Methane dropped from CEV

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">bye bye Mars.....</font>/i><br /><br />I have read recently that Congress is really putting pressure on Griffin to accelerate his plans (kind of funny considering Tom DeLay had to twist arms to get initial approval), so I suspect uncertain technologies are being cut out early. It is easier to add things back later in if you are making good progress.<br /><br />I also read that one of the cargo modes to ISS is being removed from the CEV requirements. I wonder if this is to please the folks who would like to provide a commercial cargo capability to ISS? Alternatively, maybe Congress doesn't want to support large-scale supply capability to ISS to begin with (a back door to backing out of ISS?), so they are taking it out of the CEV requirements.<br /><br />In any case, I think there are strong costs and schedule pressures, and anything that might be seen as superfluous is at risk.</i>
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I would pose the core question of if the design were to be revised at a latter time to include Methane, what sort of costs would be involved?
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
For certain it wouldn't be cheap but you would get the performance gain back, as well as the in-situ opportunites. I'd still bet on the methane capability being permanently lost now though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
J

john_316

Guest
To be honest I think that XCOR idea would do well also for an ascent stage engine design for the Mars Lander if need be. That way they can take the time now to look at the Methane use for an ascent and possibly a descent stage for the Mars Lander.<br /><br />If they keep up the work now they could have a mature system by 2025. So honeslty they could work on 3 different systems the Ascent, Descent, and RCS plans if you ask me. <br /><br />Just a thought you know.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
"I also read that one of the cargo modes to ISS is being removed from the CEV requirements. I wonder if this is to please the folks who would like to provide a commercial cargo capability to ISS?"<br /><br />More likely is the fact that there is no <i>need</i> for such a variant at present. ISS cargo can be supplied by Progress and later the ATV (paid for by NASA if necessary - perhaps in return for astronaut flight spaces rather than for cash). Sure, it'd be nice, but it's basically a self-contained program that can be brought in at a later date if required, and it may not be required at all if the private sector can indeed provide cargo flights to the ISS. Not developing it now removes its development costs from near-term budgets, which is where the problem lies.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
How do they plan to deliver large items such as replacement CMG's? Progress can't do that. <br /><br />Personally, I'll be rooting hard for the "little guys" like Scaled and SpaceDev to give us some orbital transportation systems worthy of the 21st century, while NASA wastes billions on its 1960's capsule design.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
The only thing that is 1960s is the SHAPE of the CEV Crew Module, because the laws of aerodynamics and re-entry haven't changed, unless you know something the rest of us don't!<br /><br />This '1960's capsule' crap has been discredited 50 times on this forum, yet here we see it again. The Apollo shape worked, will work, will ALWAYS work. The Boeing 707 is a very similar shape to the Airbus A-340, yet the Airbus is far better in nearly every way and is built in the 21st Century, not the 1950s. <br /><br />Most spaceplane and lifting body shapes have their origins in the 1960s, so />BANG< goes that argument. In fact, the Saenger spaceplane shape has it's origins in the - wait for it - 1930s!!<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saenger.htm<br /><br />**Flights back from the moon by Apollo capsule -- NINE.<br />***Flights back from the moon with Sangers, lifting bodies and winged spaceplanes... er... um... <br /><br />None. <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>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>Most spaceplane and lifting body shapes have their origins in the 1960s, so >BANG< goes that argument.</i><br /><br />Yes, they were developed as the next logical successor while NASA used ballistic entry capsules as a stopgap measure to beat the Russians. Now, despite all of the research done on lifting body vehicles, we're regressing and resigning ourselves to sending a handful of astronauts up in a capsule and having them parchute back to Earth in an uncontrollable tin can.
 
W

windnwar

Guest
That happens to be an order of magnitude safer, more practical for landing on other places like the moon or mars where you won't have a landing strip, and does the job perfectly. It may not be sexy, but it damn sure works. And it will be available in time versus designing a lifting body that might take another 10 years to develop. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Uncontrollable!! (he laughs). <br /><br />Still, a lifting body lander might be swell for Titan, with it's thick atmosphere. And, those spaceplane and lifting body studies were intended for Earth orbit missions (mostly) not for Moon, Mars and asteroids.<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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts