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

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">answer...</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">please, read my previous posts!</font><br /><br />Shuttle: <br />Lands in hundred thousand pieces scattered all over Texas and Louisiana, Crew dead. <br />Shuttle: <br />Tank Explodes, vehicle breaks up, Crew dead. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">I repeat...<br /><br />- both Shuttle accidents was due to BAD DESIGN!<br /><br />- Shuttle become a true spacecraft only on reentry and landing!<br /><br />- at lift-off, Shuttle is only a (dangerous) "ROCKET with wings" or (more exactly) a "flying bomb"!<br /><br />- both Shuttle accidents starts at lift-off of this dangerous "rocket" (I repeat.. this is the main reason I suggest to use it CREWLESS or STOP FLY!)<br /><br />- also Columbia crashes on reentry because it was damaged at lift-off, NOT because a WINGED vehicle is dangerous!<br /><br />- when Shuttle don't explode or damage its wings at lift-off (because it is NOT a spaceplane but a ROCKET with wings) the successful landing was 100%!!!</font><br /><br />Apollo: <br />Lands in one piece in Pacific Ocean Crew alive. <br />Apollo 13: <br />Tank Explodes, Vehicle dosen't breal up, Crew lives. <br /> <br /><font color="yellow">- Apollo mission was only TEN (only TEN!!!) with only 30 astronauts, Shuttle missions was 100+ with 600+ astronauts!!!<br /><br />- only when an (undamaged) "CEVpollo"-"Pepsi-can" will ends 100+ missions, it will EQUAL Shuttle safety on reentry!!! (if wings are not damaged at lift-off)<br /><br />- only when CEV will make 150-200 perfect reentries we can say that it is better than Shuttle! (or similar WINGED vehicles)<br /><br />- NASA will make this "live experiment" from 2015, and, around 2025, we will have the true answer!!!</font><br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Actually the discussion of whether to use an Apollo like capsule for the CEV or some kind of winged space plane is somewhat moot. The capsule design is going to be far cheaper to achieve at this time, and so that is what the budget minded at NASA are going to use! Stop, end of discussion! NASA is not now in a position to afford to expericment, they must chose well tested technology that is the least expensive available, so let us give NASA the support they need to go on to at least the moon in the next fifteen years or so!<br /><br />Does this mean the end of the space plane concepts? NO, certainly not, NASA is definitely going to continue with its research into hypersonic flight using at least lifting body technology. I believe that fully winged craft are indeed to be doomed, the problems generated with the shuttle have done that. However, lifing body concepts are going to continue to be quite possible (as witness the Russians efforts).<br /><br />I also believe that it will be either Burt Rutan or someone like him in the private space tourist busines that is going to solve the space plane problem in the long run! The problem with taking tourists into space is that they are going to be relatively rich people who are going into space, and therefore are going to want comfort and a window with a view, neither of these things is easily supplied with a capsule design. So I am sure that those wishing to provide this service (in particular as they are going to want to provide it at a profit) are going to use at least some kind of lifting body concept to get through the hypersonic region to and from orbit. It is these people who are eventually (and it IS going to take some time, more time than NASA currently has) going to not only solve this problem, but are going to come up with the true lifting body type of vehicle (along the lines of the NASP project) that can be used from at least military types of ariports all around the Earth. So in the long run it IS going t

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...tumbling through the upper atmosphere at hypersonic velocity..."<br /><br /><br />astronauts are not airline passengers with family or hobby-flyers... they are the better selected pilots and some are former military top guns<br /><br />Shuttle don't always fly at hypersonic speed, from 15 km. its speed is subsonic (much less than an F-16) and slows continuosly to lower landing speed<br /><br />however (see my pevious post with drawing), a "dangerous" escape is BETTER than NO escape!<br /><br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

The problem with a space plane is it costs too much money to service one if you don't have a high flight rate. If you have a flight a week, like the over optimistic projections for the shuttle when it was being developed, then the economics of scale kick in and the space plane becomes affordable.<br /><br />NASA's space program is going to be more like 3 or 4 flights a year at most. With a low flight rate like that it's far cheaper to go with a capsule.<br /><br />NASA has a limited budget, they can afford a capsule.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...they must chose well tested technology..."<br /><br />then... why don't rebuild the Apollo...<br /><br /><br />"...to go on to at least the moon..."<br /><br />can we discuss about the conveniece of come back to moon?<br /><br />can we discuss about the safety and cost of such missions (in the way planned)?<br /><br /><br />"...will be either Burt Rutan or someone like him..."<br /><br />why do you think that "Burt Rutan or someone" can build a spaceplane while NASA (with hundreds more engineers and funds) can't do?<br /><br />why do you think that NASA must wait "space tourists" to have a spaceplane?<br /><br /><br />"...more time than NASA currently has..."<br /><br />NASA has made the very complex Shuttle (a vehicle never made before!) in LESS time than planned to build CEV<br /><br />why MUST build the CEV instead of use the same time and money (and its incredible experience) to build a spaceplane before Burt Rutan?<br /><br />with CEV program, NASA is like building an house starting from roof (lunar mission) instead of foundations (the space plane) while the house has only a room for three (the ISS)!<br /><br />absurd!<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...a space plane is it costs too much money to service..."<br /><br /><br />this claim appear based on bad Shuttle (costs and problems) experience<br /><br />a spaceplane don't need to be another Shuttle<br /><br />it must be only for six with life support, so, it may costs (to build and service) a fraction of Shuttle costs<br /><br />the fact that "private" (with low funds) are trying to build it demonstrates that costs are not so much<br /><br />it will be very absurd if will happen that, while NASA spends the next ten years (and $104 billion) to build the CEV-SDLV, in the same time, a "private" will build a reliable spacecraft, so, NASA will put the CEV (and the money spent) in the trash can and use the "private", safer and comfortable, winged spacecraft!!!<br /><br />absurd!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

You are correct, the flight rate is indeed all important here! THis IS exactly why it will be the Burt Rutan types who will make a space plane (lifing body concept) work, or it will not work at all! Their intension is to make enough flights taking tourists to space to make it profitable to be in this business, and that would be at least several flights per DAY in the long rum. Heck, I would think that even in the beginning they would want at least several flights per month! This is the whole thrust of my post! I am glad we agree!!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...to make enough flights taking tourists to space to make it profitable..."<br /><br /><br />if what you say is (economically) true, the solution is simple:<br /><br />instead of build a spacecraft only for astronauts, NASA may build a machine for both astronauts and tourists, sells it to space-line companies and make the profits to finance the spaceplane flights and servicing<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

You know, if NASA were going to build space planes then the supporters on these boards of capsule type designs (and there are such people on these boards) would be complaining in exactly the same way that you are!<br /><br />So it is just as I said earlier, just relax, because neither your opinions nor mine are going to change things. For many years now there has been a very large contingent of anti shuttle poeple on these boards, and now it is steadily becomming more and more apparent that they have won! <br /><br />However, as I have also said the long range future of humanity in space is not going to be up to NASA. It is going to be up to pure private interests, or maybe even the Russians who have seemingly at least become the best of capitalists (even if their tourist programs are not even breaking even they are the first to get any direct monetary return from a manned program!). More power to them! Next, perhaps those ultimate capitalists, the Chinese, will jump on the profit return bandwagon!<br /><br />In the meantime I will continue to support what NASA does.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...because neither your opinions nor mine are going to change things..."<br /><br /><br />I completely agree with you, we have not the "power" to force NASA or other to do what we thing is "the right choice".<br /><br />I perfectly understand that the choice capsule-moon is POLITICAL and NOT technical!<br /><br />But, while they build their "politicrafts" we can have our opinion and remain intellectually free.<br /><br />If we MUST say only "how much the capsule-moon plan is amazing, useful and safe", we must stop to give our opinion and close the forum and the space sections of TVs, newspaper and websites!!!<br /><br />NASA wants the capsule?<br /><br />Well, build the caspule!<br /><br />NASA wants to come back moon to take some new rocks?<br /><br />Well, go to moon!<br /><br />But we can have and say our opinions.<br /><br />I've NEVER thought to change NASA plans with my opinions!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />I understand that "capsule+moon" is the only way to remain the space-leader (because capsule and moon have no commercial use, so, no one will copy and use that technology) but we CAN'T say (also) that it is a brilliant idea, it is safer than spaceplane, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />Do you think may be useful if I explain my opinions in this forum or suggest me to search a Russian or Chinese space-forum?<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">instead of build a spacecraft only for astronauts, NASA may build a machine for both astronauts and tourists, sells it to space-line companies and make the profits to finance the spaceplane flights and servicing</font>/i><br /><br />But there are companies trying to develp their own spacecraft for the private market. This would put the government into direct competition with them. It is starting to get tricky.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />NASA may develop a working spaceplane (in half time than private) and (both) use and sell spaceplane technology to private industries.<br /><br />With the profits, NASA can build, use and service the spaceplane with a few (or nothing!) help of government funds.<br /><br />NASA has alredy developed hundreds new technologies used in electronic and aerospace industry.<br /><br />There are MANY ways to build the spaceplane with the time, technology and money already available (or coming).<br /><br />No excuse!<br /><br />NASA don't want to build it!<br /><br />I think that NASA suffers of a sort of "IBM syndrome".<br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

A very good point. A lot of people on these boards get upset with NASA for not doing things the way that private business does things. What they don't seem to realize is that NASA's own charter will not allow NASA to compete with private concerns. <br /><br /> What NASA can do is to let out contracts to private concerns to do most of the work that NASA does. In a way NASA does support the private economy very heavily, nuch more so that the social programs do. I know that many here evidently do not consider such firms as Boeing and LM to be private, but by any reasonable definition that is exactly what they are! Any one of us can buy stock in these corporations, so they are indeed private corporations.<br /><br /> Also, the larger corporations such as Boeing, LM, and also their spin offs such as Space Alliance then hire literally thousands of smaller companies that supply a large percent of the materials, manufacturing, and even services that these larger companies then provide to NASA! While NASA itself only employs some 20,000 people directly, the contractors bring this work pool up to more than 100,000 (which is still way down from the level of about 400,000 during the Apollo era). And therefore NASA is not to directly compete with its own contractors, which seems to me to be a realatively good idea. The only thing that this does cause that is of some concern to me as a space advocate, is that neither is NASA allowed to advertize to promote its own agenda anywhere near what I would like to see NASA do. Oh well, can't have everything I guess...

 

[josh_simonson]

Soyuz has over 220 flights with only one fatal parachute problem (which occurred on one of the first flights). Compare that to shuttle with ~110 and 7 fatalities due to wing failure. I think thats your capsule safety record right there.<br /><br />Launching your winged vehicle on top doesn't always make it safer. The first X43A was torn apart by wind-sheer.

 

[kane007]

Further - my yesterdays post re bailling out at hypersonic velocity was based on failure of the wings at/before/shortly after re entry interface. <br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />in atmosphere a vehicle WITH wings is safer than a falling-rock-capsule "by design"<br /><br />(why evolution has given wings to birds, instead of parachutes?!?)<br /><br />of course, in real life the capsule may land safe and the plane may have an accident<br /><br />but, if will be more deads in cars with airbags than without it, car companies will continue to build cars WITH airbags<br /><br />we have talking a lot about capsule safety because it is very important<br /><br />but the disadvantages of capsule are many (as I've explained in my previous posts)<br /><br />capsule is a regress!<br /><br />Shuttle was a progress over Apollo and ISS was a progress over Shuttle<br /><br />progress is: more internal space, more comfortable for long time, less complexity, less "G", less time to prepare and launch a vehicle, different kind of "astronauts", like (in part) with Shuttle and ISS ("tourists"), more reusabilty (where it is a rational choice), etc.<br /><br />we will have...<br /><br />a little "cone" for six (hard-guys-only) astronauts, more "G", more risks, no airlock for (safer) EVA, no wings for (safe) gliding and landing on runway, reduction of internal space in respect to Shuttle and ISS, 5% (very low) reusability, a "stick" for crew launch that appears "safe" like a Redstone, a "monster-rocket" to launch 125 tons a time (a giant quantity of money lost, if fails) that looks like the giant Howard Hughes' hydroplane (that never flies) instead of orbital assembly, a FAT-LEM for four that will remain on the moon only twice the time of Apollo and will brings back only a few more new (useless) rocks, and, after spent $4 billion per mission, last but not least, an amazing (and "safe") Apollo-style landing on sea, with aircraft carrier, helicopters, televisions, the basket for astronauts, etc. (Best Actor: Tom Hanks - Best Director: Steven Spielberg - Special Effects: Pixar...)...<br /><br />it is very good for Prime Time, NOT for progress, science and space exploration!<br /><b></b>

 

[kane007]

I don't actually think capsules represent a regression. The capsule design can infact be "sexed" up and with future tech may infact be the way to go. Look at early (1970s) Boeing SSTO HLLV - LEO or Mcdonald Douglas' PROJECT DEIMOS from the 60's.<br /><br />Science Fiction loves the use of drop ships eg FARSA's Mech universe and their various heavy drop ships - the Overlord<br /><br />But who could forget the venerable but not yet working properly Delta Clipper<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"keep it simple, stupid!"</font><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

the principle of Delta Clipper is interesting, but not to send a crew in orbit<br /><br />a similar vehicle may be useful on the moon (or mars) to explore a larger area than with a LEM-like<br /><br />the main problem is the cost/space to send on the moon fuel for multiple flights<br />

 

[barrykirk]

Why does a vehicle with wings have to be larger and have lower g's than a capsule?<br /><br />Is it possible to create a capsule with lower g's and more internal space?

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Is it possible to create a capsule with lower g's and more internal space?..."<br /><br /><br />may be, but there are no reasons to do it if we can make a winged vehicle<br /><br />the internal space of a capsule may be increased, but, to respect the "cone" geometry, the diameter will be too much <br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Capsules have more interior space for their mass than a space plane or a lifting body.<br /><br />The geometric shape that provides the largest interior space for it's surface area is a sphere, and this was the shape of the early Russian Vostok capsules. However a sphere shaped capsule needs thermal protection on the entire side that is exposed to reentry, meaning that half the sphere needs thermal protection. If you slice the sphere in half to create a dome and reenter with the flat side facing the direction of reentry you have a reduced area that needs thermal protection. This shape provides the most interior room for the area that needs thermal protection.<br /><br />The rounded top of a dome creates lift in much the same way an aircraft wing does and this lift gives limited control of the capsule in reentry and reduces the g-forces on the capsule.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

"the internal space of a capsule may be increased, but, to respect the "cone" geometry, the diameter will be too much"<br /><br />Chop the cargo bay off a Shuttle, and stand the crew compartment on end. Guess what you have, a rough capsule shape!<br /><br />The Shuttle doesn't have any more crew room than a capsule of similar diameter would have. It just has a lot of extra mass attached to the capsule.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Guess what you have, a rough capsule shape..."<br /><br />right (but winged...)<br /><br />reversing the vision, adding two wings to a capsule... we have a shuttle...<br /><br />a winged veichle is better for many practical reasons (as I've explained before)<br /><br />in the past, all choices was "geometric" to save space, money, etc.<br /><br />to-day, if we want a true progess, the vision must be INVERSE<br /><br />we can't send people in space with a "cone" only because it is "geometrically efficient"<br /><br />if a different shape is better to live in, we send it in space with a bigger rocket or two launches<br /><br />in a true progress, we can't travel in space with the vehicle "most geometrically efficient " like if we ship eggs or boxes<br /><br />LEM-2 will be made with better shape for moon but not for atmosphere, so it will be LAUNCHED in a cone, but will be NOT a cone!<br /><br />no one force us to send the crew at the top of a rocket in the most "geometrically efficient" capsule<br /><br />we must send crew in space (and come back to earth) with a, less geometrically efficient, but large, comfortable, safe, "natural", reusable shuttle (developing the technology that will be used also for future orbital and suborbital commercial planes), then, to go moon, we can launch a 2nd vehicle of the shape we think is better for the travel (like the LEM-LEM2 for moon)<br /><br />we can send astronauts in space like chickens to McDonald's (and save) but it is NOT progress, it is regress!<br /><br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">we can't send people in space with a "cone" only because it is "geometrically efficient" <br /><br /><font color="white">So whats wrong with having more space for the same mass?</font></font>

 

[j05h]

>in the past, all choices was "geometric" to save space, money, etc.<br /> />to-day, if we want a true progess, the vision must be INVERSE <br /> />we can't send people in space with a "cone" only because it is "geometrically efficient" <br /><br />If you want to make rocketry harder, just insist on putting several tons of lead ballast on every 3rd stage. <br /><br />Capsules are effcient, efficiency is the name of the game. As pointed out, they offer the most volume for size, they also tend to be stable without active control on reentry. There are serious advantages that you are brushing aside. Look up "tektite" - they are rocks that have reentered (usually as splash from impacts). The shape of tektites is very similar to Soyuz, Apollo shapes- it is a shape that nature favors for solid reentering objects. I can't believe you're still arguing these same points, you have a fetish for wings, it is not logical. I personally could care less what the shape of the spacecraft is, as long as there is something incredible at the other end of the trip. <br /><br />Worry about the destination instead of what the boat looks like. What improvements, using simple, elegant modern materials can be made to life support, etc? Can we create biospheres to house and feed people in comfort and style? We were discussing blown-glass habitats a while ago in the Tech/Business forum. Can we create compelling places for people to travel to and settle in? <br /><br />These are the questions we should be tackling, not capsule vs spaceplace. This is all old territory that keeps getting started again with a new poster - Gaetano you might want to check out the discussions on sci.space.policy about this, they've been going on for 15 years. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>