reach orbital velocities (especially on the way beck to Earth like the Columbia). So there is going to have to be a whole lot more research (expensive stuff, flight research) in the hypersonic area, with an emphasis on propulsion, and thermal protection. If the Air Force, or NASA doesn’t do it such research funded by pure private efforts could take decades in itself!<br /><br />So that is about 2010, then Burt has also stated that it quite probably take some ten years or more to get back to orb

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">They kind of look like uninspired capsules to me! <br /></font><br />but far cheaper than the CEV! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Well I guess the sticking point is what you mean by "meaningful scale". By my estimation we started exploring beyond LEO on a "meaningful scale" back in 1969. (Actually even before that since I count unmanned probes as meaningful steps.) But I guess it doesn't count unless you have cool wheel shaped space stations (for what I'm not sure--all of the justification for Von Braun's wheel went out the window with the integrated circuit), winged space planes (which even Von Braun admitted could not have worked as he envisioned), fleets of moon ships (Hey, fine with me! Now find the money for it.),or lunar bases--oh yeah we ARE planning for those this time around. The fact is spaceflight will probably never ever be any cheaper than it is now. Get used to it. No travel is cheap. All travel is subsidized by governments whether its directly, through land grants, or by virtue of public roads and highways. If it weren't very few people could afford to go anywhere. There is no magic technology that is going to make spaceflight substantially cheaper than it is right now--get used to it. If antigravity were discovered tomorrow I guarantee that the cost of building and flying an anti-gravity ship would be about the same as a CLV. What will make spaceflight PRACTICAL (as opposed to "cheap") is that the rest of society will become rich enough to routinely afford it--that's something NASA or Spacex or Burt Rutan has no control over.<br /><br />There is no point waiting around another 30 years twiddling our thumbs hoping that some magic panacea will make everything better. Just get over the whole dammed magic spaceplane idea please so we can do some work with what we know right now.

 

[elguapoguano]

Stop refering to the CEV as a legacy system. It is a 21st century space vehicle system. Only the outside shape looks like what we used to use. NASA is actually being smart this time. We've had so many programs that "push the envelope" but they don't produce anything other than paper rockets. The VSE takes what technology we have built and proven to work over the last 25 years and building from it. Something the Russians have been doing since jumpstreet. <br /><br />I knew when a capsule was choosen all you types would cry and complain about using 60's technology. <br /><br />Here's an anology. To you guys, you must think that a Boeing 777 or a Airbus A380 is 1950's technology I mean after all, they are only larger versions of the Comet. They look the same, a tube Fuselage, a tail, wings, and jet engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Boeing 777 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Stop refering to the CEV as a legacy system. It is a 21st century space vehicle system. </i><br /><br />It is a legacy system with some updates. NASA is throwing away decades worth of lifting body research and returning to capsules because it's cheaper. Just as Boeing dumped the Sonic Cruiser - which would have been the first significant advance in commercial aviation in years - and instead went with a traditional Mach 0.85 airframe design for the 787. Yeah, it has some new technology in it. But it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. We need to get beyond tweaking existing technology and start advancing again. Unfortunately, bean counters rule the world these days, not visionaries. Everyone is more interested in $$$ than anything else, which will be the downfall of our society. <br /><br />Oh, and the STS derived launch vehicles represent a legacy system by just about any definition!

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">NASA is throwing away decades worth of lifting body research and returning to capsules because it's cheaper.</font><br /><br />And because NASA figured out after decades of research that lifting bodies suck. Smaller interior volume than a capsule, heavier than a capsule, added structural complexities and weight than a capsule, tougher to design and implement a reliable TPS than on a capsule. Lifting bodies are inherently unstable at low air speeds, they like to roll back and forth, hence the need for an advanced Parafoil system to get them close to the runway (X-38). <br /><br />The only thing lifting bodies do better than capsules, is they look "cooler" and "more advanced"... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

What possible basis do you have to think lifting bodies will be of use????? Or that they will give any added benefit???? Really, I've listened to you whine about this since the CEV design was announced. Put you money where you mouth is. Give me a detailed explanation of how your magical mystical lifting body space patrol ship is going to revolutionize lunar exploration. I really want to hear your views on this. And don't say something like "Because its more innovative". I wanna know how its going to get us to the moon any faster, cheaper, with more cargo, safer etc. Anything. Please enlighten me. I'm talking real engineering and economics here, not what would look cool on a Halo screen dump.<br /><br />I can only imagine that you must fly around town in a F-15 or something--I mean why bother with a "legacy system" like an automobile when we have supersonic jets available for transportation.

 

[centsworth_II]

It's a case of preferring flash to substance.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>