"New" CEV pictures

[holmec]

2 decks???<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/00Graphics/Images/dragonweb4a.jpg<br /><br />I'd hate to be the bloke in the rear seat in the middle. Hopefully no beans were served. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

I put in in quotes because they really aren't decks but stacked seating layers; 3 down and 4 up. That way you don't have to try fitting 7 people in one seating plane. "Decks" was easier to type, at least until now <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Pic2 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

docm, were you Navy? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

No, but my uncle and eldest son were. Something rub off? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

Doesn't mater, the reduction in pressure as you assend to altitude will make anyone pass gas. Happens all the time in unpressurized planes. The low pressure of the spacecraft could make for some unpleasant smells.

 

[gunsandrockets]

interesting picture. Gives a good idea of the internal geometry of the Dragon capsule.<br /><br />The pressure vessel of the Dragon has a more rounded shape than the Apollo. It's in that rounded rear area that the three hindmost crew are seated. It looks like the equipment area of the Dragon surrounds the pressure vessel in a torus rather than filling in all the area between the pressure vessel and the heatshield.<br /><br />The rear of the pressure vessel is right next to the heatshield. Hmm...that leaves the potential for the Dragon to accomodate a heatshield mounted rear hatch for the crew, similar to the Gemini-MOL or the Soviet TKS spacecraft.<br /><br />Gemini-MOL gallery <br /> Gemini-MOL data<br /><br /><br />TKS gallery<br /> TKS data<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

< The low pressure of the spacecraft could make for some unpleasant smells. ><br /><br />Low pressure may contribute to outgassing, but doesn't low pressure also deaden the sense of smell?

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>doesn't low pressure also deaden the sense of smell?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dunno, but the oxygen mask on your face sure does. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> As my hi-altitude instructor said, if you can smell your neighbor's gas, your mask is not adjusted properly.

 

[lampblack]

So... you just ask the ladies to cover their ears for a second -- and then let 'er rip? With zero concern for the consequences?<br /><br />Fascinating! Life in space is getting more attractive all the time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Maybe it'll be possible to recycle the atmosphere & reclaim the resultant methane as a fuel or reaction mass <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[holmec]

>Doesn't mater, the reduction in pressure as you assend to altitude will make anyone pass gas.<<br /><br />This is true for an airliner since it actually intakes air from the outside even at 35000 ft and keeps inside cabin pressure at 10000 ft. I believe spacecraft operate at close to sea level since they are enclosed. Thus the flatus problem should be less than a space craft......on the other hand the vomit problem increases in a space craft..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Methane is oderless, its another compound that makes the smell. Anyway a ion air purifier take away the smell. Mine does anyway in my bathroom and I understand that space craft have been using ion air purifiers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Very nice pics and links gunandrockets!<br /><br />WOW! strike me of a space 1999 eagle a little. <br /><br />A hatch in the heat shield, wouldn't that potentially compromise the heat shield..er..heat shielding?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<WOW! strike me of a space 1999 eagle a little.><br /><br />Huh, you're right. I'm surprised I never noticed that before. <br /><br /><A hatch in the heat shield, wouldn't that potentially compromise the heat shield..er..heat shielding? /><br /><br />You would think so. But there was actual flight testing of the TKS capsule and the modified Gemini capsule and they worked. <br />

 

[kurtwagner]

Pardon the dumb question please. I realize that Orion uses the tested/understood Apollo basic design for very good engineering reasons. My question is why are we locked in to a model where we drag all the Earth reentry equipment out to the Moon, NEOs or Mars. Seems to me a more modular approach would have built-in economies and advantages: build a space-to-space vehicle with shielding, habitation volume, life support and required delta-v and keep it parked at the ISS. Then, a pretty simple, larger, Soyuz-class vehicle is about all you'd need for ascent/descent. I'm sure they've hashed out the advantages and disadvantages of using a single vehicle versus separate, specialized vehicles. Does it all boil down to "it's easier with a single vehicle" or are there other factors? Thanks.

 

[jimfromnsf]

The CEV can directly return to earth from the moon. Going from the moon to LEO and rendezvous with a vehicle would take a large amount of propellant which weighs a lot more than a heat shield<br /><br />Also there is the phasing requirements to allow rendezous. Just like the shuttle can only launch a few minutes each day to the ISS, a similar contraint would be on a vehicle returning from the moon

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Going from the moon to LEO and rendezvous with a vehicle would take a large amount of propellant which weighs a lot more than a heat shield</font>/i><br /><br />What is your position in aerobraking to lower and circularize the orbit of a returning vehicle?</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Not until there is a need for a regular "shuttle" service between LEO and lunar orbit, it doesn't make sense.<br /><br />Actually, it is aerocapture which is a higher heat load than aerobraking and so a heat shield is required<br /><br />Also the rendezvous requirement will reduce the opportunities for return

 

[thereiwas]

Aerobraking also extends the mission, possibly for a long time depending how much speed you have to kill. For example the aerobraking/circularizing maneuver used on the most recent Mars mission took <i>months</i>. The more speed you try to lose on each pass, the more thermal protection you need.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Actually, it is aerocapture which is a higher heat load than aerobraking and so a heat shield is required</font>/i><br /><br />Technically, when when just going to the Moon you are still in Earth orbit, even if it is a really big orbit, so I used the term aerobraking. I agree that, like the shuttle, to make the investment worth it you would need to use it a lot. But how much is "a lot"?</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">For example the aerobraking/circularizing maneuver used on the most recent Mars mission took months. The more speed you try to lose on each pass, the more thermal protection you need.</font>/i><br /><br />The Mars missions were very gentle dips into the atmosphere using delicate solar panels for breaking. If you used thermal protection for more aggressive braking, how much time could be shaved off?<br /><br />It sounds like a good question for a college aeronautics course: <i>Assuming you are returning from from the Moon at velocity V, for thermal protection level of T, how deep and for how long could you enter the atmosphere and how much energy E could you bleed off for each pass? Given the energy bleed off of E, how many orbits O would it take to circularize the orbit to an altitude of of 320 km above the surface of the Earth? And what would be the cumulative time CT for those orbits?</i></i>

 

[thereiwas]

Time to re-radiate gained heat before the next pass is also a factor, assuming a non-ablative shield.<br /><br />Hmm, the "Orbiter" simulator can handle most of this. It even has an aerobraking/aerocapture plugin for the flight computer...

 

[holmec]

I always liked the way the Russian ship used aerobreaking around Jupiter in the 2010 movie. It used inflatable modules as a temporary shield. If such a technology could be developed maybe the weight of the heat shield could be brought down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You mean something like this?<br /><br /> Inflatable Re-Entry and Descent Technology (IRDT), <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>