Space ships and vehicles

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

Is it just me? Am I the only one that thinks vehicles should have their own funtion and not two functions? For instance, a car travels on a road/ground, a plane flies in the air, a sub travels under water, a sea ship travels on the water's surface. Why, Why, why do politicians think they can make a vehicle that launches from earth and then travels to the moon and Mars as well???? This is the same problem with the Shuttle. Making it too big to do too many things and making the oprational costs huge which leads to safety compromises. Rutan made a space ship and support company in $20M. Compare that to the Friendship launches. Rutan found a safer way than to plunge the person through 3000 degrees F plus. Now according to the article "A Spiral Stairway to the Moon and Beyond" they are at it again. Trying to make a vehicle jump through loops and wash the dishes as well. It seems to me we need two low cost vehicles. One for fairying personnel from earth to a orbiting space station, then transfer to another vehicle that ferryies them to the moon or Mars. An infrastructure is needed. Not just one clunky and costly vehicle. This way the system is modular and flexible. Let's stop putting all our eggs in one basket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

tap_sa · Feb 16, 2005

You bash politicians for not understanding vehicle functions, yet hail Rutan's SS1 jump as similar to Mercury flights? Right.

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

Yes, but is it an infrastructure to use by NASA and others or is this just another throw away technology? It would be nice if we started constructing and infrastructure that would grow, that is add on as time goes by. I would like to see a dock and "busses" to the rest of the solar system. Why stop at Mars? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

I "bash" politians, because its easy. I have a deep respect for engineers of all the ships of the past. Though politians are limited to creating budgets, I don't blame them. Its just we probably need a better system. Perhaps the commercial sector would help if they owned and operated stations and ships in space. Then NASA and other space agencies could contract them out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

not Mercury, but like the flight that invloved Friendship 7. Was this early stage of Mercury? I didn't think so. I understood this to be the response to Russian sending up the first man in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

"Though the CEV’s main purpose would be to leave Earth orbit, the vehicle is also assigned the duty to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station after the space shuttle is phased out. The CEV or versions of the CEV could operate for extended-duration in Earth orbit, as well as in close proximity to or on the surface of the Moon and Mars." from the article. This seems to be one vehicle and not an infrastruture of vehicles and stations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

"There is a lot of confusion due to NASA not getting their act together." I have to agree with you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 16, 2005

Wasn't the rocket different from just getting to space than getting to orbit? or was the same machines used? I am just trying to compare apples to apples. Space Ship One didn't reach orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

tap_sa · Feb 16, 2005

"I have a deep respect for engineers of all the ships of the past." Good, we all should have. Even Rutan is still far behind what Mercuries did 40+ years ago. I agree what you say about commercial sector, they should start to move in full force. There is real business to do up there, other than launching comsats. It just takes a bit more vision than one or two quarters ahead, such vision is unfortunately hard to come by. Let's hope and see if the Falcon manages to shake things up a bit.

scottb50 · Feb 16, 2005

<<The NASA plan DOES NOT require the vehicle do all things. It is to go to LEO, combine with boost stages and Lunar lander then go to the Moon. The same for Mars. The entry vehicle is planned to always be part of the modular spacecraft since the crew always needs to come home without having to find and dock with a entry vehicle.>> I agree with you, except for the last sentence. You are limiting the vehicle to an Apollo type design because of your requirements. This adds considerable mass and reduces the payload capability. I see no reason travel can not be between LEO and the Moon, or Mars, and back to LEO. If you are requiring a direct re-entry, like Apollo, you have to make a lot of compromises in structure to allow for a high speed re-entry, as well as be fairly precise with your vehicle orientation. It would be a lot simpler to brake into an orbit and transfer payloads to dedicated landing vehicles. That would translate to higher payloads without requiring a re-entry vehicle coming along for the ride. Plus higher stress on passengers if every re-entry is a maximum effort, cannon ball dive, into the atmosphere. I see no reason we can't have multiple launchers to take payloads to LEO and a different system, or multiple competing systems, to move beyond LEO. Costs would be much lower and the vehicles much more productive without duplicating efforts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nacnud · Feb 17, 2005

I think that it is likely that any system will have the capablity for a portion of it to re-enter directly from the moon, this might not be the normal course of operation but should be available in emergencies.

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>I see no reason travel can not be between LEO and the Moon, or Mars, and back to LEO.One word: safety.As shuttle_guy said, a mission architecture which requires a rendezvous and docking in LEO for safe return isn't going to fly. There are too many things that can go wrong with this manouver - which would result in a Marooned-type situation.Note that he never said that re-entry had to be made directly from the Earth-return orbit, just that the vehicle in which the crew leaves lunar orbit is the same vechicle they land in. There could be an intermediate 'stop' in LEO.

drwayne · Feb 17, 2005

I wonder if we will ever see new studies on all those personal emergency re-entry solutions that people were working on in the 1960's? Scary, but cool. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>Scary, but cool.I really, *REALLY* want to try them!

holmec · Feb 17, 2005

I really appreciate this discussion. Thanks. "As shuttle_guy said, a mission architecture which requires a rendezvous and docking in LEO for safe return isn't going to fly. There are too many things that can go wrong with this manouver - which would result in a Marooned-type situation." Well, Apollo required two docks. One on the way to the moon, and one before leaving the moon orbit. Yes, I see a risk in docking. But is it an acceptable risk? In an infrastructure you may have a station to dock to, hence time and support for the proceedure. You could make it Kinda like an aiport of sorts and put in place safeguards. Throughout the space race Nasa and the Russians have docked a lot of times. Its not new. Its a known procedure. I'm sure it has gotten better over the years, and it should improve even more in the future. Regardless, if we are to operate in space, we must have docking, unless someone has a transporter in their back pocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>Well, Apollo required two docks. One on the way to the moon, and one before leaving the moon orbit.True. But if the first docking wasn't sucessful they would just loop around the Moon and come back. If the second wasn't sucessful....well at least somebody would make it back.

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>Regardless, if we are to operate in space, we must have docking, unless someone has a transporter in their back pocket.Yeah, a transporter would come in handy! But back in the 21st Century...You'll note that I talked of an architecture which requires a docking being a non-starter. The way I see it in an optimal mission the crew returning from the Moon or Mars would dock with an orbital station. At the station the 'tug' portion of the spacecraft would be removed and stored and the crew would return to the surface in the 'crew cab'. The 'tug' would stay on orbit to be available for another mission.However, in an emergency situation, or if they can't dock for some reason, the 'tug' would be jettisoned (either to burn up or on an trajectory that doesn't intersect the Earth) and the crew would ride down in the 'cab'.

tap_sa · Feb 17, 2005

"I wonder if we will ever see new studies on all those personal emergency re-entry solutions that people were working on in the 1960's?" The Rocket Company story on Hobby Space mentioned these. Their fictional design had a personal re-entry package stuffed into ejection seat. Basicly a round thermal protection blanket with spring woven into the edge to keep it 'open'. You sit in the middle and aerodynamic pressure folds the blanket around you so that it becomes a like a shuttlecock with you in the tip. IF najaB and S_G survive I want to try it too <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

holmec · Feb 17, 2005

"The NASA plan DOES NOT require the vehicle do all things. It is to go to LEO, combine with boost stages and Lunar lander then go to the Moon." Ok, not all things, just two. To go from earth, ground level, then travel to the moon. Here is my concern. There are different requirements on a module for launch and reentry to Earth, as opposed to just travel to the Moon. Example: The skin of the Appollo capule was thicker than that of the LEM. Why? Because of the Earth atmosphere environment, and the Moon's environment. NASA made the Appollo capsule, and the LEM was outsourced. Also in Appollo 13 if it wasn't for docking with the LEM, the Astronauts would have perished. Apollo was a good system. It could have had improvements, but overall it was good, and it gave mission planners and operators a small infrastructure to work with creatively and made the machines do stuff the desingers could fathom. This is an example of modularity needed, only on a bigger scale. We lost that modularity with the Shuttle. With the shuttle we had two emergency situations which resulted in the loss of vehicle and crew, both times. As far as I know there were also two emergency situations with Apollo, but only one crew and vehicle was lost. That is the difference. How expedeble are the Astronauts. The Shuttle was an extremely ambitious idea. It worked. But, arguably, an emergency situation that was not taken seriously by manager (as far as I read in news and articles) were responsible for the loss of one crew. It could have been avoided with a little creative thinking. My idea on that is that Columbia could have rendevoued with ISS for a visual external inspection, but what do I know? Anyway, having a ferrying vehicle for all projects is the way to go. A work horse. That should cut costs over serveral projects. I would be suprised if NASA keeps delaying and end up contracting with Virgin Galactic to ferry Astonauts in the future. That would be a kick <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>NASA made the Appollo capsule, and the LEM was outsourced.The Apollo Command Module was made by North American Aviation.

holmec · Feb 17, 2005

"The Apollo Command Module was made by North American Aviation. " Can't get anything past you guys. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Feb 17, 2005

>True. But if the first docking wasn't sucessful they would just loop around the Moon and come back. If the second wasn't sucessful....well at least somebody would make it back. Bingo. You are making my case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

nacnud · Feb 17, 2005

I don't know if future systems will be able to get away with being as lightly built as the Apollo vehicles were. For example a reusable Luna Lander that was stored in space between visits would probably have to have similar meteorite protection as the ISS, plus a heavier blast shield if the same engine is going to be used for decent and assent.

najab · Feb 17, 2005

>My idea on that is that Columbia could have rendevoued with ISS for a visual external inspection, but what do I know?Unfortunately the "Laws of Physics" wouldn't have allowed it. There was no possible way for Columbia to have changed it's orbit to rendezvous with the ISS.

holmec · Feb 17, 2005

"You'll note that I talked of an architecture which requires a docking being a non-starter. The way I see it in an optimal mission the crew returning from the Moon or Mars would dock with an orbital station. At the station the 'tug' portion of the spacecraft would be removed and stored and the crew would return to the surface in the 'crew cab'. The 'tug' would stay on orbit to be available for another mission. However, in an emergency situation, or if they can't dock for some reason, the 'tug' would be jettisoned (either to burn up or on an trajectory that doesn't intersect the Earth) and the crew would ride down in the 'cab'. " That's a great idea. I would like to see these systems permanent. I wish Mercury was still going on. We would be so far ahead of today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

Space ships and vehicles

holmec

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

scottb50

Guest

nacnud

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

holmec

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

holmec

Guest

najab

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

nacnud

Guest

najab

Guest

holmec

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page