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

[ve7rkt]

A winged spacecraft has been flown numerous times, a capsule has never been flown more than twice. Therefore, you say, a capsule cannot be reusable.<br /><br />By the same logic, expensive manned spacecraft have been flown numerous times, and cheap manned spacecraft never have. Therefore, I say manned spacecraft cannot be cheap. Which is, of course, bulldung. <br /><br />Capsules do not need 5G reentry paths. Gemini, I think, had one mission that peaked at 7G due to a bad trajectory but was normally much, much lower.

 

[thinice]

<i>some experts evaluated the Shuttle risk at ONE accident every 100 flights, but real statistics is TWO accidents <font color="red">every</font>100+ flights</i><br /><br />This statement is incorrect from the mathematical point of view. The wrong word is marked with red.

 

[mlorrey]

Quite so. The Chinese Shenzou capsule uses wood as a reentry heatshield, grain oriented toward the plasma. Water in the wood, when heated by the charring of the outer surface, evaporates out the grains as steam, providing primitive active cooling.... General Electric made and tested an inflatable hang glider for one person as a space station escape pod, made of silicone impregnated steel wire fabric....<br /><br />Time to start work on that balsa and rice paper spaceship.....

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...and cheap manned spacecraft never have..."<br /><br />Soyuz have made many flights... and it is really cheap<br /><br />but my FIRST choice is not for a CXV-like capsule, I suggest to build a little, new Shuttle or an "expensive" (but not TOO much expensive!) capsule like a 4x CEV<br /><br />in 99% of orbital/lunar missions great part of the CEV space is UNUSED, it's a DEAD-WEIGHT that need a big DEAD-WEIGHT service module (and extra-DEAD-WEIGHT-fuel) launched with a double-dimensions DEAD-WEIGHT rocket<br /><br />I only suggest to build a 4x CEV to leave ALL "dead-weights" on earth or transfer the same DEAD-WEIGHT to more usefull weight aboard the LSAM to double+ moon mission times and experiments<br /><br />I think it is a rational choice, send masses in space need HIGH ENERGY and HIGH COSTS, then, why send in space very expensive DEAD-WEIGHTS???<br />

 

[nibb31]

Again Gaetano, you did not answer my question. Instead, you replied this:<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 />Which is complete and utter rubbish. The wings on the shuttle do not protect the structure (the wings are part of the structure), the TPS does. The entire body of a capsule does not burn, because it has a TPS (reusable) or ablative heatshield (disposable). A capsule does not fall like a meteorite, it's shape provides a limited amount of lift. I'm too lazy to check right now, but I'm pretty sure your G figures are wrong too.

 

[nibb31]

This is getting better and better. Gaetano, if a service module is DEAD WEIGHT, then why not simply remove it ? Engines, consumables, propellant, life support, you're right, that's all dead weight.<br /><br />How does your 4x CEV get anywhere or have that 30-day life support you want without that DEAD WEIGHT? Just because it's disposable does not make it DEAD WEIGHT.<br /><br />You complain about DEAD WEIGHT and yet with your spaceplace you propose not only sending wings and landing gear, but also bringing back all that DEAD WEIGHT, which requires even more HIGH ENERGY and HIGH COST, because it has to go through 100 unmanned validation test flights.<br /><br />Gaetano, please please please, LISTEN to what other people, who know more about the subject than you, have to say, and LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES.

 

[soccerguy789]

If one looks at the suttle launch stack, they have to show a little respect. Thge shuttle needs to retire. this is true, or at least leave active use ( I see no reason why we should abandon a vehicle once a new one comes along, especially when they serve different functions) we are using so much shuttle architecture for the CEV and HLV, we should keep the shuttle asround in case we need to haul something back from orbit. it's the only vehicle to do it, and if it's not flying, and the arcitecture it uses is being used for the CEV, I see no reason to ditch it completely. we should keep it around in case we have something happen that warents a 1/2 billion dolar launch. But like I was saying before, if you look at the launch stack, you have to respect the sheer amount of that vehicle thrat comes back. compair it to the CEV on it's launcher. I don't think the shuttle we have today will ever be economical, but Look at it, its arguably the most advanced flying machine ever, it lands like a plane. I mean, it sounds simple enough, but observe the massive failures that have been atempted trying to do that. on paper, the shuttle was beautiful, It could have been profitable and it could have flown once a week, but the military backed out on using it, and many things happened that murdered the program, and it's a shame that it's beyond saving.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">...$16.5 billion annual budget + $104 billion VSE funds coming... inflation and "adjustments" extra funds...</font><br /><br />You're double-dipping, Gaetanomarano. The $104 billion cost of developing NASA's lunar architecture will be taken from <i>within</i> the annual budget -- not added to it.<br /><br />In one fell swoop, you led folks to believe NASA will have $104 billion in extra money just to sort of kick around. That is not the case. And the fact that you would suggest that it is strains your credibility even more.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the "spaceplane (30+ times) reusability experiment" was already made with Shuttle but never made with any capsules<br /><br />two unmanned tests may be sufficient only if CEV will be disposable... if CEV will be resusable, I think that (for crews' safety) a larger amount of REAL unmanned reusability tests is absolutely necessary<br /><br />about Shuttle wings... they are undoubtly part of the structure and (undoubtly) "protect" it<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I try to better explain my concept of "dead weight" (and dead-costs):<br /><br />if you need to go office any day you don't buy a six-seats limousine with plasma TV, sat receiver, etc. because its too expensive for that purpose and the useless space IS a "dead-weight" that need an engine with more power to move and much more gasoline<br /><br />"dead-weight" is not the orbital module, "dead-weight" is the UNUSED space and weight<br /><br />NASA plans are for 4 astronauts moon missions (due to LSAM limits) and 3/4 astronauts ISS' missions (that, with its dimension, don't need so much crew also because russian and european crew will be sent with the cheaper Soyuz)<br /><br />if 99% of orbital/lunar missions will not need a 6x capsule, 33% of its space, life support, orbital SM propulsion, earth total mass launch, etc. will remain UNUSED in 99% of flights, then, will be only a "DEAD-WEIGHT" moved from earth to space... it's like send in space 4 astronauts and an useless "statue"... it's like use an (8-seats/25-tons payload/$1 billion per launch) Shuttle with only 4 astronauts or only 10 tons of payload... CLEARLY A WASTE OF MONEY<br /><br />as explained in many posts, a 4x CEV (for 3/4 astronauts missions) has many other advantages... a GIANT saving of money (that can be used to launch MORE "live-weights"), more launches with the same price, fast times to develop (since it don't need the CLV), less risks for astronauts at lift off (half dimension rockets mean half propellant that may explode and twice the possibilities that the capsule is away from explosion point if the rocket fails), etc.<br /><br /><br />about spaceplanes... wings and lading gear are NOT "dead-weights" because they are NOT "decorative" but USED for very important purpose (soft gliding and launding on a simple runway)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've read that the $104 billion will be an extra-fund for VSE-moon plan, and, since last Shuttle flights will need MORE than to-day's NASA budget, it will be cartainly true in the next 5 years<br /><br />but the main point of my post is another... the total amount of money that USA, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, etc. will spend in next 10 years (to develop and build a dozen of different vehicles!!!), is clearly IMMENSE, so, the "excuse" of a "lack of funds" to build a new, little and cheap Shuttle, is CLEARLY false!<br /><br />the TRUE reason is BUSINESS... in 25 years Shuttles era, indutries have built and sold only tanks and SRB... with the "100% expendable" ESAS architecture, they will build and sell dozens of SRB, SSME, engines, tanks, LSAMs, CEVs, SMs, etc.<br /><br />ESAS architecture can be easily modified (as proposed in many threads here) to be MORE efficient and to cost LESS (to have TWICE the missions, science..., with the same money) but ESAS will be NEVER modified because it is NOT a "spaceflights plan" or a "scientific plan" but mainly a "business-plan"...<br /><br />so you will have LESS (science, flights, moon missions, etc.) for MORE (money and profits)<br />

 

[najab]

><i>I've read that the $104 billion will be an extra-fund for VSE-moon plan...</i><p>Then you have misread. Plain and simple.</p>

 

[mattblack]

I think the T-Space CXV is brilliant. Weeks ago I even said to Gaetano in another thread that he should get behind it, as I've been convinced to. Nice to see that he and I are finally agreeing on SOMETHING!!<br /><br />I'd like to see Richard Branson and others get behind it to support REAL private space. Although I'd be happy for eventual private spaceplanes, I think CXV would be quicker and easier to develop than a spaceplane. Also, once CXV is built IF it's built, I'd like to see ESA, Nasda and maybe even Nasa buying the things (especially a cargo version) and moving the CEV over to Lunar/Mars exclusively. And it IS said that the CXV would have a temporary capacity for up to EIGHT people in an emergency, so a "full" ISS crew of six "going uphill" would be no problem for a growth version of this excellent design. <br />**Check out the videos from T-Space's website:<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.viewalbum&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA&albumid=A1663F17-06A1-1294-296BE5E624169B1B<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />Shuttle is dangerous and expensive ONLY because it is the FIRST real vehicle of this kind made so far... thanks to Shuttles' experience, future Shuttles will cost less and will be safer<br /><br />look at Apollo... it was INCREDIBLY expensive because it was the FIRST space project to go on the moom... NOW, thanks to Apollo experience and to-day's technologies, the new moon missions will give more exploration time for (relatively) less money (if compared with Apollo, of course)<br /><br />another bad conseguence of Shuttle retirement will be the TOTAL LOSING of spaceplane design, build and launch experience, so, when they will discover that a new Shuttle is INDISPENSABLE, will need to restart their knowlendge form near ZERO!!!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />ok, probably you're true, but the amount money spent for space in the world in next 20 years will be IMMENSE, so, "no money available for a new shuttle" is only a GIANT excuse to DON'T MAKE things that ("many") DON'T WANT...<br />

 

[nibb31]

"if you need to go office any day you don't buy a six-seats limousine with plasma TV, sat receiver, etc. because its too expensive for that purpose and the useless space IS a "dead-weight" that need an engine with more power to move and much more gasoline<br /><br />"dead-weight" is not the orbital module, "dead-weight" is the UNUSED space and weight"<br /><br /><br />Again, this is rubbish. Many people go to work every day alone in their large family car. Of course, a cheap city car would be better suited to the job, but the cost of ownership (purchase, maintenance, insurance...) of having 2 cars instead of one negates the cost of using the larger car.<br /><br />In the case of the CEV, it is not DEAD SPACE or DEAD WEIGHT because the CEV is designed primarily to carry 4 people with their luggage. In case of necessity, you can add 2 extra modular seats, but then you will not be carrying any luggage. Or you can fold up 2 seats so that you can fit a wide-screen TV. Just like a lot of minivans out there on the market. <br /><br />The CEV is a space minivan, not a limo.<br /><br />Most families can live with the tradeoffs of owning a single modular minivan, because the cost of ownership of having a fleet of 4 or 5 different vehicles to do 4 or 5 different jobs is too large.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />capsule and little spaceplanes are NOT completely different... they have around 90% of their hardware in common... thermal shield, electronics, navigations system, pressurized cabin, crews' life support, etc...<br /><br />then... under "hardware" and "costs" aspect... a little spaceplane is only "a capsule" + 30% more hardware and costs (little wings, landing gear, a larger thermal shield, etc.)<br /><br />so, when you evaluate the costs of a new shuttle, you must NOT calculate a completely new and giant budget, but only the "capsule" budget + 30% costs (that is not a real cost, since spaceplane is reusable MINIMUM 30 times like old Shuttle!)<br /><br />if develop and build CEV will cost $10 billion, a (reusable!!!!) little spaceplane may cost 30% more...<br /><br />well... in next 20 years, the total budget for space of USA, Europe, Russia and China may reach $300 billion!!!!!!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">100 times the 30% difference between capsule and spaceplane design</font><br /><br />but "capsule-lovers-supporters" says that NASA, etc. <font color="yellow">"don't have the money to build a little Shuttle" ..........................</font><br /><br />with the money that will flow in their pockets in next 20 years... NASA, ESA, etc. (alone or joined) will have sufficient funds to design and build <font color="yellow">SIX DIFFERENT NEW CAPSULE ***AND*** FOUR DIFFERENT NEW SHUTTLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...people go to work every day alone in their large family car..."<br /><br />I've used "cars" only as an example... it's clear that in real life peoples make many UNRATIONAL, time and money consuming, choices... like travel with giant and expensive cars with two passengers or buy many cars to use only one per day...<br /><br />but spacrafts and spacefligts don't cost like a car!!!!<br /><br />space is the most expensive place to go, then, ALL space agencies MUST be virtuous and spend money with the MAXIMUM rationality possible<br /><br />each six-seats CEV/CLV launch will cost (including shared R&D) around $1 billion or $1.5 billion (if USA will withdraw from ISS in 2016) or $2+ billion each if it will be used only for moon missions<br /><br />a 4x CEV launched with a ready available mid-rocket may cost around 40% of that prices!!!<br /><br />also, without CLV research and test time, the 4x CEV first flight may happen two-three years before planned to day (2009-2011 instead of 2013-2105)<br /><br />why spend two-three times the price and 50% more time only to send two unused seats for "luggages" or "wide-screen TV", it's absurd!<br /><br />with a single cargo launch you can send ALL the luggages and TV you want!!!<br /><br />the space payload weight is VERY PRECIOUS and EXPENSIVE, so, it can't be WASTED for stupid reasons!<br /><br />consider that 6x CEV dead-weight + extra SM dead-weight will consume 33% of the MUCH MORE PRECIOUS and MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE lunar payload!!!<br /><br />without 33% CEV/SM dead-weight, the LSAM may have 2-3 times more life support and lunar hardware!!!<br /><br />CEV is made for moon or for tourists?<br />

 

[tohaki]

My dream is still to build a capsule on the experience from the ARD and mate it with the ATV service module. How expensive could this really be for ESA? The ATV service module is already developed and with the ARD much of the work on the capsule is already done.<br /><br />This brings up a question I have been meaning to ask, by the way. Just what is man-rating? Is it simply to have enough successful flights in a row or is it something more thorough? It seems to me that the US and the USSR launched people with less reliable rockets than Ariane 5 back in the sixties.