Reusable Capsule?

[soccerguy789]

Beoing has selected an apollo like capsule as it's CEV. This looks good to me because its simple and quick (effectiveness and expense when stood up against a larger lifting body is arguable) I have figured that we could save a lot of money by putting all possible systems into the capsule and not the service module (which , by the pictures, it looks like Beoing is going to try and do) and by making the capsule reuseable. I would like to hear what you guys have to say about reusable capsules. I figured that the easiest way would be to have the heat shield and outer shell be disposable, but then thay can be upened up, and the actuall cabin and vital systems can be pulled out in one big piece, and put in another shell. What do you think? <br /><br />"Quit Complaining and start a revolution"

 

[j05h]

A capsule with integrated "service" and "hab" functions is similiar to the Russian Zarya capsule of the early '90s. It used, IIRC, a modified Soyuz Hab on top, but had a wide base that incorporated OMS/RCS and power functions. It's on astronautix if you're interested. Never flew.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Not having a separate, disposable service module will also give capsules more flexibility in landing. A jettisoned SM will follow the capsule down and what remains after reentry will crash into the earth. This can limit capsule landings to fairly remote oceans or deserts.<br /><br />I think t/space's CXV is a capsule with no disposable SM.

 

[spacefire]

A capsule is more like a 'crashsule', if it lands on solid ground. It would need retro-rockets to make it touch down softly.<br />If it splashes down, you have to worry about corrosion which again will curtail its life.<br />So, in essence, trying to put reusability in a capsule design is rather impractical as certainly it would increase its weight and thus decrease the useful load. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

I understand now there are 3 different CEV configurations, Boeing, Lockheed, and NASA.<br /><br />So which one would get pick? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

There is no reason why a "capsule" can't be reused. There is nothing wrong with using retrorockets or dead beat airbags for touchdown. Several The Russian TKS descent blocks were flown several times. So does a marine landing preclude reuse. An unmanned Gemini was also reflown during the MOL program.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

The heat shield from the command module was very over-specified for even a lunar return mission, I have seen discussions that it could have been reused a number of times...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[soccerguy789]

Shuttle_guy, you say that the capsule beoing proposed in the architecture reports is out the window because of changes made by Griffin, I don't see how. Also, someone said something about NASA having it's own CEV proposal, if they could give a link to that info, it would be awsome.

 

[tomnackid]

The big problem with capsules and ballistic reentry in general is the imprecision of their landings. During Mercury, Gemini and Apollo if the capsule splashed down within a mile of the recovery ship they considerd it a good landing. Even Phil Bono's ROMBUS and Pegusus ballistic VTOL designs still needed at least half a kilometer of open space to land even with a rockets providing a soft landing. The shuttle orbiter on the other hand for all its faults has never even come close to missing the runway. And that's in a dead stick glide. <br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

The orbiter doesn't miss the runway because <b>it isn't an option</b>. Missing the runway means loss of vehicle and probably loss of crew too. A capsule OTOH has pretty good chances if it just doesn't miss <i>Earth</i>.

 

[john_316]

<p>To follow up what Shuttle_Guy said. <br /><br />Boeing intoduced if I believe correct 2 initial studies into the realm of CEV. One was simular in design to the orginal Apollo design but when Mr Griffin took office it somehow changed to the Soyuz design which most people felt won't fly because of its familiarity with Soyuz.<br /><br />Lockheed I believe also initiated 2 concepts as well. One was a semiballistic capsule and the later one a small lifting body based simiular to Bors/HS-20 designs.<br /><br />When Mr Griffin became head of NASA his idea for CEV took center stage as he desided that things were going to change and see a change in the process of designs and acquiring the CEV from a prime contractor. The previous administrator Mr Okeefe had a spiral development and a run-off designed by former AF general Mr Aldridge. This style of procurement has met a different direction with Mr Griffin.<br /><br />I think its has gone to the personal discretion of Mr Griffin on which design will in fact become the final CEV. There is still a possibilty that a lifting body may fly as the CEV and one as a Capsule. We don't know yet...<br /><br />Most believe the capsule design will be an enlarged Apollo or Gemini design. Since with todays tech we can make a more robust capsule and system to go with it. But the fact is for a capsule a SM (Service Module) will still be required as it will contain an on orbit motor plus AC rockets, and life support systems required for the capsule to stay in-orbit for an extended time frame.<br /><br />A lifting body design can also be configured to fly the NASA MPLM's which there are 3. They will become useless when the Shuttle retires and can currently only be carried via shuttle. If a new min-shuttle is build that can carry these pallets then they will see resuse.<br /><br />But in the end we still have to wait for the preliminary 60 day report which yes has taken longer than 60 days which might make it the 150 day report.<br /><br /></p>

 

[tomnackid]

"The orbiter doesn't miss the runway because it isn't an option. Missing the runway means loss of vehicle and probably loss of crew too. A capsule OTOH has pretty good chances if it just doesn't miss Earth."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Tell that to the crew of Soyuz 1!<br /><br />But seriously, capsules are great for getting relatively small payloads to and from orbit cheaply with low development costs, but they are too inconvenient in terms of recovery for routine space travel. Ultimately we will need reentry vehicles that can make pinpoint landings. It will be hard to beat the cost, reliability, and flexibility of wings in this regard

 

[JonClarke]

If you are going to bring up Soyuz 1 I will bring up Mike Adams, John McKay and the crew of Columbia.<br /><br />Landing within a few square km is (within the boundary of an airport) quite adaquate for all conceivable purposes, even if it happened 20 times a year. <br /><br />You are clutching at straws.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

I recall the original Gemini/MOL design had the capsule coasting to earth [not ocean] on a parafoil, with extendable skids for landing gear. While that design doesn't allow good control for landing location, it was intended to allow a soft landing on the ground. If your parafoil is big enough, is well-designed to avoid fouling, and weather is calm, the concept should work

 

[soccerguy789]

True, but I'm thinking NASA is going to pick a capsule for the CEV because it is proven. there are no winged vehicles even on the counter either. Lockheed's lifting wing body isn't going to land on a runway, and to the best of my knowledge, does not have a stearable parafoil, so I'm just looking for the best option.

 

[spacefire]

Lifting bodies can land on runways. You just need a long runway <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<i>"...Lifting bodies can land on runways. You just need a long runway ..."</i><br /><br />So can a capsule, but you'll only need a very short runway !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

and then you need to fill the hole. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

If you are going to bring up Soyuz 1 I will bring up Mike Adams, John McKay and the crew of Columbia.<br /><br />Landing within a few square km is (within the boundary of an airport) quite adaquate for all conceivable purposes, even if it happened 20 times a year.<br /><br />You are clutching at straws.<br /><br />Jon<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I'm thinking about when there are 20 flights A DAY to and from LEO. <br /><br />Why do people get so hopped up over capsule vs. lifting body vs. wings???? We don't have only one kind of airplane or one kind of ship or one kind of automobile? Why can't people accept that different vehicles will fullfill different needs?

 

[nacnud]

Because people differ as to what they think the space program needs, and what is nice if we could get it but not essential.

 

[JonClarke]

Twenty a DAY at one site? Time for a space elevator with that sort of traffic!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

".... I'm thinking about when there are 20 flights A DAY to and from LEO. ..."<br /><br />I think if you have that level of flight rate, private money will come in and better designs (lifting body or capsule) will be available.<br /><br />I agree people should not get hang up on the configuration of CEV, unless everyone is a fustrated designer at heart <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Ultimately IMO, at this point NASA is going with the 'sure thing' approach. The country is tired of jazzy technology programs that ended up nowhere (SSTO, SLI, NGLT, etc.) and just want something that works so we can get on with space exploration. What's important is that we get off LEO and start doing something more than just another photo opportunity on the Moon and/or Mars.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

What I really want to see is JP Aerospace's "Airship to Orbit" work out. That or Space Elevators. However both seem more suited to bulk cargo than passenger service. With both you are looking at about a week to Orbit. With the space elevator the only option you have without some kind of extra propulsive stage is geosycrhonous orbit or Earth escape velocity. Step off any lower than geosychronous and its a long, long fall to Earth. Plus you have to travel to a remote equatorial region to catch the elevator. But if these technologies can be developed and we can build enough infrastructure in Eath orbit, i.e. orbital refueling, paying traffic going both up and down, solar power satellites and beamed power, we can have things like HTOL spacecraft that fly into space as easily as a 747 flies into JFK.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I agree people should not get hang up on the configuration of CEV, unless everyone is a fustrated designer at heart . Ultimately IMO, at this point NASA is going with the 'sure thing' approach.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. I think NASA needs to focus on HLVs, Lunar landers, and Lunar habitats (or substitute "Mars" for "Lunar" if you want). The method to get crew to LEO and back should be as quick to design and develop as possible, even if it has moderate operational inefficiencies.<br /><br />I think in the long run, for the total costs to develop the technical means and deploy habitats/colonies on the moon, the delta cost between two means of accessing LEO will be a rounding error.</i>

 

[soccerguy789]

The reason people are so uhung up on the CEV is because it is the one part of the system that will be used elsewhere. I think that the big thing among everyone who follows the CEV it : reusability would be nice, and so would the more advanced design, but would it be cost effective to use that as opposed to a simpler disposable design