Reusable Capsule?

[tomnackid]

Am I just cynical or has anyone else noticed that Bush ordered a CEV, but will be long gone from office before it will actually fly? If he was so gung ho about the whole "back to the moon" idea why didn't he propose it during his first term?

 

[spacester]

>> I agree people should not get hang up on the configuration of CEV, unless everyone is a frustrated designer at heart . Ultimately IMO, at this point NASA is going with the 'sure thing' approach. <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 />Agreement here as well. RadarRedux, you are on a roll, loving all your posts these days.<br /><br />NASA must provide its government with assured access to space for its astronaut corps, it is a security imperative that must be met and those have to be Dr. Griffin's primary marching orders. IMHO of course.<br /><br />I have tried really really hard to avoid discussing politics here, especially in re to the oval office, so I'll just say to tomnackid that I have wanted to ask that exact same question and others for a long time. Instead, I'll extend a caution to all in hopes of avoiding a major sidetrack of an excellent discussion and let it go at that.<br /><br />Soccerguy said: The reason people are so hung up on the CEV is because it is the one part of the system that will be used elsewhere.<br /><br />A very good point, but I anticipate that our pal Mike will assure that the design can be expanded. The first CEV will look like a toy next to the third one. The main thing is to make sure the systems are robust and cost effective and expandable, and that stuff comes later in the process. So I stopped worrying about that.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[soccerguy789]

If your hinting at Lockheed lifting body vs. Beoing capsule. you talk about swapping parts, but with lockheed, the CEV lifting body stores the basics. there is a service module that is docked to the back for extended missions. so mix and match is not only for expendable vehicles.

 

[gofer]

I really thought the original Klipper design was great. The conservative L/D lifting body, and the clever reuse of the existing Souyz modules.<br /><br />My dream -- a reusable capsule (a 'press iron' lifting body is really a high lift to drag ratio capsule) I thought the Klipper would be like that. But now the full wings (with nothing inside but control surfaces), and the wheel wells ... wasting mass and volume. I'm not sure. I hope at least the first version is a conservative lifting body, and they'll consider wings in the next iteration.<br /><br />On topic, there is nothing in the basic capsule concept to prevent reusability. Nothing much else to say, really. Reload SRMs, Parachutes, airbags, etc... 'slap on' the TPS shield (prepared in advance=== cheap)<br />

 

[ronatu]

I thinking that best solutionis is a compromise.<br />Ballistic or semi ballistic descend with protective single use shield (everything behind a plasma) and then after transformation (unfold the wing) precise landing as airplan/planer.<br />Such sheme will avoid all problems with expensive and not reliable TPS and damage of structure during hard landing with chute.

 

[ronatu]

Not necesserary.<br />Folden wing have to move from one "hold" position to another. Which could be done by spring, gravity, explosives etc.<br />Biggest chunk of disacceleration will be done with protective shield, so titanium alloy could be used for entire frame of ship.<br />Such scheme discussed already in Energia and has being patented.

 

[ronatu]

Similar design:

 

[soccerguy789]

I like it, I like it a lot, what is it and wher can i get more info, looks kind of like the X-33 (way smaller though)

 

[spacefire]

yeah I think that's it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[ronatu]

And now what do you think? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[soccerguy789]

would make a very nice OSP if scaled up

 

[ronatu]

Yep, just first flyght was in - 1967... Long time ago...

 

[soccerguy789]

well, I think that a failure rate equal to that of fighter aircraft during peace time would be very acceptable.

 

[ronatu]

FYI:<br /><br />Simon, the miniature relay automatic computer. Punched paper tape is read by the tape feed at the right lower corner. Answers appear in the lights on the front panel.<br />Year? 1950.<br /><br />The EC-1, introduced in 1959, was a small inexpensive desktop computer. It wasn't digital. It was analog.<br /><br />But the PDP-8 was introduced in 1965.

 

[ronatu]

Additional Information: 4 X-23A's "PRIME" (Precision Recovery Including Maneuverable Recovery) were built and 3 were flown on re-entry test flights. The first 2 were lost before they could be recovered, the 3rd was successfully recovered and the 4th was never flown (as was apparently scrapped). The 3rd craft is on permanent display at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio. <br /><br />First Flight: December 31, 1966<br />Mission: Test ablative coatings, re-entry control surfaces and lift body characteristics<br />Major Accomplishments: First craft to demonstrate re-entry maneuverability. Research from the X-23 lead to the development of the X-24 series and, eventually the Space Shuttle.<br />Power Source: None, launched by Atlas ICBM<br />Wing Span: 4'<br />Length: 5' 9"<br />Maximum Achieved Speed: 16,500+ MPH <br />Maximum Achieve Altitude: Approx. 90 miles<br /><br />

 

[john_316]

Yes and the X-38 desends from these lifting bodies.<br /><br />The questions is do we need a Lifting Body(LB) for LEO or ISS? And will it need a mini-cargo capacity? Or can a LB be also built for automated flight and rendevous without a crew just for cargo delivery to ISS or a LEO position.<br /><br />I could see the MPLP's flown in a LB that is uncrewed as well or even with a crew of 2 to 4 on a mini-shuttle.<br /><br />Either way you look at it whats the design going to incorporate???<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[darkenfast]

I'd like to toss in a few observations regarding capsule versus lifting body proposals. If the CEV is going to be a core for several different missions, then that will have a big effect on the design. So will safety, as we simply cannot afford more crew losses like on the shuttles. The public and the politicians will not stand for it (and I'm sure the astronauts have views on that as well). <br />In which type does the consideration given to the re-entry and landing impact the least on the craft's other functions, for example, as a command module on a very long deep-space mission? <br />What shape best combines a strong hull (for when all hell breaks loose), with the ability to fly varied re-entry scenarios (from LEO or deep space), possibly with little or no crew control (because all hell broke loose)? Which one pulls G's in the same direction (relative to couch position) on both launch and re-entry, so that when an abort happens during boost and the poor sods are looking at a very hard ballistic trajectory, they are at least in the best position to ride it out, without having to try to move the couches? Which one could best survive being blown away from a launch vehicle while under severe aerodynamic loads, such as destroyed Challenger?<br />Which one can use an ablative heat shield, as opposed to a tile system (although perhaps new technology may come along to make the question moot)? <br />One of the things that pulled me away from wings and lifting bodies (although most capsules have some lift) is the rather hairy stories that have come out of the Soviet/Russian program. The most extreme case, aside from several aborts and ballistic re-entries, was when the equipment module did not seperate from the landing capsule after retro-fire. The two re-entered together; the back end finally disintegrated, and the landing capsule made it down. I wonder if any of the lifting body designs I've seen could survive that, especially on a return from deep space. Th

 

[soccerguy789]

I WAS fairly neutral in regards to capsule vs. lifting body. Now that NASA has selected a capsule, I have to say, I don't mind. Capsules can be incorperated into many vehicles. this is why I am hoping that one of the "Enhanced" parts of the new capsule CEV when stood up next to Apollo is reusability. I still like the idea of putting everything possible inside a reomovable, disposable shell. Everything nice about capsules, with a cheap way to make it reuseable.

 

[brucegagnon]

They don't want practical and useful. No recycling. Just big expensive 1000 billion dollar flags on the moon and lasers and guns and missiles and nukes pointing down here at us.<br /><br /><br />THEY RAIDED MY HOUSE ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!

 

[brucegagnon]

No Weapons in Space!<br /><br />No Nuclear Rocket!<br /><br />End the War in Iraq!<br /><br />Fund Human Needs!<br /><br />KEEP SPACE FOR PEACE WEEK<br />October 1-8, 2005<br />Worldwide Actions<br /><br />"Come Together Right Now"<br />Organising Stories from a Fading Empire<br />new book by Bruce Gagnon<br /><br />BUSH SEEKS MILITARY CONTROL OF SPACE<br />By Bruce Gagnon<br />More Details<br /><br />JAPAN JOINS DANGEROUS RACE<br />IN SPACE<br />Award winning article by Bruce Gagnon<br /><br />Wayne Smith and NASA are EVIL extensions of BUSH BUSH BUSH !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[brucegagnon]

No Weapons in Space! <br /><br />No Nuclear Rocket! <br /><br />End the War in Iraq! <br /><br />Fund Human Needs! <br /><br />KEEP SPACE FOR PEACE WEEK <br />October 1-8, 2005 <br />Worldwide Actions <br /><br />"Come Together Right Now" <br />Organising Stories from a Fading Empire <br />new book by Bruce Gagnon <br /><br />BUSH SEEKS MILITARY CONTROL OF SPACE <br />By Bruce Gagnon <br />More Details <br /><br />JAPAN JOINS DANGEROUS RACE <br />IN SPACE <br />Award winning article by Bruce Gagnon <br /><br />Wayne Smith and NASA are EVIL extensions of BUSH BUSH BUSH !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[holmec]

After seeing NASA's animation on the moon plan and reading a little. This CEV capsule is 3 times bigger than Apollo and carries 4-6 astonauts. I've been told its suppost to have its own toilet. Its also reusable.<br /><br />It kinda feels backward, but then again I remember the days when I would look at the Shuttle's weaknesses and wonder if we were'nt better off with a capule system.<br /><br />Anyway I am slowly starting to get on board with it. We have more materials and techniques and systems to add to a capsule than we did back with Apollo. ie air bags for soft landing on ground, derigiable parachutes(not that it will appear on a capsule, though I think it should), a toilet (lol), a shower would be nice too.<br /><br />A capsule is also more modular than the Shuttle orbiter. That is its probably easier to upgrade engines and test new types of engines, hook up with a space station, how about a interplanetary ship?????<br /><br />But I wonder if the NASA will still go with the proposed CXV program now that they know what the CEV will look like. <br /> <br />Also I don't think it will be as roomy as the Shuttle orbiter crew compartments were, but maybe that will come later.<br /><br />Anyway this whole system seems good and upgradable in all areas. Which is nice. We are not limited by the Shuttles cargo bay, just by how much we can launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

bump

 

[soccerguy789]

Totaly agree with you. I would certainly hope that NASA still invests in the CXV. I mean, it serves a completely different role than the CEV. I am gald to hear that they are going for a reusable capsule, but I would like to know where you got all this info.<br /><br />"Quit complaining and start a Revolution"

 

[kane007]

NASA's CEV is to be designed to handle a re entry from the moon. T-Space's CXV is designed solely for LEO re entry. <br /><br />NASA is building for the moon, with LEO abilities as a consequence, with room for private enterprise to take over LEO duties in the future.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>