Replacement shuttle: Astronauts not included

[flynn]

<i>Newscientist</i><br /><br />A consortium of small aerospace firms says NASA could get its Crew Exploration Vehicle into space faster by flying the people separately. <br /><br />They propose carrying the astronauts on a separate Crew Transfer Vehicle, based on an experimental small launch vehicle currently being developed for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).<br /><br />NASA envisions the Crew Exploration Vehicle as a replacement for the shuttle that will also eventually take astronauts to the Moon. But the CEV is not due to be delivered until four years after the shuttles retire in 2010. That gap dismays the new NASA boss, Michael Griffin, who has requested a report on ways of accelerating the schedule, due in mid-July 2005.<br /><br />Launching astronauts separately from the CEV offers an important engineering shortcut, says David Gump, president of the Transformational Space Corporation in Reston, Virginia, US. It avoids having to “human rate” - make safe for astronauts - the large launch vehicle that would be required to boost the massive CEV into orbit, he told New Scientist.<br /><br />Instead, astronauts would reach orbit in a smaller craft, launched from a plane and based on a scaled-up version of the liquid-fuelled "QuickReach" booster that AirLaunch LLC is developing for DARPA. <br /><br />Orbital tests<br />The QuickReach aims to meet the defence agency’s requirement for a booster that can quickly and cheaply deliver a 450-kilogram payload into a low Earth orbit. It may be selected for further development later in 2005, in which case orbital tests would be scheduled. <br /><br />Because the AirLaunch vehicle and the plane in which it would ride would be smaller and carry much less fuel than the massive boosters needed to launch the CEV, Gump told New Scientist it could be human rated more quickly and less expensively.<br /><br />But even if AirLaunch succeeds in meeting DARPA's goals, it faces a big job in scaling up its booster to the size need <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[holmec]

I hope they go for a Crew Transfer Vehicle.<br /><br />The Crew Transfer Vehicle concept is good and sound and will propell new designs of sending up and reentrying back to earth. Maybe the commercial sector will get in on the game to transfer people to orbit. I would love to see some of these tasks get passed on to commercial companies and let NASA move on to greater things, like starting colonies on moon and Mars.<br /><br />On another thought maybe in the future they should consider a construction dock in orbit and assemble the ships there instead of launching the whole thing at once.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

To say that the size of the mother aircraft is a problem for Scaled Composites seems to be a cheap shot.<br /><br />White Knight only holds max 4 people. But its no small aircraft. In fact a 747 is not all that suitable for an air lauch since it has a huge body in the way. Scaled Composites is the only organisation that came up with a unique and new design for a mother ship. Size is a challenge, Ill give you that, but not abouve doing, and the abilities of Scaled Composites I belive are more than capable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[flynn]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To say that the size of the mother aircraft is a problem for Scaled Composites seems to be a cheap shot. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, I was puzzeled by that. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Well how big is the Scaled factory? Would they have to build or move to new facilities in order to construct a 747/A380/An225 sized aircraft? It could be a lot cheaper to modify an existing aircraft than build a new one.

 

[grooble]

Maybe they will just strip a 747 of its systems and components but build a new frame and shaped aircraft

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Duel purpose! "</font><br /><br />Cool! The two are going to be dueling? Wonder what they'll be armed with? I envision sort of a Junkyard Wars in space. Maybe the CXV will have a railgun, and a laser on the CEV.<br /><br />Oh... waitaminute. You probably meant 'Dual Purpose'. <br /><br />Dang... that's a heckuva lot less exciting. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />P.S. -- Not picking on your spelling. Just amused by the images it provoked and wanted to share.

 

[spacefire]

is that a liftinmg body design?<br /><br /><br />yes?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Of course not. The people at t/space are not fools.

 

[spacefire]

wait, this is about T/Space? there's another thread for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

The Lockheed-Martin Lifting body design looks like crap and probably flys like it too... More junk from the big boys<br /><br />And the soyutz rip off CEV....... That also is a joke...<br /><br /><br />I guess there will never be a replacement until 2020...<br /><br /><br />Lets get real all these designs are unlikely to fly and some of them are more speculation than potentially real flight capable....<br /><br /><br />Where the hell is the damn basic apollo like capsule that works???????<br /><br />Dont tell me it cant be done... <br /><br />A bunch of freaking morons at the big complexes dont deserve to win any contracts if you ask me... <br /><br />They dont need to look like airplanes... A real joke... and they sure as hell dont need to look russian...<br /><br />If we want russian then lets just buy thier stuff....<br /><br /><br />I tell you all these corporations make today is crap no wonder airbus is beating out boeing these days..<br /><br />more junk to be replaced like junk.....<br /><br />cant take a simple freaking idea and make it fly.. its got to have airbags, disc brakes, 20 back up computers, a freaking iceee machine along with a french fryer and a washing machine...<br /><br />Give me a freaking break here guys.... the big boys are a joke and we all know they are... <br /><br /><br />your telling me you cant build on an apollo era capsule with todays technology and processes?????? no uprated type of craft???? no retro loook like a 2005 mustang is to the 60-70 era mustang......<br /><br />and if we are going to use a lifting body we might as well build the X-38 at least it looks kool for a lifting body and can be a CTV and emergency vehicle for the ISS.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Yes, something equivalent to Apollo can be built with today's technology. (You have to tool up for it and acquire all the materials and manpower, of course, but it's quite feasible.)<br /><br />The question is whether they can get something better for this application. Apollo was a fine system, but there are things on it that are not needed, and other things that would be very helpful. For one thing, the fuel cells have got to go. They're fantastic for power generation; efficient, and they produce potable water as a byproduct. But they run out of fuel. For long-term space applications, you're going to want to go solar, or nuclear if you can swing the political concerns. And you'll want more space than an Apollo CM can provide. Soyuz has that nice orbital module, for instance.<br /><br />And I don't see why we should be averse to something similar to Soyuz. That's a fine system too, and better for LEO operations than Apollo. (The Apollo SM is rather overdesigned for the situation, quite frankly. It's meant for lunar orbit insertion and the transearth injection, which are not neccesary for this application.) Another nice feature of Soyuz is the shape of the descent module. An early Mercury proposal was actually shaped the same way. The "headlamp" shape causes it to fall in the most benign pose even if all of the thrusters fail and it cannot control its own attitude. It is capable of surviving a ballistic reentry (and did quite recently, actually), although it'll only survive the subsequent landing if it can deploy its parachutes and fire its landing rockets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[krrr]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is capable of surviving a ballistic reentry (and did quite recently, actually), although it'll only survive the subsequent landing if it can deploy its parachutes and fire its landing rockets.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The landing rockets are not strictly required. Put a Kleenex between your teeth and you're fine.<br /><br />Soyuz 5.