Manned vehicle. A modest (and simple)proposal for ESA.

[carp]

CXV !! Why not? is cheap,is simple,is NOW! Buy CXV,put it on Arianne rocket,and... "Godspeed Europe"!

 

[nacnud]

The CXV is too light for an Ariane V, you'd need two of them to slow the Ariane down!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />since CXV is a 4-seats capsule and its cost may be very low (under the Soyuz price range) in some posts I've suggested that NASA may use it for orbital missions developing ITS version NOW (with rights NASA specs) without wait for a private development that may never happen (or too late)<br /><br />a 4-seats vehicle is for ISS' work and rescue (using two of them), so... if a "4-seats" is GOOD for ESA/ISS' work... why it is NOT GOOD for NASA/ISS' work?<br /><br />with one 3/4-seats-CEV/CLV price, NASA may launch 10+ CXV (or CXV-like) capsules!<br /><br />same job... better price!<br /><br />why not?<br />

 

[nacnud]

Because the CXV isn't big enough for missions out of LEO or for long duration, NASA hasn't the money to develop two vehicles hence is going for the more capable CEV.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">"...NASA hasn't the money to develop two vehicles..."</font><br /><br />...$16.5 billion annual budget + $104 billion VSE funds coming... inflation and "adjustments" extra funds... last 19 ($1 billion each) Shuttle flights... $10+ billion saved using CXV insted of orbital-CEVs for ISS... NASA don't have money???<br /><br />but...<br /><br />...private development costs are low (like the $30 million SpaceShipOne project), so, NASA don't need to do that work... only give the CXV-like specs and money to a private and use its time and money to develop the lunar-CEV<br /><br />the develpment cost of a CXV-like capsule may be VERY LOW because...<br /><br />- the main capsule already exist<br /><br />- it don't need to be tested for earth reentry (have already done it successful)<br /><br />- CXV don't need to develop a CXV-only giant rocket<br /><br />- it don't need the complex (and expensive) electronics and navigation system and tests for deep space travels<br /><br />probably, develop a CXV-like capsule may cost like ONE Shuttle launch (or less!) and HALF the CEV/CLV development time (or less!)<br /><br />I don't see so much problems (if NASA wants, of course...)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />there is a little thing I don't understand (or I can understand very much if I see space under BUSINESS side....)<br /><br />19 new shuttle flights... orbital-CEV... pressurized-cargo-CEV... unpressurized-cargo-CEV... CLV rocket... Kliper... Soyuz... Parom... CXV... etc. etc. etc.<br /> <br />ESA, Russia and (expecially) NASA have, spend, will have and will spend TONS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS to build ALL these EXPENDABLE vehicles..................<br /><br />.................but they "don't have money" to develop only ONE (little, simple, cheap, 100+ times reusable) Shuttle that may accomplish ALL the jobs of ALL these vehicles + MANY jobs they can't!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />it's VERY INCREDIBLE for me! (probably because I'm not in the "full expendable" capsule-business..............)<br />

 

[rubicondsrv]

There is no reason that a capsule cannot be made reusable.<br /><br />One of the gemini capsules flew twice.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Well that is NASAs plan. Let a comercal company develope cheap access to ISS and LEO while they develop the more expensive CEV. Its a very clever approach as they only have to pay the company that succeds, any company that fails before the vehicels fly doesn't get paid (I think).<br /><br />As for developing a cheap reuseable space plane that will replace all other vehicles, ever heard of the STS? Some American program that planned to do just that.

 

[carp]

"The CXV is too light for an Ariane V, you'd need two of them to slow the Ariane down"! ------------------------Fantastic! added to CXV a service module,or space tug,or a mission module! P.S. I speak of ESA,not NASA. CXV for NASA or anti CEV spot are here off topic.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />unfortunately, that was never happen, so far... and also for CEV, they "HOPE" that may be 10 times reusable (but they are not sure, now)... NOT 30+ times like old Shuttle nor 100+ times like a better made modern little Shuttle!!!<br /><br />

 

[carp]

"The CXV is too light for an Ariane V, you'd need two of them to slow the Ariane down"! ------------------------Fantastic! added to CXV a service module,or space tug,or a mission module! P.S. I speak of ESA,not NASA. CXV for NASA OR ANTI CEV SPOT ARE OFF TOPIC!

 

[rubicondsrv]

You did not even read my post did you?<br />If you did you would have seen that a gemini capsule WAS RE USED. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />why the same CXV-like, 1/10th CEV/CLV launch cost, 4-seats, orbital capsule can't be developed and used by both NASA and ESA?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />when it was reused?<br /><br />and, how many times?<br />

 

[elguapoguano]

You know it's bad when you already know what certain users are going to say, so you don't even bother to read their posts....<br /><br />I'm not pointing any elbows ____/ Gaytanmorono <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Gemini capsule was reused as the Gemini B prototype and tested on Nov 6 1966 when it was launched on top of the MOL "mock-up". The MOL was ostensibly launched to "test upper stage acoustics", while the Gemini B capsule, which had a hatch cut in the heatshield to launch docked to the MOL, was to test the automatic plasma sealing of the hatch on reentry. Also on the mission were three subsatellites on "whispering gallery experiments". While the public record shows that this mission was unmanned, given what I know about some inside things about the MOL project, I have my doubts. <br /><br />In any event, the reused Gemini in the B configuration reentered successfully and was recovered.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I read ALL posts sent to me and I give an answer to ALL... but I've sent & received near 1000 posts in last two months and my mind is not HAL9000... please post again your info about Gemini... also... the "second" use of Gemini was manned?<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />one test, made in 1966, on a completely different capsule, is not sufficient to be sure that a capsule is reusable<br /><br />I think that CEV, CXV, Kliper, etc. will need DOZENS unmanned test launch/reentry (of the same vehicle) before they can be confident to use refurbished vehicles with astronauts<br />

 

[rubicondsrv]

dozens of unmanned launch/entry tests is overkill, one or two is enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no<br /><br />if NASA want to use a CEV "ten times" they need to launch/reentry the same capsule unmanned TEN times to know what happen to structures and avionics after TEN launches<br /><br />with "one or two" launch they will know only what happen after "one or two" use... probably nothing will happen after two use... but something bad may happen at "reuse" #7

 

[dobbins]

"While the public record shows that this mission was unmanned, given what I know about some inside things about the MOL project, I have my doubts."<br /><br />Where did they put the crew? There were no seats in the capsule, it had instrumentation pallets in the place where the crew would normally set.<br /><br />Pictures of the Gemini 2 capsule can be found at:<br /><br />http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/gemini/gem-2.html<br /><br />

 

[nibb31]

Gaetano, you are always advocating that your proposals are cheaper than anything that NASA, ESA and RKK Energia's engineering teams are working on. <br /><br />Please, could you please give us an estimate of how much your 100-flight cheap spaceplane project will cost if you have to launch 100 unmanned test launches to validate the design ? Of course, drops from a B-52 do not count, only real orbital launches on top of a rocket.

 

[alpha_centauri]

@ carp<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "The CXV is too light for an Ariane V, you'd need two of them to slow the Ariane down"! ------------------------Fantastic! added to CXV a service module,or space tug,or a mission module! P.S. I speak of ESA,not NASA. CXV for NASA OR ANTI CEV SPOT ARE OFF TOPIC! </font><br /><br />Such a configuration, a biconic on top of an ATV service module has in fact already been studied under ATV Evolution though the biconic is the other way round compared to your illustration.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />unfortunately the only TRUE flight test can be made USING a vehicle<br /><br />some experts evaluated the Shuttle risk at ONE accident every 100 flights, but real statistics is TWO accidents every 100+ flights<br /><br />the difference between a capsule and a spaceplane is that, with caspule, the entire body is burned and its reentry is around 5G (like a meteorite!) while, in a Shuttle, the large wings protects the entire structure (that never burns at over 1000° C) and reentry is at only 3G, so, only its thermal shield MUST be VERY reliable... test about point of fusion of different materials don't need any flights, they can be made on earth<br /><br />consider, also, that a "30+ times reusability test" of a MANNED shuttle was already done (with Space Shuttles...) while the "experiment" with 10+ MANNED use of the same capsule was NEVER made, so, it need to be tested now to know real results

 

[mlorrey]

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/images/gemini/ccafs/gem2/Image06.jpg<br /><br />You mean this^^^^??? It appears there's room between the dash and rear equipment panel, though its hard to tell from this perspective...<br /><br />That is another vehicle, the Gemini 2. I'm talking about this one at Wright Patt's museum:<br /><br />http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf4.htm<br /><br />In which the hatch through the heat shield can clearly be seen over the shoulder of the port astronauts seat.... This particular capsule did not fly, but Wright Patt has the used B model at its facilities, similarly equipped.