Re: NASA's grand plan to revive human exploration...

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It would not at this point be quite fair to compare Skykab with the ISS, as the Skylab was a totally completed lab when it was initially put up. The current ISS is FAR from finished</font>/i><br /><br />The common refrain "It's not done yet" as an explanation always drives me nuts.<br /><ul type="square"><li>The US has been trying to put up a space station since 1984<li>The original space station was supposed to be completed in 1994<li>By 1993, with no hardware in space, US changed direction with ISS<li>In 1997 NASA expected ISS to be completed in 2003<li>In 2005, NASA expects to stop working on ISS on 2010<li>In 2005, NASA still needs to spend another $25-30 billion to complete ISS<li><font color="yellow">When completed, ISS will support the same number of Americans as did Skylab!</font><br /></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br />It is hard not to conclude that the US is spending huge sums of money to subsidize someone else's space agenda.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...Why is a capsule such a bad idea..."<br /><br />probably it is the best geometrical and launch solution but not the most human and safe<br /><br />one of the best progress of to-day space missions is "more (internal) space", like ISS and Shuttle<br /><br />Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was very little in respect of CEV but was experimental vehicle made for pioneers and to be used a few days<br /><br />if we want longer and better mission, spacecrafts must be bigger and confortable (not like earth but as much as possible) not clastrofobic "Pepsi cans"<br /><br />CEV will be three times Apollo but Apollo was for 3 astronauts while CEV will be for 4 to 6<br /><br />another reason are "G"<br /><br />NASA claims that the max G of CEV will be "3" like Shuttle, but many doubts that figure will be real for a capsule launched with an SRB and that returns to earth like a meteorite!<br /><br />so, CEV will be not for "scientists with good health" but only for Top Guns!<br /><br />the return to earth of CEV will be risky because (like Apollo) it will come directly in atmosphere from the moon at a very high speed (much higher of a return from earth orbit)<br /><br />the return angle will be more critic, with little possibility to change when approaching earth and zero when the capsule will enter the atmosphere<br /><br />the fact that all Apollo missions was gone well don't eliminate the risks of that approach<br /><br />I hope that, if NASA will build CEV, don't plans a direct reentry in the atmosphere from moon, but (first) a return to a large earth orbit , then a deorbit and a (relatively) "soft" reentry, to have the time to correct any possible (and lethal) trajectory and angle errors<br /><br />capsule will not have an airlock for EVA, that may appear useless with an Apollo-style mission, but increase the safety because, in case of malfunction of the air system, the crew can't remain a week without pressurization while waiting to come back to ISS or to earth<br /><br />capsule is (probably)

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">if we want longer and better mission, spacecrafts must be bigger and comfortable (not like earth but as much as possible) not claustrophobic "Pepsi cans" <br /><br /><font color="white">The ISS CEV will have three people on board for no more than three days before docking with the much larger ISS. The Moon CEV will have four people on board for a similar time before docking with the Luna Lander module which can act as an orbital module allowing more space.<br /><br />Six people will only go up in a CEV for a Mars mission, along way off yet, or down from the ISS in an emergency.<br /></font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />in lunar mission the total time in CEV will be over a week<br /><br />I thing that a "cone" is better to launch but not a comfortable room to live (a day or a week)<br /><br />I think that a new space vehicle must be MUCH better and safer than old capsule (like a 747 is better than a DC3), we call it "progress"<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

The Luna CEV will dock with the lander module soon after reaching orbit. The Luna module will be the size of a caravan (Winnebago). A few weeks in one of those, with occasional brisk walks, is perfectly fine. In fact many people would, and do, call that a holiday.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />wrong!<br /><br />1st: people travel and sleep in the caravan as few time as possible, don't remain a week inside<br /><br />2nd: I don't think that, with a launcher only a little more capable of the SaturnV, the LEM-2 cabin (with FOUR astronauts, not two) will be NOT so much bigger than the old LEM (certainly NOT like a caravan!)...<br /><br />also, if four astronauts will remain a week on the moon they will need more oxygen, more water, more food, more hardware for research, a bigger rover... the space that remains for crew will be very little...<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I think that the "real" mission in 2018 will be different than planned to-day, with twice the space and the weight, twice the launch (one CEV and three SDLV with modules assembled in space) and three times the planned cost per mission</font><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"capsule has ZERO maneuverability on reentry"<br /><br />Capsules in fact have some control during re-entry. This is achieved by using playing with the capsules angle of attack, giving it capability to alter its path.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />ok, "very little" (much less than winged)<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

The manuever capability of capsules was never fully exploited during Mercury/Gemini and Apollo. There is a lot more there than a little. <br /><br />Granted there is less than a winged vehicle, but a winged vehicle has more problems with thermal protection that a capsule.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">ok, "very little" (much less than winged) <br /><br /><font color="white">Do any corrections whilst still in space. Why do you need in atmosphere cross range? (more than 400km)<br /></font></font>

 

[drwayne]

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo used it for fine tuning landing points - thats about it....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

don't forget Soyuz and Shenzhou <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />and maybe corona?

 

[dobbins]

Capsules are also capable of using a paraglider instead of a parachute, a solution that avoids the wasted mass of wings.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...yachts..."<br /><br />excellent condition... if the crew is half men and half women...<br /><br /><br />"...without an 'up' or 'down' space..."<br /><br />try to live in a very little pressurized "cone" without the gravity your body may have on earth<br /><br />astronauts accept so little spaces because it is part of the job, NOT because it is "ideal"<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...was never fully exploited..."<br /><br />it is not a good idea to make "experiments" with a manned CEV if wings are a safer and well known solution<br /><br /><br />"...more problems with thermal protection..."<br /><br />not so much, teh only problem is money, if NASA will have the funds a safe, winged vehicle can be easily made<br /><br /><br />however, I don't think to a big winged plane like Shuttle but only little wings to help a safe return (or, better, a precise and safe landing like Shuttle) instead of a meteorite-like "falling rock" saved in the last miles with a fragile parachute (or paraglider) that may not open or open in part or open with delay or be damaged or may rounding on itself after open...<br /><br />wings are safer!<br /><br />consider, also, that CEV will be the biggest and heaviest capsule ever made with big parachutes, so the risks is higher<br /><br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"not so much, teh only problem is money, if NASA will have the funds a safe, winged vehicle can be easily made"<br /><br />Thats a big assumption. That sounds like some gentlemen I have known in my career that will tell you that any infrared detector problem is solvable, just send 10 million dollars a year for the next 10 years.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...corrections whilst still in space..."<br /><br /><br />true, but I think that, the FIRST rule in spaceflights, must be "save lifes"! (not "save money"...)<br /><br /><br />some corrections can be made in space, but is BETTER to have this option also in the atmosphere to increase safety (both is better than one) and two little wings can do the job<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Thats a big assumption..."<br /><br /><br />don't forget tha NASA has ALREADY made a winged vehicle (Shuttle) and has ALREADY resolved ALL the related problems!<br /><br />on reentry and landing, Shuttles have never had the problems and risks of early Soyuzs and other "capsules"<br /><br />Columbia crashes because wings was completely destrojed on reentry (due to "foam" damage), if this extreme condition don't happen, a winged vehicle has more possibility to land or give to astronauts the time to launch with personal parachutes<br /><br />since the new vehicle will not weighs like a Shuttle, all the problems will be simplest than those NASA has already resolved with Shuttle (NASA and aerospace companies have dozen of winged spaceships ideas and projects that wait only to be used)<br /><br />the "CEV-falling-rock" parachute must open in last miles, so, if it don't work, astronauts will have A FEW SECONDS to safe the life! (read: "ZERO")<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">some corrections can be made in space, but is BETTER to have this option also in the atmosphere to increase safety (both is better than one) and two little wings can do the job<br /><br /><font color="white">Well if it is an emergency isn't it better to have a craft that can land anywhere rather than just on a runway?</font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...a craft that can land anywhere..."<br /><br />for capsules, the "emergency" is NOT to land on a runaway, but to land (anywere...) like a meteorite... (without parachutes, paragliders or wings)

 

[drwayne]

"don't forget tha NASA has ALREADY made a winged vehicle (Shuttle) and has ALREADY resolved ALL the related problems!"<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

There have been two deadly accidents with a winged vehicle. In the Challenger accident the crew survived the explosion. The inherent weakness of a winged vehicle resulted in the Shuttle breaking up due to aerodynamic stresses from the explosion and the crew was killed by impact with the Atlantic Ocean. If Challenger had been a capsule it's inherently stronger design would have prevented vehicle breakup and parachute deployment would have saved the crew's lives.<br /><br />In the Columbia accident failure of the wing resulted in loss of control which caused the vehicle to break up due to aerodynamic stresses. A Capsule doesn't have any wings to be damaged. It's thermal protection system is protected by a service module until it's needed, so the debris couldn't hit it. It's located at the top of the stack so the debris couldn't have hit the thermal protection even if it were exposed. If Columbia had been a capsule it's crew would have returned safely.<br /><br />Soyuz 18 suffered a booster failure on the launchpad and the rocket exploded. It's escape tower pulled the Soyuz 18 crew safely away from the explosion. This system only works with a capsule, it can't be adapted to a winged vehicle. If Soyuz 18 had been a winged vehicle the crew would have died, since it was a capsule they survived.<br /><br />The only death related to a parachute recovery system happened with Soyuz 1. The problem wasn't the parachute itself, but a poorly designed parachute container. Since this problem has been corrected the Soyuz parachute system has worked without a single failure for 38 years.<br /><br />The notion that capsules are unsafe simply isn't supported by the facts. They have proven to be far safer than winged vehicles.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />Shuttle demonstrates that it is near 100% (before Columbia "foam" wings damage) <br /><br />also, the experience with Shuttle may be useful to build a better and safer Shuttle<br /><br />remember that NASA has made more successful reentry and landing with winged vehicles rather than with capsules (about four times...), so, why do you think that its experience with capsule is complete while the experience with winged vehicles is insuffcient? (I think the problem is exactly inverse)<br /><br /><br />only a little question.... why do you hate wings?<br /> <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">remember that NASA has made more successful reentry and landing with winged vehicles rather than with capsules (about four times...),<br /><br /><font color="white">The US Discover/Corona capsule has over 400 re-entries under it's belt, far more than the STS.</font></font>

 

[barrykirk]

Well, we've seen a winged system fail, Columbia and a parachute system fail, Soyez 1.<br /><br />It's also been pointed out that challenger killed the crew and counted as a failure of a winged system... Maybe....<br /><br />Both systems have been "fixed" so those problems shouldn't reoccur... Again maybe....<br /><br />When I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, I carried two parachutes. They are light enough that you can carry a spare.<br /><br />I've never seen an airplane yet that had a spare set of wings.<br /><br />And as for parachutes being inherently dangerous, well people use them every day.