-
CEV Proposal Roundup by simonbp on 30 Jan, 2006 01:13
-
Encyclopedia Astronautica has a roundup of the first round of CEV proposals...
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm
Simon
-
#1 by BogoMIPS on 30 Jan, 2006 01:58
-
Interesting to see all of the proposals side-by side, as well as the similarities and differences between many of them.
I'm not sure what my take is on the overall tone of the article... Certainly not an unbiased article from my opinion.
It is a bit odd that NASA would solicit a bunch of designs, just to use it's own in the end. Heck, if they wanna give me a couple mil, I'm sure I can give 'em another one to reject...
-
#2 by Dogsbd on 30 Jan, 2006 16:38
-
I used to enjoy Wades site until he started letting his politics cloud his technical reporting.
His caption for this story (will this misbegotten decision mean the end of American human spaceflight?) is revealing enough without even following the link to his blog; it is totally against anything related to VSE, CEV, ESAS or seemingly even NASA itself. Relating ones dream about some fictional shuttle disaster as if it has some relevance to reality is borderline wacky.
-
#3 by vt_hokie on 30 Jan, 2006 21:00
-
That Lockheed lifting body design is still my favorite of the bunch. But while NASA shot that down, we still might get something similar in the Russian Kliper.
-
#4 by simonbp on 30 Jan, 2006 21:30
-
Is solicting many diverse ideas and then going back to where you started any worse than the early-Apollo era dogmatic adherence to first direct-landing and then EOR (as opposed to the apparently crazy LOR concept)?
Simon
-
#5 by nacnud on 30 Jan, 2006 21:40
-
I agree, Wade should drop the Blog as well there is just no need for such vitriol. Though I do miss t/space.
-
#6 by kraisee on 30 Jan, 2006 23:15
-
Quote
Dogsbd - 30/1/2006 12:38 PM
I used to enjoy Wades site until he started letting his politics cloud his technical reporting.
Yeah. Most of Mark's articles are pretty good reads, but that one reads like a seriously anti-NASA op-ed piece from one of "those" uninformed, but highly opinionated, tabloid newspapers. WAY off his best work.
And while I'm at it, and I apologise to Keith who I know reads stuff here, but why are so many of NASAWatch's articles, in particular anything to do with the VSE or Mike Griffin, always sounding so gloomy and opressively negative?
What is going on with all these guys? These are supposedly the 'pro-space' guys.
These guys are the ones who should be promoting the fact that NASA has a direction outside of LEO at last. It may not be their personal choice of direction, but if even our own media guys point-blank refuse to attempt to attract POSITIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT for the new plans, then don't expect the general public to support it either.
If the public aren't attracted to get behind this, I guarantee the money will get pulled and I ask Keith, Mark and anyone else wanting to bash on NASA to ask themselves if it will help or hinder the larger plan.
If we don't all get behind the VSE, and I mean vocally, then what chance do we have at all of getting ANYTHING at all?
Won't we'll all be left out in the cold with NOTHING if the public turns against this?
So please guys, c'mon! Give these negative op-ed pieces a rest and try writing something POSITIVE for a change, k?
*ALL* permanently negative comments can hope to accomplish is to kill this plan, and with it all our hopes of going beyond LEO again more surely than anything else.
Ross. -
#7 by MATTBLAK on 31 Jan, 2006 04:51
-
As much as I strongly admire him, I've thought of e-mailing him on his SULKING about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down.
-
#8 by Tahii on 31 Jan, 2006 06:59
-
Crikey! He doesn't like NASA that much does he? It seems he likes the shuttle even less!
-
#9 by Rocket Nut on 31 Jan, 2006 10:24
-
Quote
MATTBLAK - 31/1/2006 12:51 AM
As much as I strongly admire him, I've thought of e-mailing him on his SULKING about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down.
I have to admit that I sulked at first, but I got over it. As a former airplane driver, I like wings and the ability to maneuver. But the current design seems to be so much simpler that I have grown to accept it, if not actually like it. Wings and flight controls, and all the complexity involved, seems like such a waste to be carried to mars and back for just a few minutes of use.
I really hate to rely on parachutes after being packed for so long. Again, that's from my pilot days. The first thing we checked was the packing date on the parachutes. I always wanted one that had been packed just yesterday.
Cheers,
Larry -
#10 by Jonesy STS on 31 Jan, 2006 10:28
-
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
-
#11 by Rocket Nut on 31 Jan, 2006 10:33
-
Quote
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
Good point.
I had not thought of it from a public support aspect. And that is a very important aspect, to be sure. I had only looked at the design from an engineering standpoint. Now you've got me worried.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#12 by Hotol on 31 Jan, 2006 10:40
-
Quote
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 5:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I totally agree before we go back to the Moon. 2010 to 2018 is going to be bad for public interest. -
#13 by Dobbins on 31 Jan, 2006 11:49
-
Quote
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I never thought the Shuttle orbiters looked remotely like a spaceship. They look more like an ungainly cargo airplane to me.
The only people I have seen who are worried about what the thing looks like a a small group of die hard spaceplane fans. The American people didn't suddenly stop supporting the space program when Gemini looked like Mercury, or when the new Apollo design looked different from the two earlier designs. The Russian and Chinese people don't yawn because their space craft don't have wings.
What the thing does is more important to gaining public support than what it looks like. The Shuttle missions that attracted the most attention were the first flight, the mission when Sally Ride became the first American woman in space, the ill fated Challenger mission with the Teacher in space even before the accident, the first Hubble service mission that made the HST usable, and the RTF missions. The public has little interest in most shuttle missions, they find an ISS construction mission about as interesting as a semi-truck hauling a load of ree-bar to Podunk. That has been true throughout the program. I doubt that most people were even aware that Columbia was in orbit until it broke up on reentry.
The first CEV mission will attract a lot of attention regardless of what it does. After that ferrying crews to the ISS will get the same level of attention regardless of what it looks like. A CEV that looks like Darth's Vader's spaceplane isn't going to get any more attention than one that looks like Darth Vader's butt.
-
#14 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 12:01
-
Quote
Dobbins - 31/1/2006 7:49 AM
A CEV that looks like Darth's Vader's spaceplane isn't going to get any more attention than one that looks like Darth Vader's butt.
A good canidate for this forums "Quotes" section!
-
#15 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 12:06
-
Quote
kraisee - 30/1/2006 7:15 PM
And while I'm at it, and I apologise to Keith who I know reads stuff here, but why are so many of NASAWatch's articles, in particular anything to do with the VSE or Mike Griffin, always sounding so gloomy and opressively negative?
Agreed.
I was pretty shocked...... well, no I wasn't, I am used to it now.... when I saw Keiths comments on the Griffin interview with Michael Cabbage. A very good and lengthy interview, and all that Keith can comment on is the O'Keefe campaigning question? To paraphrase an old song he seems to want to "accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive".
-
#16 by gladiator1332 on 31 Jan, 2006 12:50
-
Does anyone find this strange....the Lockheed "Final" proposal is a Soyuz/Shenzhou clone:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zcevlocm.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zcevcomm.jpg
I'm assuming they are going to eventually change that to NASA's Apollo type design. Looks like the kinda got it wrong twice...NG/Boeing went right to the Apollo design, whereas Lockheed tried the lifting body and then the Soyuz clone. -
#17 by simonbp on 31 Jan, 2006 13:39
-
Well, most people think the shuttle looks like an airplane, is significantly smaller than it really is, and flies to the moon...
The 2017/18 (whatever it is now) landing date is again only a really big issue to those really interested in spaceflight (like those that frequent this forum). Most people would be content if you tell them that NASA is building new spacecraft to go to the Moon, and hasn't yet gone over budget (unless they are a uber-lefty who doesn't belive in anything but social programs, or an uber-righty that doesn't belive in the government; either way, there's little hope
...
Simon
-
#18 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 13:51
-
Quote
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 8:50 AM
Does anyone find this strange....the Lockheed "Final" proposal is a Soyuz/Shenzhou clone:
The idea of coping the Soyuz layout comes up quite often, Wade criticizes NASA for not doing so in his op-ed on the CEV, and I am always reminded of Max Fagets remarks on such a design. It’s hard to argue with the logic of someone with Mr. Fagets’ credentials.
Max Faget, in interview December 15, 1969:
“We had for a long while a command module and a mission module, the mission module being where everybody was supposed to do their business. This started off to be a very attractive idea but as we went through our own studies and the contractors went through their studies it became clear that less and less things were going on in that mission module, and everything that was vital for one reason or another also was vital during entry so you either did it twice, once in the mission module and again in the command module, or you did it once in the command module. So it seems that the mission module was turning out to provide nothing but extra room. There were no systems and no particular activity that anyone really wanted to carry out in the mission module other than to stretch out and perhaps get a little sleep. The consequence of this was that it didn't look like it was worthwhile to have a mission module. So in the final analysis we ended up with a single cabin version. You might have noticed that the Russians ended up going into something very close to our two-compartment vehicle that we were considering. I don't know where they got their ideas, but it might have been from us. We made no secret of these considerations.”
-
#19 by gladiator1332 on 31 Jan, 2006 17:35
-
I remember reading that as well. That is what turned me away from a Soyuz type design as well. It just seems very unlikely that Lockheed would go against what NASA wants a second time. I'm not sure of teh accuracy of calling the Soyuz clone their "final draft" it really seems that they are going to go with the Apollo design that NASA wants. Maybe they'll keep the mission module, however, I don't see how theyre going to pull off a different shaped CM. Maybe we'll see something similar to the old Boeing concept or Andrews.
...