Redesigned Shuttle

[josh_simonson]

>See, the CEV is not really being viewed as a life boat only vehicle.<br /><br />The CEV is definitely being created as a lifeboat vehicle. Look at how it's used. The CEV/SM is carried all the way to the moon by the EDS, but in the event of a failure at any time the astronauts can jump in the CEV, cut their losses and go straight home. If you don't have a CEV and your EDS blows a gasket halfway to the moon, lets say in the van allen belts, the astronauts are cooked without a lifeboat - even if another craft was available to attempt to intercept and rescue them.<br /><br />The other use for the CEV is stationkeeping on the ISS - a LIFEBOAT!<br /><br />At some point the lifeboat will not need to return to earth, just as a cruise ships lifeboats are not used to board and unboard the ship. Since a lifeboat is ideally never used, you want it to be as light and foolproof as possible - and a capsule will always beat a winged craft with a lead pipe on both those measures.<br /><br />Rugged, lightweight lifeboat craft are a requirement for leaving LEO. There is no way around it and if it isn't done people will die. The Apollo 13 astronauts would have run out of power and air if they hadn't been able to do a direct re-entry - there was no time to aerobrake and dock with another spacecraft in LEO.

 

[josh_simonson]

Here's a lifeboat:

 

[josh_simonson]

And here's a non-lifeboat:<br /><br />Which looks more like a CEV and which looks more like a winged RLV?

 

[carp]

The new redesigned Shuttle project is from Europe. http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=387

 

[nacnud]

Thats very interesting, especialy if the crew compartment could be replaced with a payload.

 

[nibb31]

I wish the Italian space agency all the best, but I dont see how they could pull it off without backing from ESA. Judging how ESA can barely manage building a couple of ATVs, I seriously doubt that we are lucky enough to see this one day.<br /><br />It is a very modular design though.

 

[scottb50]

I would think, with a flexible Launcher, you could easily have both. Personally I think commercial passenger operations demand the comforts of a winged transport. For cargo, capsules would be more economical, as well as storable for longer periods with little attention. As long as the Launcher can accomodate either, and various other payloads, the mission should decide the vehicle not the vehicle decide the mission. <br /><br />Modules work a lot better with wings than capsules, so I like wings. Attach a Module, passenger or cargo, to an Upper Stage and attach both to a Launcher. The Upper Stage takes the payload to a LEO Station where the Module is unloaded or sent somewhere else in orbit, or beyond, using Tugs, Upper Stages re-fueled. The heavier the payload the more Tugs used.<br /><br />With wings you have more flexibility, added safety and less trauma for paying passengers on the return. I just don'y see passengers in capsules.<br /><br /><br /><br />A modified commercial jet and a re-entry Vehicle is a lot simpler. Use a fairing for launch, for aerodynamic reasons and the Vehicle to re-enter <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree, unless they can break the cost barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[starfhury]

Nice pictures. It also proves my point. The life boat is a small thing to build our future space program on. The life boat should be part of a subset of a greater system, not the heart and soul of it. How low we have set our sights if the lifeboat is the greatest achievement we are attempting. From what I understand, CEV, is the heart of the program. The command and control, the one piece of truely valuable hardware to make or break the whole moon/mars programs. And the best analog we have is that of a raft? It's very weak and goes to why I'm looking for more than the CEV has to offer. <br /><br />If NASA had said, we are going to go ahead with Project Prometheus technology and build a LEO LMO fleet (just 2 vehiches) I could understand and appreciate what they endeavor to do. They would be able to do it so much better. They could even go to the langrange points offering way more flexibility than offered now with the proposed architecture. NASA isn't doing anything dramatic enough and challenging to warranty bigger expenditures. They are not capturing enough of the imagination for the general public to care about it. <br /><br />I've been a NASA supporter for a very long time, but I can't get wholeheartedly behind this plan. The Moon and Mars isn't enough if there will be so little continuity. Two launches to the moon per year is so little and far apart as to be nearly meaningless. It's commericial appeal is too small and we need NASA to pave the way by doing basic research and creating outposts that will encourage others to follow. Right now, it's not enough and too expensive except for the wealthiest most dedicated sorts. <br /><br />The one great thing about ISS dispite all the lamblasting it has received is that it's within the realm of the reachable. You can get to ISS if you wanted. Go through the training and pay and the Russians will put you there. That's a part of the program that everyone can touch again thanks to the Russians. NASA needs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[carp]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> wish the Italian space agency all the best, but I dont see how they could pull it off without backing from ESA. Judging how ESA can barely manage building a couple of ATVs, I seriously doubt that we are lucky enough to see this one day <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Yes,indeed this is an proposal ,alternative to Klipper,for ESA (and maybe for USAF,too).But we have others,many others.Why not a joined space program NASA-ESA? http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=1543&sid=aae5da94152d2e97ee594b27dccc677c http://www.forumastronautico.it/viewtopic.php?t=1550

 

[josh_simonson]

>The life boat should be part of a subset of a greater system, not the heart and soul of it. How low we have set our sights if the lifeboat is the greatest achievement we are attempting. From what I understand, CEV, is the heart of the program.<br /><br />No. The CEV being worked on now, which enhances it's visibility, and wingnuts overemphasize the thing to build up strawman arguments against it. <br /><br />All human spaceflight involves leaving and re-entering the atmosphere, so CEV is integral to all post shuttle exploration. But it is no more the heart and soul of future human spaceflight than a lifeboat-tender is the heart and soul of a cruise ship.

 

[pathfinder_01]

“All human spaceflight involves leaving and re-entering the atmosphere, so CEV is integral to all post shuttle exploration. But it is no more the heart and soul of future human spaceflight than a lifeboat-tender is the heart and soul of a cruise ship.”<br /><br /> This would be true IF I could be sure that <br /><br />a. The funding for leaving LEO more than about 2 times at best a year was in place. I don’t for see a huge budget increase for NASA nor have I heard of projected costs of the moon missions as being greatly lower than Apollo. <br /><br /><br />b. The heavy lift vehicle needed to take the CEV to the moon was also in place. Unfortunately it needs to be developed and worse still it is not scheduled to come online till AFTER the CEV is ready.<br /><br />I would have a lot more faith in the CEV if it would allow repeated low cost trips to the moon or if the capacity to go to the moon with the CEV was already in place. As it stands now all we need is a cancellation of the SDHLV and we will be just as stranded in LEO as we are now with a Newer, cheaper, but less capable vehicle. I have seen too many manned programs canceled over the years due to funding and any savings NASA achieves is not likely to stay within NASA.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The point everyone agrees with is once you are in Space you don't need wings. Duh!</font>/i><br /><br />Well......<br /><br />"Wings" can be used to adjust orbit or support aerobraking. For example, satellites around Mars will use their solar panels as wing-like devices to circularize their orbits.<br /><br />The comparison is certainly a stretch, but they are using a surface to redirect the atmosphere (even if it is very thin) in order to redirect their craft.</i>

 

[scottb50]

OK?<br /><br />In Space wings are like t*** on a boar hog. Any effects from the tenuous atmosphere would be glacier in execution. Turn the wheel for a 30 degree turn and wait six months for the drag to have an affect.<br /><br />A stretch is to say the least.<br /><br />If you have to get a vehicle back into the atmosphere wings are a pretty good thing. That's why I am saying a winged vehicle from the surface to LEO and back, from LEO outward would use different vehicles. The vehicles would be similar though. The Passenger Module carried to LEO would be removed and attached to another Vehicle, another would be attached and returned to the launch site for re-use.<br /><br />Launching a Lander with a Module would decrease capabilities, but getting it to LEO would be primary. Most launches would be Modules only.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>a. The funding for leaving LEO more than about 2 times at best a year was in place. I don’t for see a huge budget increase for NASA nor have I heard of projected costs of the moon missions as being greatly lower than Apollo. <br /><br />Scarce funding is why they're going with a dead-nuts simple (cheap) craft. Most funding is to come after the shuttle retires, the reason for this is that the shuttle workforce and funding can be shifted over. Otherwise there would be considerable duplication in the shuttle workforce and HLV workforce, resulting in extra workers once shuttle is dumped. As a government agency NASA has extreme difficulty in reducing it's workforce, so it's best to wait until the shuttle folk are assimilated (or retired) before begining major work on the HLV. That sucks, but even GED wielding dimwits at DMV are guranteed a job for life or we'd be doing most of that stuff on a webpage. Government is government, it's complex and stupid. <br /><br /> />b. The heavy lift vehicle needed to take the CEV to the moon was also in place. Unfortunately it needs to be developed and worse still it is not scheduled to come online till AFTER the CEV is ready. <br /><br />If the HLV were developed first there would be a 6 year gap in human spaceflight, during which we'd have an HLV but no missions for it to fly. Don't forget the cargo for the HLV has to be developed as well for the HLV to be useful, otherwise it'll be a hangar queen. The CEV has plenty to do before the HLV comes online. <br /><br /> />As it stands now all we need is a cancellation of the SDHLV and we will be just as stranded in LEO as we are now with a Newer, cheaper, but less capable vehicle.<br /><br />The CEV is far MORE capable than the shuttle, unless you consider spending 1 billion to launch what could be launched on an EELV to be considered 'capability'. If the program is put on hold, we'll still have a spacecraft capable of returning astronauts from the moon and mars efficiently. Resuming

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The CEV is far MORE capable than the shuttle</font>/i><br /><br />I would say the CEV is "differently capable" than the Shuttle.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">a. The funding for leaving LEO more than about 2 times at best a year was in place. I don’t for see a huge budget increase for NASA nor have I heard of projected costs of the moon missions as being greatly lower than Apollo.</font>/i><br /><br />I think Griffin fully expects additional money to materialize from some sources. Possible reasons/sources include:<ol><li>NASA executes well on the CEV, CLV, and CaLV (on time and budget) giving Congress a reason and confidence to increase funding;<li>Valuable resources are located by early probes;<li>Other countries pay NASA to deliver goods, crew, or maybe even habitats to the Moon (this is one reason Griffin has given for finishing ISS -- he hopes the goodwill will encourage them to spend money for the Moon);<li>Other government agencies (NSF, DOE, etc.) see valuable science that can be done on the Moon, so they pay NASA to deliver the science payloads to the Moon<li>Commercial companies identify useful business models;<li>Other countries (e.g., Russia or China) are making progress towards a sustained Lunar presence, so "freedom fries" Congress ponies up more money.</li></li></li></li></li></li></ol><br />Time will tell...</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

The CEV by itself is a piece of crap compared to the shuttle. Only the CEV mated with a separately developed Earth departure stage and lander is capable of the Apollo re-creation missions.

 

[josh_simonson]

>>wingnuts overemphasize the thing to build up strawman arguments against it. <br /><br /> />The CEV by itself is a piece of crap compared to the shuttle. Only the CEV mated with a separately developed Earth departure stage and lander is capable of the Apollo re-creation missions. <br /><br />Case in point...

 

[vt_hokie]

Piece of crap is my opinion. Much less capable and versatile than the space shuttle is fact. <br /><br />I suspect that NASA will get the LEO version of CEV, and then have the future lunar hardware either pushed back or cancelled.

 

[mattblack]

The Shuttle is more versatile than Gemini, Soyuz or Apollo CSM.<br /><br />YES............<br /><br /><br /><br />IN LOW EARTH ORBIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <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>

 

[tomnackid]

Piece of crap is my opinion. Much less capable and versatile than the space shuttle is fact. <br /><br />I suspect that NASA will get the LEO version of CEV, and then have the future lunar hardware either pushed back or cancelled.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The shuttle has condemned mankind to 30 years of LEO and tinker toy space stations. It was a bad decision to build a do-it-all spaceplane and put all of our eggs in it. I have no doubt that we will one day have spaceplanes again, but they will be specialized for specific tasks and will be built when they make economic sense. You can't seem to get it through your head that NASA is not in the business of building spacecraft for your amusement. They are in the business of basic aerospace research and space exploration. They have done the research on spaceplanes--the aerodynamics, thermal protection, avionics--the whole shebang. The shuttle was supposed to be an experimental spacecraft that private companies would buy after it had proven itself, but no private company wanted it. It was far too costly because it tried to do everything--national defense jobs, satellite launching, human taxi, construction platform. Given the economic and political realities of the time (inflation almost doubled the cost of the shuttle program which was actually rather modest compared to Apollo and Vietnam when you account for it) it was the only viable option and NASA should get a lot of credit for keeping manned space flight alive in a dark time.<br /><br />Spaceplanes will not make space flight cheaper--nothing will. Putting something into orbit is probably about as cheap as it ever will be. The idea that if you can somehow build a cheap enough launcher people will suddenly find all kinds of reasons to go into space is bogus. It goes against everything known from history and economics. The way to make space travel more COMMON is to give an economic incentive to GO

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Spaceplanes will not make space flight cheaper--nothing will. Putting something into orbit is probably about as cheap as it ever will be.</i><br /><br />I think this is absolutely false. In fact, I think it's a rather ridiculous statement. If NASA built a space shuttle today, even the incremental improvements would lower the cost of reaching orbit. And someday, the VentureStar type designs will become reality. If the United States no longer has what it takes to advance technology, some other country will do it. But it will happen. If NASA had a STS v2.0 that had the same high overhead costs as the current system, but flew two dozen times per year, that would still be a huge decrease in the cost per flight over what we have now. <br /><br />You say NASA is in the business of aerospace research. Why, then, are you okay with NASA gutting its research programs so that it can fund the development and operation of an outdated Apollo-style lunar taxi system?

 

[josh_simonson]

>You say NASA is in the business of aerospace research. Why, then, are you okay with NASA gutting its research programs so that it can fund the development and operation of an outdated Apollo-style lunar taxi system? <br /><br />They are going to do the groundbreaking lunar and deep space manned exploration research that wasn't done during apollo. <br /><br />I do doubt the assertion that launch costs can't fall by much more though. The cost floor is probably in the $100/lb range in the US. Less in countries with cheap labor/energy like russia. It will take a while for demand to spur the creation of systems that approach those prices, but the forecast demand curves are far steeper now w/ space tourism growing than they were when x-33 was canned.

 

[mattblack]

>>Spaceplanes will not make space flight cheaper--nothing will. Putting something into orbit is probably about as cheap as it ever will be. <br /><br />I think this is absolutely false.<<<br /><br />I'm in rare agreement with hokie on this: It wont happen overnight, but it WILL happen. <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>