and lightweight craft. For these purposes, I will borrow the title CEV. The CEV is a lifting body based on the X-33 configuration. As with the X-33, its main engines are the RS-2200 Linear Aerospikes (must be capable of restart) which are more lightweight and efficient giving them two vital advantages over traditional rocket engines. The CEV will use the Space Shuttle’s RCS thrusters. The OMS engines will be replaced, however, with an engine to be used for both a deorbit burn and a TEI burn – all to be fueled by internal fuel tanks. The Logistics/Cargo Bay will have dimensions of approximately 25x15 and include a docking module, solar wings and the ability to carry the Space Shuttle’s Robotic Arm.
This vehicle will allow the United States to maintain its leading role in space with a smaller gap. It will build on the best of the Space Shuttle and avoid a return to the past of capsules and splashdowns. It will reduce the throwaway of both Ares and, as currently proposed, SDLV. It will be a lasting tribute to the technological achievement of the Space Shuttle – allowing the Orbiters to retire with the honor they deserve. Finally, the CEV will resume exploration of the Moon and beyond.
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has. Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.
The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
Quote from: Idol Revolver on 12/26/2009 07:31 pmThe way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has. Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.Yes, I understand the deadweight argument. My concern is which is more costly carrying deadweight or throwing away so much of the rocket and spacecraft? Please note I am not suggesting the ET be carried to the Moon but rather just through TLI and then discarded like the S-IVB.The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
Would this smaller shuttle have the adequate shielding the present shuttle lacks to protect the crew from you know what? Would this change your smaller design? Just curious.
Jim, Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not feasible beyond LEO?
Quote from: Mr. Justice on 12/26/2009 08:42 pmJim, Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not feasible beyond LEO?The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.
I am not dead set against Orion. Orion is reusable
RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.
Quote from: Jim on 12/26/2009 09:04 pm RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 12/26/2009 10:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/26/2009 09:04 pm RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?I don't understand why do you seek a justification for RLV. RLVs are not the goal. They are (one of possible) means to the real goal.Thus flight rate should NEVER be adapted to the "need" to have RLV.Instead, flight rate should be adapted to the real goal, and then, based on that rate, LVs / capsules / spaceplanes / whatever should be designed to achieve it economically.Only an organization with unlimited supply of taxpayer $$$ it did not earn can afford to put the horse before the cart.